Things I've Found

Noam Chomsky: The Anarcho-Statist Anti-Economist

2012-01-28T16:57:00.000-05:00

If there were ever any doubt Noam Chomsky needs to shut up about economics, starting at about 4:20 he gets everything exactly backwards:

The man has no conception of market forces.

For example, Monstanto is out of the Bovine Growth Hormone business because

"Consumers have made it fairly clear they don't want milk from cows treated with the artificial hormone. At one point, more than 22 percent of U.S. cows were on the hormone. As of 2007, only 17 percent still were, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In recent years, major companies including Kraft Foods, Starbucks and Wal-Mart have announced decisions to sell only milk products from untreated cows. This 'will limit our future sales' admitted Monsanto." Scientific American

But Chomsky says corporations are more totalitarian than governments and people have no influence over them, but here are Monsanto, Kraft Foods, Starbucks and Wal-Mart caving to consumer pressure.

The Ecomomist
According to Gallop the majority of Americans were opposed to the War on Iraq since 2005, yet that war is being would down only because the Iraqi's would not grant legal immunity to US service personnel.

"For US military planners, legal immunity is a must for any American troops, not only those serving in Iraq as part of any training mission after 2011, but anywhere in the world. The Iraqi decision to revoke immunity puts the US in a position where it could withdraw all its troops out of Iraq, leaving no military support behind." Deutsche Welle

But Chomsky says if the state runs things people are able to influence them via voting and political action.

The man is smoking crack.

Not to mention he calls himself an anarchist, but he loves the state.

It Won't Take Much To Push The Dollar Over The Edge

2012-01-27T00:24:00.003-05:00

Jim Willie: "Global Opposition to the U.S. Dollar Mounts"

2012-01-17T23:02:00.000-05:00

Shit gittin' real...

2012-01-11T03:02:00.000-05:00

"Don't worry that you won't have the strength, you will..."

Taxation is Immoral

2011-11-26T14:25:00.001-05:00

Abulafia's Kabbalah

2011-11-26T00:05:00.001-05:00

WHY?

2011-11-08T19:16:00.000-05:00

The Common Good

2011-10-29T00:17:00.000-04:00

By Puck T. Smith

Scene: A city street. A woman in a business suit is standing at a crosswalk waiting for the light to change as light traffic crosses the intersection. Diagonally across the intersection a destitute homeless man is huddled in a disheveled pile of filthy blankets. The are a few other people walking in the area. As she waits a large sedan pulls to the curb nearby. A well dressed man get out of the back seat and approaches her as another man sits at the wheel.

Well dressed man, approaching the woman: Excuse me, miss.

The woman, looking up at him: Yes?

Well dressed man: Do you see that poor man over there?

Woman: Yes. Well dressed man: It's a shame.

Woman, moving to cross the street as the light changes: I suppose it is.

Well dressed man, entering the crosswalk with her: Something should be done to help him.

Woman: It is very sad.

Well dressed man: Indeed. To think a society as rich as ours would have people in such wretched conditions.

Woman: Yes, it does say something about us.

Well dressed man, as they step up on the onto the curb from the crosswalk: I glad to hear you say so. I represent an organization dedicated to addressing the problems like these that plague society and we need your help.

Woman: I don't understand.

Well dressed man: Well, we have an important program to improve the situation, but it requires a great deal of money to implement and administer.

Woman: Well, if your asking me for a contribution I'm afraid I just don't have any money to spare.

Well dressed man: Miss, I need $100 from you.

Woman: Well, I don't have it so please excuse me.

She turns to walk away, but the man steps into her path.

Well dressed man: Miss, give me $100.

Woman: I told you, I don't have it. Now get out of my way.

Well dressed man, continuing to block her way: Miss if you don't have the money on you I will be happy to give you a ride to your bank to make a withdrawal. It's for a good cause.

The woman tries to dodge around him, but the car the man had gotten out of pulled up to the curb beside them. The driver opens the rear passenger door from the inside and the man begins to manhandle her into the car. The struggle for a moment and then the man pulls out a large pistol, points it at her face and cocks it.

Well dressed man: Why are you making this so difficult. Don't resist. Do you hate poor people or something?

The woman screams. A few people nearby look up, but do nothing as he pushes her into car, slams the
slams shut as the car speeds off. The woman is a state near shock.

Well dressed man: You should not resist, it will only make it worse. Why do you not want to help your fellow man? Have you no compassion?

