just a lazy redirection of a blog post but easily worth the click through. If some other guy has already said it then why reinvent the wheel. http://attackthesystem.com/2012/03/02/no-one-notices-no-one-cares/ angry, exasperated, just how we all feel.
if you need cheering up check out the always hilarious and excellently written fred http://www.fredoneverything.net/Abdulah.shtml
Friday, 2 March 2012
Friday, 24 February 2012
the spark that just might end the state...
history creeps up on ya. No-one foresaw the collapse of the soviet union. CIA docs evidence as much. quite often historical change appears to erupt from nowhere because the contributory factors are almost infinitesimally and imperceptibly gradual. Imagine a worn tap dripping into the bath of an abandoned house. the drain is blocked and, even though the tap drips perhaps only once a day, eventually all those drips add up. Over time the bath fills, it overflows and the water permeates the floor. The timbers become sodden and begin to rot. The weight of an overflowing bathtub is too much and the floor collapses taking with it the corner of the house. The neighbours are shocked - what on earth caused the apparently sudden collapse of the house!?
Life is what happens when you're making other plans and that is no more true than when applied to anarchist dilletante whitterings over 'strategy'. Should we back Ron Paul, is politics the answer, what about agorism, seasteading, freeman legal challenges, survivalist escapes, expatriation, secession?
When the state ends (some states, a state, any state), and it will end - just a matter of when not if - I surmise it will be the result of a number of factors but the time and manner of its collapse will be unexpected. And the following is one such possibility. Just a tiny fragment of news to which I imagine most people, even within the bizarre, intertwining, otherwise unrelated worlds of interest that I follow, will ascribe no great import. Mobile Money Africa - How Bitcoin will Revolutionise the way Africans Transact.
We all know fiat currency is one of the foundations of the state. Any alternative is a lightning strike of hope for the prospects of individual freedom. Every school of thought you follow (and I say this because I guess my small readership come from a variety of freedom loving backgrounds - Freemen, Libertarians, Anarchists, Conspiracists and any mixture of these and more)will have theoretical, critical explanations of fiat currency and the evil it enables. if this foundation is weakened then the inherently unstable edifice of the state will come crashing down.
As Africa develops apace, new demand is outstripping old supply. I refer to infrastructure. Millions of people are beginning to climb from the poverty that hundreds of years of the shitty end of statism has foisted upon them. As markets emerge and commerce develops, the infrastructure of banks, currency and their attendant systems is non existent. In the ageing western world our now woefully corrupted supply systems developed symbiotically alongside demand. Africa, China, India and South America are bootstrapping and fast. In Africa they do not have to invent the telegraph, then the telephone, then the mobile phone and then mobile internet. As soon as individuals could afford such technologies they could be purchased from ready developed markets such as the far east, just across the Indian Ocean. So now you have millions of people, their commerce untethered from the shackles of outmoded communications but restricted by factors beyond their control. Namely security and banking. the state reserves such essentials for itself lest anyone think their parasitical institution dispensable. How can a travelling salesman, lorry driver or fisherman transact, exchange, transmit and store the capital necessary for commerce in a state barely capable of anything other than the crudest forms of extortion (thats taxation if youre new here). These economic actors are coercively prevented from fulfilling the market demand for banking and security that they and others clamour for. Instead they are left to operate their peaceful win/win exchanges without the mechanisms we take for granted. Imagine how much business your company could do without BACS payments? Without being able to 'wire' money to your suppliers or receive such from your clients everything rather grinds to a halt. Economies regress to geographically limited primitivism. Africans cannot trade in cash as the physical environment is hardly conducive to the secure transportation of large sums.