Woman, with anger and fear in her voice: Where are you taking me?

Well dressed man: To your bank to make a withdrawal.

Woman, with an expression of panic on her face: How do you know what bank I use? Who are you?

Well dressed man: We know a great deal about you. As to who I am, it is not important. Our organization does not draw attention to individual members. Who we are is not important. All we asked it that we judged by our actions and results.

Woman: This is wrong, you have no right to do this to me.

Well dressed man: Miss, it is not a matter of rights, I have the authority.

Woman: What authority?

Well dressed man: I was appointed by the organization's Executive Committee who were duly elected by the members and supporters of our organization. Our General Assembly has authorized them to collect money for the poor and the have given me the responsibility to execute their decision.

Woman: But I had no part in that. I'm not part of your organization and I'm certainly not a supporter.

Well dressed man: Miss, because you have chosen not to participate does not relieve you of your obligations as outlined in the General Assembly's by-laws. Perhaps you'd care to change your mind, pay your share and become a part of the process.

The woman looks at him, speechless.

After a few minutes, the car pulls over to the curb in front of a branch of the woman's bank. He opens the door and steps to the curb with his pistol still drawn. A few people nearby watch curiously, but none approach. He motions her to get out of the car. She slowly steps out and stands by the car. He motions with the pistol toward the entrance to the bank. Suddenly she kicked him in the crotch with all her might. He doubles over and she runs down the street.

Well dressed man, raising his pistol, even as he is still bent over: Stop! Don't make me shoot!

She continues running. He steadies his aim and fires the pistol. The bullet hits the woman in the middle of her back. It explodes out the front of her chest in an eruption of blood and tissue. She falls face forward to the ground, dead instantly.

Well dressed man, pulling himself upright: It's her fault, she made me do it. She should not have resisted the common good.

The Facts Driving the Financial Crises

2011-10-26T21:15:00.000-04:00

Off to check the progress of the revolution.

2011-10-08T13:35:00.002-04:00

Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/inibo/sets/72157627848800404/with/6224826852/

Fort Knox

2011-10-07T02:55:00.001-04:00

Load the Boat.

2011-09-24T04:42:00.000-04:00

Kablam!

2011-09-23T10:54:00.001-04:00

Mutual Aid Alert!

2011-08-05T21:32:00.004-04:00

This from my friend Jim Davidson's Facebook notes.

My friend Lori Remp lives in Spring township, Berks county, Pennsylvania. That's quite near Reading, which is not terribly far northwest from Philadelphia. Lori prefers to keep her children in the Wilson school district, though possibly that's a court order related to the divorce.

She and her two daughters have been suffering verbal, mental, emotional, and physical abuse from her ex-husband. Apparently he is currently paying about $620 a month for child support. Naturally, it is impossible to keep bills paid and feed three people with this amount of money.

Lori has been suffering severe depression since November of last year. She needs emotional support, and a sense that she is going to find her way through.

Lori writes, "I cry almost everyday, and I feel so hopeless some days, because I know I can't do it on my own, and yet I cant work right now!!! ... It is sooooo frustrating!!! ... I pity my girls bc all they do is see me cry, and then they either get mad at me, or it brings them down too!!!!"

Also, her car is broken down, so she needs help finding better transportation.

In the area of self-help, Lori has been trying to sell a garage full of her furniture, but Craig's List is not generating any results. So if you know anyone who might help her get paid for the furniture, that would be a blessing.

Obviously, Lori's situation is not the typical "mutual aid response team" case of official oppression or abuse of office. She isn't fighting the courts, though her ex-husband has threatened to take her back to court over custody. (I think that would actually be a blessing to her, since she would likely keep custody and gain further child support.) However, her needs are simple enough that anyone can help out.

I would like to get a ChipIn fundraiser started for her. Of course, I continue to not use PayPal, so I won't simply go start that thing. But if someone reading this page would do so, that would be a beginning.

Anyone in the state of Pennsylvania (or is it a commonwealth?) would be very welcome to contact Lori directly, or through me. I'd like to show this person some of the love we share in the work we do.

Plane and simple

2011-07-26T11:07:00.000-04:00

I am not "we"

2011-07-22T20:43:00.001-04:00

I am not "we." I did not incur the debt. I do not owe one single cent of it. My signature is on none of their fraudulent instruments. It is their problem and they are trying to fix it by destroying what little value is left in the US dollar--and all other currencies for that matter. There is nothing you nor I nor anyone else is going to be able to do about it.

Call me a doomsayer, but I am convinced it is at most a matter of a few months before shit is really going to start coming unglued. This is the culmination of 100 years of either colossal ignorance or diabolic intent (or some malignant symbiosis of the two). There is no one in any position of power who has any clue about how to manage the Frankenstein clusterfuck of fractional reserve central fiat banking at the exponential culmination of compound interest.

All paper is on the verge of reverting to its inherent worth. I intend to be completely out of it by the end of next week with the exception of day-to-day living from my paycheck. My money will weigh a lot, shine and be well hidden.

What You Don't Know Is Killing Your Neighbours

2011-05-19T21:20:00.001-04:00

What You Don't Know Is Killing Your Neighbours
by Jim Davidson on Thursday, May 19, 2011 at 3:43am

Economists know about a problem that you cannot solve. It is called “the calculation problem.” The reason you cannot solve this problem, calculating the market clearing price of every good in the world on every market, is because you do not have the necessary information. The nature of the calculation problem is that you *cannot* have the information, because it isn’t available. Market clearing prices are discovered by buyers and sellers in free, unregulated markets, all the time, by the choices of those in the market.

As is often the case with these sorts of things, it is actually worse, in reality, than you might imagine. My friend from Colorado Springs, Keith Hamburger, writes, "The calculation problem is almost certainly even more intractable than presented by Ludwig von Mises. He wasn't aware of the modern mathematics of recursive feedback systems known as chaos/complexity theory when he did the majority of his writing, as it hadn't been developed yet. With every individual having an infinite number of things they can value, and each of those things being infinitely variable and only ordinally measurable, and their values changing moment by moment, and every action or bit of knowledge of billions of individuals influencing the values of each and every other individual, it is absolutely impossible to predict what is the 'correct answer.' There are not enough atoms in the universe to build a computer that is capable of modeling economics."

You may imagine that you are smarter than me, and I’m quite willing to grant it for purposes of discussion. You may believe you are smarter than everyone else, and I grant that, too. But the smartest woman in the world cannot know the needs and wants and temporary emergencies of seven billion people. You cannot know what you need to know to solve the calculation problem.

Yet you demand that we all turn to the government to force our neighbours not to buy things you don’t want them to buy and not to sell things you don’t want them to sell. You demand regulations and prohibitions, you demand price controls, you demand quality controls, and you shriek and gnash your teeth.

It is tiresome. Did prohibiting abortion work? No, it failed. It failed to prevent abortion. It also prevented women from getting abortions in clean clinics, and put them in back alleys being butchered by amateurs.

Did prohibiting alcohol work? No. It failed. It failed to prevent alcohol consumption. Carrie Nation’s dream of a country where women were not beaten senseless by drunk husbands never came to be. Prohibition made bathtub gin contaminated with lead (because it is cheaper to make a still with lead pipes) widely available. It made organised crime much bigger. It justified the existence of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other national police and espionage forces. But it failed.

Does prohibiting marijuana work? No. It fails. It is currently in the process of once again failing in Montana where dim-witted legislators have hit upon the idea of making criminals out of at least 28,000 of the roughly 30,000 marijuana prescription card holders they demanded be registered in a previous law, after the people of Montana voted 62% in favour (in 2004) of a legalisation scheme. Will they prevent weirdness, as one legislator at a Republican party "Reagan-Lincoln" event recently schemed? No. They will prevent orderly trade and commerce, they will drive the production and use of marijuana underground, they will turn over to federal authorities all the names and addresses they so cruelly demanded, they will gleefully build taxpayer-funded cages to put their neighbours in and gleefully distribute federal block grants to the states to fight the "war on drugs" and with greed all over their chins eagerly accept their cut of civil asset forfeiture money from robbing their neighbours at gunpoint.

And you never learn. You never learn that the government is not real, it is only a fiction. You never learn that the men and women who work for the government are simply men and women. They aren’t superhuman. They have no magic wands. They cannot know enough information to solve the calculation problem.

You demand that we all pay more for everything because you insist on regulations. Well, each American household pays about $15,000 more per year due to regulations, a recent study says. (Cite: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19869 ) On top of that, each American household pays roughly a third of their income in income taxes and payroll taxes, plus another ten percent in other federal taxes, plus another ten percent or more in state and local taxes. Every American would be two to three times wealthier with much less government, and the cost of everything in the market would be reduced with less regulatory and tax burden.