As a result Africans have rapidly and wholeheartedly taken to "Mobile Money'. In the absence of the ancient wired communication networks the west has in the past benefited from and now, is restrained by, Africa uses mobile communications. Those cheap tv ads you see offering to buy your old mobile phone handset? thats where theyre all going. If you were to instigate a nation-wide communications network right now today starting from a blank canvas, by far the most economic choice would be wireless. No-one in their right mind would spend millions digging holes and burying mile upon mile of semi-precious metal. The state still does but then what do you expect? No, Africa is connected by mobile phones and it is this technology that also came to be utilised to overcome their other problem - banking. Some of the early mobile networks had functions whereby users could exchange and even transmit their Pay As You Go credits - the key word being CREDIT. 'Money' has taken many forms throughout history from nuts, to shells, to coffee beans, to fancy rocks, metals, coins, promissory notes, and now phone credits. the original idea behind enabling users to transmit their credits was that family members could spread and share phone usage but this quickly became used to transmit meaningful sums for the purposes of trade and payment. It became possible to charge credit to your phone and both store and transmit that capital to others from the handset. In some highly developed urban areas people no longer had to carry cash. Phones had become the African debit card. I read an excellent article on this phenomena (sadly i can no longer find the link in my notes). As ever do not take my word for it. do your own research - it is a fascinating development and one which you will find few MSM outlets covering.
But finally i must come to the point. These transactions and credits are currently denominated in terms of nation state fiat currencies. Funds can be and are tracked for the purposes of extortion (taxation) and regulation (racketeering). The article to which i linked above has excited my interest as it hints toward a historical development of seriously large scale implications. If the African mobile money networks move toward a decentralised, non-state, 'uncontrollable,' incorruptible currency system like Bitcoin, we may see gigantic ramifications. As it stands Bitcoin has huge potential to bring about the kind of change we desire. Right now it is of interest for a small number of technology and economics geeks. We do not have the critical mass to push it over the edge into the widespread uptake the currency is capable of. The above article may suggest that this impetus is coming and coming soon but from a source unexpected by the forums of geeks and trolls who mutter about such things.
Before i get too carried away i must say that Bitcoin is widely misunderstood even by those who support it. Again please do your own research and draw your own conclusions (as if I need deign to even suggest such a thing). Bitcoin is not natively 100% anonymous but it can be made so very easily indeed. Now imagine however many hundred million Africans in fast moving economies beginning to transact in untaxable, uninflatable currency! The agorist dream come true. As the old heartlands of statism - Europe & America - decline in entirely predictable super inflationary corruption, the new rising markets in Africa, India, China and South America may, just possibly, break free of state control.
Life is what happens when you're making other plans and that is no more true than when applied to anarchist dilletante whitterings over 'strategy'. Should we back Ron Paul, is politics the answer, what about agorism, seasteading, freeman legal challenges, survivalist escapes, expatriation, secession?
When the state ends (some states, a state, any state), and it will end - just a matter of when not if - I surmise it will be the result of a number of factors but the time and manner of its collapse will be unexpected. And the following is one such possibility. Just a tiny fragment of news to which I imagine most people, even within the bizarre, intertwining, otherwise unrelated worlds of interest that I follow, will ascribe no great import. Mobile Money Africa - How Bitcoin will Revolutionise the way Africans Transact.
We all know fiat currency is one of the foundations of the state. Any alternative is a lightning strike of hope for the prospects of individual freedom. Every school of thought you follow (and I say this because I guess my small readership come from a variety of freedom loving backgrounds - Freemen, Libertarians, Anarchists, Conspiracists and any mixture of these and more)will have theoretical, critical explanations of fiat currency and the evil it enables. if this foundation is weakened then the inherently unstable edifice of the state will come crashing down.
As Africa develops apace, new demand is outstripping old supply. I refer to infrastructure. Millions of people are beginning to climb from the poverty that hundreds of years of the shitty end of statism has foisted upon them. As markets emerge and commerce develops, the infrastructure of banks, currency and their attendant systems is non existent. In the ageing western world our now woefully corrupted supply systems developed symbiotically alongside demand. Africa, China, India and South America are bootstrapping and fast. In Africa they do not have to invent the telegraph, then the telephone, then the mobile phone and then mobile internet. As soon as individuals could afford such technologies they could be purchased from ready developed markets such as the far east, just across the Indian Ocean. So now you have millions of people, their commerce untethered from the shackles of outmoded communications but restricted by factors beyond their control. Namely security and banking. the state reserves such essentials for itself lest anyone think their parasitical institution dispensable. How can a travelling salesman, lorry driver or fisherman transact, exchange, transmit and store the capital necessary for commerce in a state barely capable of anything other than the crudest forms of extortion (thats taxation if youre new here). These economic actors are coercively prevented from fulfilling the market demand for banking and security that they and others clamour for. Instead they are left to operate their peaceful win/win exchanges without the mechanisms we take for granted. Imagine how much business your company could do without BACS payments? Without being able to 'wire' money to your suppliers or receive such from your clients everything rather grinds to a halt. Economies regress to geographically limited primitivism. Africans cannot trade in cash as the physical environment is hardly conducive to the secure transportation of large sums.