But you don’t care. You don’t care because you demand that the government solve all your problems. You don’t care because you are smarter than everyone, and you know better than your neighbours. You don't care because what you do care about is *important* and what I care about, free people having freedom, doesn't matter to you.

So your government puts 2 million Americans in cages every year for non-violent non-crimes. Your government incarcerates more individuals in total than any other nation in the world and a higher percentage of its population than every other country in the world. Your government tortures people to death. Your government detains people without charges. Your government searches private homes without warrants, without probable cause. Your police and federal agents plant evidence, lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, and you don't care. Your president has authorised the execution of American citizens without trial. Your president has declared, as commander in chief, at least one soldier (Bradley Manning) guilty without benefit of a trial.

You don’t like the free market because you are a hateful, violent state supremacist. You don’t want free neighbours to express differences of opinion, you want to force them into line.

People are orderly when it pleases them to be orderly. But they aren’t always orderly.

The question is: are you willing to wait for the spontaneity of order by choice, or do you insist upon the calamity of order by force?

And if you force everyone into line, then you get to answer two more questions: Who does your state kill? Why?

The above essay was first written as a comment to a socialistic state supremacist environmentalist on some blog somewhere. Personally, I blame Kent McManigal for putting me on that track. I have above acknowledged Keith Hamburger for the chaos theory comment. While making acknowledgements, I should like to thank Jennifer Lewis for her work researching the $15,000 per household article. If you people were on Facebook, instead of reading this Web 1.0 Libertarian Enterprise, you might like to join our group there.

Support?

2011-05-07T20:40:00.001-04:00

Historical Comparison

2011-05-06T14:03:00.002-04:00

One of these things is not like the other.

Historical Perspective.

2011-05-06T13:58:00.002-04:00

Wikipedia

Turd's Bottom

2011-05-06T01:32:00.004-04:00

Turd Ferguson and I are both calling a bottom, so it's gotta be, right?

Is $39.00 The Bottom?

2011-05-05T03:17:00.001-04:00

I have no idea.

Something is going on...

2011-05-05T00:35:00.000-04:00

I know nothing.

Among the things I watch are the London Fix and NY Spot price of silver and the silver to gold ratio based on the same exchanges. In this chart blue in London, Orange is NY, pastel is the ratio and dark is the price.

My intuition tells me something is trying to converge on 38 or 39ish. My intuition also tells me some sort of bifurcation point is approaching.

I repeat, I know nothing.

What is a dollar?

2011-04-10T19:44:00.002-04:00

On April 2, 1792, U. S. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton reported to Congress the precise amount of silver found in Spanish milled dollar coins in common use in the States. As a result, the United States Dollar was defined as a unit of weight equaling 371 4/16th grains (24.057 grams) of pure silver, or 416 grains of standard silver (standard silver being defined as 1,485 parts fine silver to 179 parts alloy). It was specified that the “money of account” of the United States should be expressed in those same “dollars” or parts thereof.

Wikipedia

371.25 gr = 0.848572 oz = 24.0566 g.

On April 8th silver closed at $40.93/oz.

That means it would take 34.73 Federal Reserve Notes to buy 1 United States Dollar's worth of silver.

Freedom, Bigotry and Civil Rights "Law"

2011-01-29T15:03:00.002-05:00

NOTE: I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge writers such as Walter Block, Butler Shaffer, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Stefan Molyneux in helping me clarify my thinking. And a special thank you to Facebook user Julie Canny for prompting me to write this note.

If there are no functional differences between races or genders with respect to the ability to perform a given job and there are no state enforced barriers to entry into the market place, the employer who discriminates based on race or gender is putting himself at a competitive disadvantage by depriving himself of competent workers and risking public backlash.

If I and another entrepreneur were in the same business, producing the same goods or services and my competitor either would not hire women or racial minorities or paid them less that their white male counterparts he would be shooting himself in the foot.

All I would have to do is either hire those he wouldn't at a slightly less rate of pay than he gives his white men or hire his existing women and minority workers for more than he is currently paying them and slightly less than he is paying his white men.

I would then have lower costs and could undersell him, not to mention I would have the public's goodwill working for me and against him. It would not be very long before my business would more profitable than his and my market share would be increasing while his diminished.