As a result Africans have rapidly and wholeheartedly taken to "Mobile Money'. In the absence of the ancient wired communication networks the west has in the past benefited from and now, is restrained by, Africa uses mobile communications. Those cheap tv ads you see offering to buy your old mobile phone handset? thats where theyre all going. If you were to instigate a nation-wide communications network right now today starting from a blank canvas, by far the most economic choice would be wireless. No-one in their right mind would spend millions digging holes and burying mile upon mile of semi-precious metal. The state still does but then what do you expect? No, Africa is connected by mobile phones and it is this technology that also came to be utilised to overcome their other problem - banking. Some of the early mobile networks had functions whereby users could exchange and even transmit their Pay As You Go credits - the key word being CREDIT. 'Money' has taken many forms throughout history from nuts, to shells, to coffee beans, to fancy rocks, metals, coins, promissory notes, and now phone credits. the original idea behind enabling users to transmit their credits was that family members could spread and share phone usage but this quickly became used to transmit meaningful sums for the purposes of trade and payment. It became possible to charge credit to your phone and both store and transmit that capital to others from the handset. In some highly developed urban areas people no longer had to carry cash. Phones had become the African debit card. I read an excellent article on this phenomena (sadly i can no longer find the link in my notes). As ever do not take my word for it. do your own research - it is a fascinating development and one which you will find few MSM outlets covering.
But finally i must come to the point. These transactions and credits are currently denominated in terms of nation state fiat currencies. Funds can be and are tracked for the purposes of extortion (taxation) and regulation (racketeering). The article to which i linked above has excited my interest as it hints toward a historical development of seriously large scale implications. If the African mobile money networks move toward a decentralised, non-state, 'uncontrollable,' incorruptible currency system like Bitcoin, we may see gigantic ramifications. As it stands Bitcoin has huge potential to bring about the kind of change we desire. Right now it is of interest for a small number of technology and economics geeks. We do not have the critical mass to push it over the edge into the widespread uptake the currency is capable of. The above article may suggest that this impetus is coming and coming soon but from a source unexpected by the forums of geeks and trolls who mutter about such things.
Before i get too carried away i must say that Bitcoin is widely misunderstood even by those who support it. Again please do your own research and draw your own conclusions (as if I need deign to even suggest such a thing). Bitcoin is not natively 100% anonymous but it can be made so very easily indeed. Now imagine however many hundred million Africans in fast moving economies beginning to transact in untaxable, uninflatable currency! The agorist dream come true. As the old heartlands of statism - Europe & America - decline in entirely predictable super inflationary corruption, the new rising markets in Africa, India, China and South America may, just possibly, break free of state control.
Thursday, 9 February 2012
what is it good for? absolutely nothing. say it again!
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron…Is there no other way the world may live?
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953
shamelessly ripped off from the excellent http://attackthesystem.com
Saturday, 17 September 2011
Note to Trooper Thompson
Well done for yet again tirelessly defending Rothbardian Libertarianism. After a year or two taking on the trolls at Old Holborn and elsewhere I have given up as a result of learning a bit about the irrationality of most people and the futility of the tribal instinct to build consensus. Plus I’m not very successful.
Your recent spat with Longrider was fairly exemplary of this sort of thing. He was clearly spoiling for a fight and his pugilistic point scoring was a long way from reasoned debate. Some people are incapable of following a rational argument and I no longer waste my time on them.
Your most recent adversary (andcabbagesandkings) was comparatively refreshing in that he was actually aware of libertarian theory and wasnt coming from an emotionally charged irrational opposition as most critics of libertarianism do.