At that point I would be susceptible to the same market forces that allowed me to put him out of business. Since I was more profitable than him and making more money, it would be in my interest to increase the pay of my women and minority worker to a comparable level with their white male counterparts or I would be just as vulnerable to the same tactics as I had used against my competitor.

This can only work in a free market with no barriers to entry. The reason it was not happening prior to Civil Rights Act of 1964 was that there were (and still are) high barriers to entry in the market. Licensing and regulation impose costs on businesses. Existing firms have already passed the hurdles and can afford to operate in the restrictive environment. New businesses have to overcome them preventing, easy entry by new competitors.

Similar dynamics apply to retailers and those providing "public" accommodations. Stores, motels and bus companies, for instance, do not prosper by turning away customers. Women and minority money spends just as well that of white men. If someone has a restaurant or a bus company and they refuse service minorities all a competitor has to do is serve all comers.*

And when you think about it, forcing a racist or misogynist to serve or hire people he hates keeps the bigot in business. If people were allowed to discriminate openly the public would know who the discriminators were and would be able to shun them, putting them out of business.

I realize this runs counter to most everything people are taught, but people have been taught that free markets are bad things, so they cannot grasp how they actually operate and do not understand that freedom will always triumph over bigotry if it is given the chance to do so.

Forcing compliance does not foster virtue, it only breeds resentment and resistance.

Virtue can only arise when people are allowed to choose it.

-----------

*I do not have any cites handy, but I understand that "whites only" restaurants and "back of the bus" were not imposed by the restaurants and bus companies--at least not all of them--but by legislation because the discriminators could not compete with those who did not discriminate. Rather than face competition, they lobbied for laws restricting it.

While I have not found any "hard" cites I have found a few "soft" ones that suggest it.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-reincarnation-of-jim-crow/

http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=3709

Anyone who reads this and has solid references would have my gratitude if they would share them. Also grammatical or spelling correction and fact checking would be appreciated as well.

Yes, But What About...?

2011-01-24T13:08:00.002-05:00

Question: Does Anarcho-Capitalism have a solution to [insert pet issue here]?

Answer: Yes. The aggregated expression of distributed human choice through market behavior.

If people continue to express their lack of care and foresight through their economic decisions nothing will change. Forcing compliance on uncaring and unenlightened people will accomplish nothing.

If people begin to express wisdom through that same process then nothing can prevent positive change.

In either case, no amount of coercion can prevent human choice from expressing itself. Humanity gets the world it chooses. No law can ever stop that.

----------

Definition of terms in the order they appear, both above and in these definitions:

1) Anarchy: Without rulers, not without rules.

2) Capitalism: A system of social organization based on free choice, voluntary exchange and respect for property.

3) Market behavior: Voluntary human interaction in a social context.

4) Economic: Of, or relating to, human choice and human action in the material world.

5) Property: The claim of exclusive control and use of resources.

6) Resources: Those things required for the continuation of life and the improvement of its quality, including, but not limited to, material, psychological, social and spiritual needs.

If you define any of those terms differently we're not talking about the same thing. I do not claim the "right" definitions, I am simply letting you know the ideas I am trying to convey when I use those words. If you want a semantic argument talk to Noam Chomsky. If you want to discuss ideas then I'm listening.

I would be remiss if I did not credit Ludwig Von Mises, Butler Shaffer and Abraham Maslow for the clarity they have brought to my thinking.

Control Is Bad, MKay?

2011-01-24T00:44:00.001-05:00

Roads Unfit For People

Roads Fit For People

Mutual Aid Alert!

2011-01-17T20:12:00.005-05:00

You may have, by now, become aware of the Individual Sovereign University and our plans for a conference coming up in early March 2011. If you were one of the 444 plus members of "Friends of Shaun Lee" during its brief existence, you may be aware that our dean of community relations, Shaun Lee dickerson née Anderson was pushed down the stairs by her husband very early on the morning of Saturday 8 January 2011.

She called 911, but the 911 responders were lied to by her father-in-law, a former FBI agent and a very violent man himself by some accounts named Larry dickerson. Larry then confiscated her cell phone and turned off the wireless router provided to her by IndSovU. She then threatened to go to the neighbours and report him for kidnapping. This tactic succeeded in getting the router turned back on, so she was able to contact friends using the laptop provided her by IndSovU for her work through her foundation Legacy of Many Seeds.

A group of us immediately leapt into action, alerted by Mark Quon to Shaun's cries for help on her Facebook profile. I rounded up Brad Spangler and headed to Jefferson City to help Shaun collect the Jeep she's been using (also provided by IndSovU) and get herself and her children to safety. Bill Stone also headed to Jeff City from his home in Des Moines.

As you may already have heard, Shaun's father in law then apparently arranged for several members of her mother's family to perjure themselves in claiming that Shaun was crazy, on drugs, or abusing alcohol. She was involuntarily transported by Cole County sheriff deputies to the Columbia, Missouri medical centre where she was to be held for 96 hours on psychiatric evaluation.

Thanks to the coordinated efforts by a great many of her friends, dozens to hundreds of phone calls were made to the hospital. Her blood and urine tests came back entirely clean of all drugs and alcohol. Her knees were x-rayed by the hospital, and she was otherwise examined. Bill Stone, Brad, and I got in to see her after a short time. She was released to our care late on Saturday night, so we took her to a restaurant for some food, and she checked herself into a hotel room. The next morning we got her some crutches and helped her get situated in Kansas City.

Things continue to not be well for Shaun. She prefers that her situation not be described in detail, as it may compromise her ability to get custody of her children. That seems like wise legal strategy, to keep information output to a minimum.

So, rather than go into detail about what has happened so far this week, I'd like to ask that friends of mine consider the following objectives, and take related actions.

Goals
1. Shaun wants full custody of her children.
2. Shaun wants her property restored to her.
3. Shaun does not expect any reconciliation with her violent husband.
4. IndSovU would like to continue to support Shaun Lee and her work at Legacy of Many Seeds.
5. indSovU would like to have a successful conference in early March.

To advance these goals, you can do the following:
Actions
1. Share this note.
2. Tell the story in your own words on your blog, on your profile, or in your own note.
3. Ask your friends to contribute to Shaun's cause.
4. Post this ChipIn link: http://donnelly.chipin.com/mypages/view/id/09df5402dad44862
5. Follow this link to various links with the story thus far: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle603-20110116-01.html#letter02
6. Send Shaun your love, your expressions of friendship, and send prayers on her behalf.
7. Register for the IndSovU conference http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle603-20110116-01.html#letter02
8. Buy merchandise or classes, or offer classes for sale at IndSovU.com
9. Donate to IndSovU at our chipin link: http://slf.chipin.com/jim-davidson-sings-firework-by-katy-perry-for-individual-sovereign-university

Competent attorneys cost money. So please help Shaun with her custody battle to get her three young sons away from her violent husband.

You may not have any money to give. You may have given as much as you can. That's okay. The drummer boy had no gift to bring, but he brought a song, and it was gratefully accepted. Make your song today about Shaun's plight. Please tell your friends. Please ask them to help fill the ChipIn.

Even small amounts make a big difference. Plant seeds today to have the legacy of a brighter future. Nurture those seeds you have planted, and see to it that they grow.

Thank you.

UPDATE: An anonymous donor will match all donations to Shaun Lee's chipin over the next 48 hours (starting Sun night Jan 16) up to $3,000. So if we can raise $3K for Shaun over the next 48 hours--till Tuesday 1/18/2011 11:59:59 PM, she will get double that! And she desperately needs it to retain the lawyer she feels she needs to get her kids back.

Doooonnnnndeeeerrrroooooo!!!!

2011-01-12T21:38:00.002-05:00

The "C" Word

2011-01-06T23:55:00.004-05:00

The "C" Word

by Puck T. Smith on Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 11:26pm

When capitalism is outlawed, only outlaws will be capitalists. ~J Neil Schulman

Libertarianism is of course compatible with capitalism; and we should not equivocate with over-semanticizing. ~Stephan Kinsella

Stephan, is there really such a word as "semanticizing"? Certainly there should be -- in fact, there is now. By decree. ~Michael Morrison

Not withstanding J Neil Schulman's characterization of "the few involved in internal ideological debates at the Center for a Stateless Society,"(1) Gary Chartier has given three definitions of capitalism(2) which can be very useful in those discussion where the term arises:

capitalism-1
an economic system that features property rights and voluntary exchanges of goods and services.

capitalism-2
an economic system that features a symbiotic relationship between big business and government.

capitalism-3
rule — of workplaces, society, and (if there is one) the state — by capitalists (that is, by a relatively small number of people who control investable wealth and the means of production)

I call these definitions useful, not because they give a clear meaning to the term--the contradictions among them as stated give lie to that notion--but because they are representative of how the term is used by various people. As a lover and student of words and language from my early childhood I have long known that many disagreements stem not from fundamental conflicts in positions or principles, but from imprecise language no realization of the danger of this imprecision.