Such 'why im not a libertarian' or 'why I left libertarianism' articles all tend to follow similar feelings (I say feelings quite intentionally as it is their lack of guiding first principles that ultimately undermines their position). Those non-libertarians that believe they have considered and then rejected libertarianism or former libertarians that have 'moved on' all tend to hold the same misconceptions. Such apparently subtle yet fundamental misunderstandings as 'wider' conceptions of coercion, or positive versus negative rights, cloud what is a clear and consistent ideology which is probably why such individuals feel it is not for them. If one doesnt completely understand the perversion of incentives, the cast iron law of special interests/regulatory capture or that there is no safe, controllable level of coercion then one will tend to stray back toward the more intellectually simple and superficially attractive statist 'solutions' based on coercion.
Another significant factor in such intellectual rejections is that of subconcious ego massage or even intentional status posturing. I point to Peter Hitchens the former aetheist. Making financial and intellectual capital from books on aetheism and then following a high profile volte face into Christianity. What keeps a writer more 'interesting' to the unprincipled consumer of 'intelligentsia,' consistent adherence to the same 'tired, boring' principle, or chopping and changing between new and exciting opposites? This is why I think a lot of libertarian bloggers (particularly in the US, where the background understanding is greater and thus the general standard higher, so such 'next level' considerations are possible) make a great deal about being 'left libertarians'. “Oh I used to describe myself as an anarcho-capitalist but now I reject all that 'old-fashioned' stuff in favour of new, trendy, compassionate lefty values.”
we can see such self-contradiction even within this single blog post from cabbagesandkings. Near the start he outlines how he still understands that markets are the best mechanism for the distribution of scarce resources. But then in the latter parts where he outlines his 'issues' with libertarianism he talks of his preference for state directed/planned provision of healthcare resources. This is inconsistent. One cannot pick and choose when and where to apply a principle. Otherwise it is no longer a principle merely a subjective guide of personal aesthetics.
The 'healthcare debate' is a thorn in the side of statist free market advocates. Only the Rothbardian free market anarchists can provide solid an consistent arguments and solutions that explain and solve the problems that are endlessly churned by the statist-quo. The 'debate' as it is usually framed consists of two tribes endlessly banging on about the NHS vs the 'American model'. (there are few who consider the other statist solutions of state payer – private provider models such as malaysia etc etc). The irrational, tribal statists cannot see past their traditional frames of reference. Only us free market anarchists can point to regulatory capture and special interests from the medical and financial worlds as the root cause of the problem.
What causes people to challenge free market solutions is that they cannot see the root cause of the problem. This can be seen in healthcare, housing and education. All the biggies. All 3 are artificially expensive due to state restriction of the market mechanism. There is huge demand so entrepreneurs should be incentivised into increasing supply. Thousands of people should be setting up medical practices in order to grab a bit of the action. But the special interests want their position protected, they dont want this extra competition. The state is only too happy to oblige in exchange for a cash/power grab and steps in to fuck with the market mechanisms.
Cabbagesandkings cannot or will not see this and so starts from the a priori assumption that healthcare is some magical exception to economic principles and because it is so expensive, irrational utopian idealised left wing statist solutions are the answer.
Same with education (as UK public education is considered 'free' and, due to compulsory payment through taxation and the resultant double payment problem, non state alternatives are pushed to the luxury market, noone considers the cost of state education vs private) unionised, uncompetitive suppliers have no incentives and so costs spiral. Those who cannot see into this intentionally obfuscated root cause often leap to externalise the horrendous costs through coercive state solutions.