C.S. Lewis, another lover of words and language who, despite his ideological emphasis and however one may disagree with his religious views, is widely regarded by many, including me, as one of the masters of linguistics and literature of the 20th century, presented an eloquent and concise exploration of this theme in his masterpiece of Christian apologetics, Mere Christianity:(3)

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - "Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Capitalism has undergone the type of "spiritualization" Lewis described. Originating from the proto-Indo-European root "caput, meaning 'head'—also the origin of chattel and cattle in the sense of movable property"(4) Its use in the modern sense is often attributed to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, however capitalist as a value-free, descriptive technical term preceded Marx and Engels by twenty-five years and capitalism in the same technical sense preceded them by seventeen years.(5)

I consider Marx and Engels to represent the point wherecapitalist and capitalism crossed the threshold. Previously the terms were analogous to gentleman in the original denotative sense. Since Marx and Engels they have acquired connotations which indicate more the opinion of the speaker with respect to that spoken of instead of the object's objective characteristics. Depending upon who is using these terms they have been reduced to little more that compliments or insults, shorthand for unspoken diatribe and polemic.

Nevertheless, the words refuse to die however that may be desired and however lacking they have become as conveyors of meaning. It is for this reason I regard Chartier's definitions as useful. For those of us engaged in the war of ideas it can be fatal to make enemies of those who are not our enemies and to think we have friends among those who are not our friends. Consequently, whenever the termscapitalist or capitalism arise in discussion it is critical to clarify the terms.

For many these terms mean little more than exploiter andexploitation. For others it is a code word for freedom. If I argue the goodness of capitalism while understanding it in the sense of Chartier's first definition, a system comprising property rights and free exchange, while another decries the evil of capitalism from the belief it is represented by Chartier's second and third definitions, I could be seen as praising exploitation while to me the other is condemning freedom. We have become enemies, when in reality we share a common love of freedom and an equally common loathing for exploitation.

Conversely, there are certainly those who regard the second or third definitions as positive. In a discussion of capitalism, where the term is not clearly defined, I may sense an ally in one actually favors plutocracy and statism while my advocacy of uncoerced voluntary exchange would represent to them lawlessness and chaos. The lack of clarity may find me standing side-by-side with the enemy of all I hold dear.

Consider, then, the value of clarity and precision in the use of words. The language of our ideas can be a bright flare blazing above the battlefield dispelling the fog of war.

1) J Neil Schulman.

http://www.facebook.com/jneilschulman/posts/177945172236854

2) Gary Chartier.

Advocates of Freed Markets Should Embrace “Anti-Capitalism” http://c4ss.org/content/1738

3) C.S. Lewis.

Quoted by Glenn Slaven. C.S. Lewis on the abuse of the English language http://glenn.typepad.com/news/2003/08/cs_lewis_on_the.html

4) Wikipedia.Capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Etymology_and_early_usage

5) ibid.

Ferengi and Humans

2011-01-03T22:10:00.001-05:00

Knowledge and Planning

2010-12-26T12:48:00.002-05:00

by Puck T. Smith on Sunday, December 26, 2010 at 11:41am

There are resources that exist right now that are not recognized as resources therefore they are not taken into account when calculating the availability and allocation of resources.

In the 19th century the main sources of artificial light was whale oil(1). Had some central planning supercomputer been available at that time then its calculations on the problem artificial light would have been confined to maximizing the production of whale oil. The resources required to discover other sources of light would not have been made available because they would have been misallocated to other uses based on incomplete information.

Centralized planning would only work if the knowledge of initial inputs were complete. That is impossible. It is for this reason that weather forecasting, for all the computing power being thrown at it, is impossible beyond a few days. In order to extend forecasts further than that would require knowledge of the temperature, barometric pressure and humidity of every single point on Earth. Again, that is impossible.

The same dynamical system principles apply to all forms of predictive calculation: only if you have complete knowledge of initial inputs can you extrapolate future behavior. Such complete knowledge does not exist. It becomes even more problematic when some of the inputs are not even recognized as inputs in the first place, e.g., if you don't know about kerosene it could not be factored into the artificial light problem.