And the real biggy common to most anti-libertarian stuff like this and that underlies both the arguments of cabbagesandkings and Longrider, is land/work. What I mean is that they both, in slightly different ways, found fault with strict non intervention in the relationship between employer and employee. They found last ditch footholds for statism in their perception that there is some unjust imbalance in such a relationship. That the state must exist and step in to stand up for the little guy (again ignoring the empirical argument that the big guy controls the state). Coercive restriction on the use of land is the criminally overlooked key to such objections. Why most libertarians do not seem to mention free use of land as much as they mention free use of drugs I have no idea. I have seen various estimates that a mere 6-13% of uk landmass is legally permissible for building on. This absolutely colossal market restriction has a corollary in the equally gigantic effect it has on costs of living. When supply is restricted and demand remains the same then prices, quite rightly, go up. In order to afford a place to sleep people have to earn more. (this is a double win for the state that taxes these extra earnings and the businesses) This radically shifts the natural balance in the voluntary agreements between employer and employee. If we ran the numbers of a theoretical anarchist island in which 100% of land was free for the owners to use as they wished, we could calculate the natural cost of housing. OldHolborn once quoted some figures relating to average price of an acre of agricultural land vs an acre of urban land with planning permission (something like 6k vs 90k). with such vastly reduced living costs the economic 'coercion' to work (to allow our opponents' fallacious misconception) would be lower. Employers would naturally have to do more to attract workers. There would be little need for legitimised blackmailing unionism or coercive interventions in the jobs market.
Even the majority of 'libertarians' fail to see the empirical history of coercive political rule. Perhaps it is no accidental failure but an unthinking avoidance? They refuse to accept the findings of public choice / institutional economics that political authority always grows toward totalitarianism. Bryan Caplan, and Patri Friedman have some great presentations regarding this failure of libertarians.
There is no constitution, no candidate that ever has or ever can control coercion. Tolkien knew this. In the LOTR scene in which Frodo attempts to offload the responsibility of bearing the ring of power to Gandalf, the old wizard explains that he would be tempted to use its power for good but essentially that temptation would corrupt him (Tolkien outlined his anarchist tendencies in a letter to his son Christopher, even going so far as to explicitly use that term. LOTR can be read in a very anarchist way. There is much about the corruptibility of men and the danger of power etc. the idyllic shire has no king and is staunchly non interventionist.)
One of the reasons I stopped online debating was when I learned how people rationalise. We think it is a fair competition of ideas among open minded individuals but unfortunately this seems not to be the case. Stefan Molyneux has material explaining that irrational individuals (in molyneux' analysis irrationality is not their natural state – irrationality is a corruption of human nature brought about by authoritarian parenting/authoritarian education/authoritarian religiosity) form their 'arguments' from ex-post-facto justifications for their immediate emotional instinctual response. One 'feels' a certain way and then subconsciously rationalises that position after the fact. So in the case of cabbagesandkings, if I indulge in the risky method of 'reading between the lines', it would seem that he may have a cultural predisposition toward socialised healthcare and welfare for the poor. This has always rankled throughout his time as a libertarian and ditching the consistent application of the non aggression axiom is a way of relieving this cognitive dissonance. His emotive subconscious can now breathe a sigh of relief as the weight of rational principle is lifted from his conditioned preference for familial/tribal 'care' to be extended to the political scale of the nation state.
As a coincidence, in a week when youre debating two bloggers on themes of utlitarianism vs deontological libertarianism, I happened to finally get round to reading some articles I have had on my reading list for a while. I cant remember where I saw them mentioned (possibly David Friedman's site) but they are transcripts of symposia of good libertarian/anarchist thinkers on the question of deontology vs consequentialism or what's right vs what works.
http://www.libertyunbound.com/sites/files/printarchive/Liberty_Magazine_December_2004.pdf page 18
http://www.libertyunbound.com/sites/files/printarchive/Liberty_Magazine_January_2005.pdf page 31
despite coming into libertarianism (right at the deep end of anarchy rather than the more common gradual realisation of normal right wing statism into minarchism into grudging reluctant acceptance of anarchism) by reading David Friedman's consequentialist 'Machinery of Freedom' I am very much a deontolgical anarchist. I am an unashamed follower of Stefan Molyneux and I literally dont think there is a single word he has spoken or written that I disagree with (not particularly intellectually rigorous of me I know but he is always right!).
I sought out these two articles because I have huge respect for David Friedman and I knew that a thinker like him would not have accidentally ignored deontological arguments. I wanted to know why he didnt think what I thought and whether I might be barking up the wrong tree. If you read the two articles you will see that he actually has a much more subtle and ambivalent position than MOF may imply. The panel also dispense with the common obstacle of lifeboat/flagpole situations. This may be of particular interest to you given the two, similar debates youve had this week. Molyneux too has dealt with the lifeboat/flagpole objection which actually turns out to be a bit of a strawman irrelevance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPJkr7xQxL0
on a separate Molyneux related note, cabbagesandkings (longrider seemed ignorant of such ideas) challenged Rothbard's philosophical basis – the conception of property rights in the self and homesteading. Rothbard is excellent and I am not saying he got anything wrong at all, however I think Molyneux does a slightly better job of establishing/explaining this principle. Just a stylistic/presentational difference – their philosophical point is the same lockean position http://www.fdrurl.com/UPBPDF
then again Hoppe weighs in with Habermasian argumentation ethics and gets even old Rothbard excited as Kinsella writes here in a fascinating piece on deontology http://mises.org/daily/5322/Argumentation-Ethics-and-Liberty-A-Concise-Guide
another good source for deontological explanation is a novel by an objectivist (one who thankfully finds fault with Rand) http://www.oldnicksguidetohappiness.co.uk/ . it lays out a similar list of arguments you will find in the contents of Molyneux' Universally Preferable Ethics. It establishes objectively establishes self ownership with step by step explanations of the logical conclusions we must derive from our senses etc.
Your recent spat with Longrider was fairly exemplary of this sort of thing. He was clearly spoiling for a fight and his pugilistic point scoring was a long way from reasoned debate. Some people are incapable of following a rational argument and I no longer waste my time on them.
Your most recent adversary (andcabbagesandkings) was comparatively refreshing in that he was actually aware of libertarian theory and wasnt coming from an emotionally charged irrational opposition as most critics of libertarianism do.
Such 'why im not a libertarian' or 'why I left libertarianism' articles all tend to follow similar feelings (I say feelings quite intentionally as it is their lack of guiding first principles that ultimately undermines their position). Those non-libertarians that believe they have considered and then rejected libertarianism or former libertarians that have 'moved on' all tend to hold the same misconceptions. Such apparently subtle yet fundamental misunderstandings as 'wider' conceptions of coercion, or positive versus negative rights, cloud what is a clear and consistent ideology which is probably why such individuals feel it is not for them. If one doesnt completely understand the perversion of incentives, the cast iron law of special interests/regulatory capture or that there is no safe, controllable level of coercion then one will tend to stray back toward the more intellectually simple and superficially attractive statist 'solutions' based on coercion.
Another significant factor in such intellectual rejections is that of subconcious ego massage or even intentional status posturing. I point to Peter Hitchens the former aetheist. Making financial and intellectual capital from books on aetheism and then following a high profile volte face into Christianity. What keeps a writer more 'interesting' to the unprincipled consumer of 'intelligentsia,' consistent adherence to the same 'tired, boring' principle, or chopping and changing between new and exciting opposites? This is why I think a lot of libertarian bloggers (particularly in the US, where the background understanding is greater and thus the general standard higher, so such 'next level' considerations are possible) make a great deal about being 'left libertarians'. “Oh I used to describe myself as an anarcho-capitalist but now I reject all that 'old-fashioned' stuff in favour of new, trendy, compassionate lefty values.”
we can see such self-contradiction even within this single blog post from cabbagesandkings. Near the start he outlines how he still understands that markets are the best mechanism for the distribution of scarce resources. But then in the latter parts where he outlines his 'issues' with libertarianism he talks of his preference for state directed/planned provision of healthcare resources. This is inconsistent. One cannot pick and choose when and where to apply a principle. Otherwise it is no longer a principle merely a subjective guide of personal aesthetics.
The 'healthcare debate' is a thorn in the side of statist free market advocates. Only the Rothbardian free market anarchists can provide solid an consistent arguments and solutions that explain and solve the problems that are endlessly churned by the statist-quo. The 'debate' as it is usually framed consists of two tribes endlessly banging on about the NHS vs the 'American model'. (there are few who consider the other statist solutions of state payer – private provider models such as malaysia etc etc). The irrational, tribal statists cannot see past their traditional frames of reference. Only us free market anarchists can point to regulatory capture and special interests from the medical and financial worlds as the root cause of the problem.
What causes people to challenge free market solutions is that they cannot see the root cause of the problem. This can be seen in healthcare, housing and education. All the biggies. All 3 are artificially expensive due to state restriction of the market mechanism. There is huge demand so entrepreneurs should be incentivised into increasing supply. Thousands of people should be setting up medical practices in order to grab a bit of the action. But the special interests want their position protected, they dont want this extra competition. The state is only too happy to oblige in exchange for a cash/power grab and steps in to fuck with the market mechanisms.
Cabbagesandkings cannot or will not see this and so starts from the a priori assumption that healthcare is some magical exception to economic principles and because it is so expensive, irrational utopian idealised left wing statist solutions are the answer.
Same with education (as UK public education is considered 'free' and, due to compulsory payment through taxation and the resultant double payment problem, non state alternatives are pushed to the luxury market, noone considers the cost of state education vs private) unionised, uncompetitive suppliers have no incentives and so costs spiral. Those who cannot see into this intentionally obfuscated root cause often leap to externalise the horrendous costs through coercive state solutions.
And the real biggy common to most anti-libertarian stuff like this and that underlies both the arguments of cabbagesandkings and Longrider, is land/work. What I mean is that they both, in slightly different ways, found fault with strict non intervention in the relationship between employer and employee. They found last ditch footholds for statism in their perception that there is some unjust imbalance in such a relationship. That the state must exist and step in to stand up for the little guy (again ignoring the empirical argument that the big guy controls the state). Coercive restriction on the use of land is the criminally overlooked key to such objections. Why most libertarians do not seem to mention free use of land as much as they mention free use of drugs I have no idea. I have seen various estimates that a mere 6-13% of uk landmass is legally permissible for building on. This absolutely colossal market restriction has a corollary in the equally gigantic effect it has on costs of living. When supply is restricted and demand remains the same then prices, quite rightly, go up. In order to afford a place to sleep people have to earn more. (this is a double win for the state that taxes these extra earnings and the businesses) This radically shifts the natural balance in the voluntary agreements between employer and employee. If we ran the numbers of a theoretical anarchist island in which 100% of land was free for the owners to use as they wished, we could calculate the natural cost of housing. OldHolborn once quoted some figures relating to average price of an acre of agricultural land vs an acre of urban land with planning permission (something like 6k vs 90k). with such vastly reduced living costs the economic 'coercion' to work (to allow our opponents' fallacious misconception) would be lower. Employers would naturally have to do more to attract workers. There would be little need for legitimised blackmailing unionism or coercive interventions in the jobs market.
Even the majority of 'libertarians' fail to see the empirical history of coercive political rule. Perhaps it is no accidental failure but an unthinking avoidance? They refuse to accept the findings of public choice / institutional economics that political authority always grows toward totalitarianism. Bryan Caplan, and Patri Friedman have some great presentations regarding this failure of libertarians.
There is no constitution, no candidate that ever has or ever can control coercion. Tolkien knew this. In the LOTR scene in which Frodo attempts to offload the responsibility of bearing the ring of power to Gandalf, the old wizard explains that he would be tempted to use its power for good but essentially that temptation would corrupt him (Tolkien outlined his anarchist tendencies in a letter to his son Christopher, even going so far as to explicitly use that term. LOTR can be read in a very anarchist way. There is much about the corruptibility of men and the danger of power etc. the idyllic shire has no king and is staunchly non interventionist.)
One of the reasons I stopped online debating was when I learned how people rationalise. We think it is a fair competition of ideas among open minded individuals but unfortunately this seems not to be the case. Stefan Molyneux has material explaining that irrational individuals (in molyneux' analysis irrationality is not their natural state – irrationality is a corruption of human nature brought about by authoritarian parenting/authoritarian education/authoritarian religiosity) form their 'arguments' from ex-post-facto justifications for their immediate emotional instinctual response. One 'feels' a certain way and then subconsciously rationalises that position after the fact. So in the case of cabbagesandkings, if I indulge in the risky method of 'reading between the lines', it would seem that he may have a cultural predisposition toward socialised healthcare and welfare for the poor. This has always rankled throughout his time as a libertarian and ditching the consistent application of the non aggression axiom is a way of relieving this cognitive dissonance. His emotive subconscious can now breathe a sigh of relief as the weight of rational principle is lifted from his conditioned preference for familial/tribal 'care' to be extended to the political scale of the nation state.
As a coincidence, in a week when youre debating two bloggers on themes of utlitarianism vs deontological libertarianism, I happened to finally get round to reading some articles I have had on my reading list for a while. I cant remember where I saw them mentioned (possibly David Friedman's site) but they are transcripts of symposia of good libertarian/anarchist thinkers on the question of deontology vs consequentialism or what's right vs what works.
http://www.libertyunbound.com/sites/files/printarchive/Liberty_Magazine_December_2004.pdf page 18
http://www.libertyunbound.com/sites/files/printarchive/Liberty_Magazine_January_2005.pdf page 31
despite coming into libertarianism (right at the deep end of anarchy rather than the more common gradual realisation of normal right wing statism into minarchism into grudging reluctant acceptance of anarchism) by reading David Friedman's consequentialist 'Machinery of Freedom' I am very much a deontolgical anarchist. I am an unashamed follower of Stefan Molyneux and I literally dont think there is a single word he has spoken or written that I disagree with (not particularly intellectually rigorous of me I know but he is always right!).
I sought out these two articles because I have huge respect for David Friedman and I knew that a thinker like him would not have accidentally ignored deontological arguments. I wanted to know why he didnt think what I thought and whether I might be barking up the wrong tree. If you read the two articles you will see that he actually has a much more subtle and ambivalent position than MOF may imply. The panel also dispense with the common obstacle of lifeboat/flagpole situations. This may be of particular interest to you given the two, similar debates youve had this week. Molyneux too has dealt with the lifeboat/flagpole objection which actually turns out to be a bit of a strawman irrelevance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPJkr7xQxL0
on a separate Molyneux related note, cabbagesandkings (longrider seemed ignorant of such ideas) challenged Rothbard's philosophical basis – the conception of property rights in the self and homesteading. Rothbard is excellent and I am not saying he got anything wrong at all, however I think Molyneux does a slightly better job of establishing/explaining this principle. Just a stylistic/presentational difference – their philosophical point is the same lockean position http://www.fdrurl.com/UPBPDF
then again Hoppe weighs in with Habermasian argumentation ethics and gets even old Rothbard excited as Kinsella writes here in a fascinating piece on deontology http://mises.org/daily/5322/Argumentation-Ethics-and-Liberty-A-Concise-Guide
another good source for deontological explanation is a novel by an objectivist (one who thankfully finds fault with Rand) http://www.oldnicksguidetohappiness.co.uk/ . it lays out a similar list of arguments you will find in the contents of Molyneux' Universally Preferable Ethics. It establishes objectively establishes self ownership with step by step explanations of the logical conclusions we must derive from our senses etc.
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
Just like Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia. When will people wake up and realise that far from helping the poor, the state keeps them poor.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8235324.stm http://zimbabweonlinepress.com/index.php?news=1195 Yet another individual helpless in the face of coercive oppression takes their life. just another man trying to work to feed his family prevented from doing so by petty bureaucracy. another self-immolation. fucking sick of it. when i bang on about regulatory capture and cartelisation its not just irrelevant economic theorising. it has real world implications. take a good hard look. this is the effect of coercion. you cant control it. you cant limit it. it is cancer. there is no safe or desirable amount.
Thursday, 8 September 2011
Wednesday, 24 August 2011
What is it good for?
Sympathy for soldiers should not entail a concomitant endorsement of war. No matter how brave and selfless they may be, no matter how highly you value their individual sacrifice do not allow such reactions to be manipulated into supporting war.
Individual soldiers are as much victims as the other human collateral of state aggression. The entirely natural human reaction of empathy for their suffering should never be impressed into support, endorsement or legitimisation of the evil they are sent into.
The only way to support soldiers as individual people is to be completely opposed to sending them to war in the first place. Furthermore reducing funding for the military, one hopes, may reduce the number of individuals that can be tempted.
The current propaganda paradigm is that heart strings be tugged for 'our brave boys' to build support for aggression, militarism and war. 'Feel sorry for the amputees? Then vote for military funding'.
A shark will only eat your friend if you push him into the sea. If you both keep out of the water you'll keep your limbs. In the same way, a soldier can only become a casualty of war if you send him to war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)