This process was first quantified by Edward Norton Lorenz(2), though others, such as Friedrich Hayek(3), had already approached it prior to Lorenz. Lorenz demonstrated the impossibility of accurate future calculation using a relatively simple system comprising only three variable. Considering that there are far more than three variables involved in the dynamical system we call society--some of which variables have not been identified let alone quantified--to think it is possible to accurately predict the future and calculate resource allocation based on those predictions is the height of hubris.

Such calculation can only be made when the allocation decisions are distributed to those with the most complete knowledge of the inputs, those who are most affected by the consequences of the decision making process. Even then the calculations are at best approximations. When errors are made in a distributed system the effects are minimized and local. When those decisions are centralized and enforced by coercion the consequences of error are maximized and global.

References:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_oil

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_N._Lorenz#Work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_attractor

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek#Work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Use_of_Knowledge_in_Society
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

OK, Ron, here's your chance

2010-12-09T12:55:00.002-05:00

Rep. Ron Paul, Chairman, Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee

Jurisdiction: Domestic monetary policy, currency, precious metals, valuation of the dollar, economic stabilization, defense production, commodity prices, financial aid to commerce and industry.

http://republicans.financialservices.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1458&Itemid=43

Crash JP Morgan! Buy Silver IV

2010-11-24T18:31:00.002-05:00

To everyone who is like I was till today, a virgin, believe me, it feels wonderful the first time...

Crash JP Morgan! Buy Silver III

2010-11-21T18:26:00.003-05:00

Widespread Silver Bar Shortages

As of today, there are no longer any regular wholesale supplies of the 1 ounce through 100 ounce silver rounds and bars available for immediate delivery. It may be possible to locate incidental quantities of some product, but most wholesalers are now promising two to four weeks delivery to allow time for the silver to be fabricated.

More...

Crash JP Morgan, Buy Silver II

2010-11-19T23:19:00.001-05:00

US Mint record sales due to Crash JP Morgan, Buy Silver Viral Campaign? | USA Live Headlines
www.usaliveheadlines.com
In what seems to be quite a surprise to many watching the US Mint is reporting record sales numbers of 2010 American Eagle Silver Bullion coins this November. The last record was set in May of 2010 with a sales number of 3,636,500. This November the United States Mint under the authority of the U.S.

Crash JP Morgan, Buy Silver.

2010-11-18T19:51:00.002-05:00

I am now the proud owner of 20 of these...

...and 20 of these.

I bought the buffaloes about a week and a half ago. I bought the others today. I wanted more buffaloes, but they were sold out. After I bought the others today they started advertising them as sold out as well,\.

I wonder is this or this might have something to do with it.

Oh, and if the Tea Party people had any understanding of economics they would be all over this. Progressives, too. You want to reign in Wall Street? Word is if 1/3 third of the adults in this country bought a single one once silver coin, going for about $30.00 today, JP Morgan would be forced into bankruptcy.

It's more fun than voting.

Definitions are everything

2010-11-09T15:21:00.001-05:00

And herein is always the rub. We can only discuss god if you define god. I can't define "notness" (though the kabbalists sure as heck tried), I don't need to since you're who's saying what isn't obvious is. Define this god phenomenon and we can talk about if what you defines does, or even can, exist.

From A Friend on Facebook re: Tom Woods

2010-11-08T22:31:00.002-05:00

"Obviously, I am dedicated primarily to freedom. I'm interested in privacy, freedom, human decency, free speech, freedom of expression, and I'm against war, bullying, bigotry, and the rape of small children. In these things I am apparently different from Poor Tom, who contributes financially to the Catholic Church in full and certain knowledge that the Catholic Church as a matter of policy encourages priests to rape small children and as a matter of policy covers up investigations, going to such lengths as recently invoking a treaty between Belgium and Vatican City for the purpose. As a gleeful Roman Catholic, Poor Tom presumably supports and endorses the Church's pogroms against Jews, crusades against the Albigensians, crusades in the Holy Land, Reconquista of Spain, invasion of the New World and wholesale rape, pillage, mass murder, and plunder of those places, burning of libraries, and ongoing violent brutality. Poor Tom must be assumed to support and endorse the Church's Holy Inquisition and its burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno, for which the Church has never apologised. I surmise that Poor Tom believes all these things because he is very publicly Roman Catholic. Wikipedia notes, "He was associate editor of The Latin Mass Magazine, which advocates traditional Catholicism, for eleven years."

Galatians 5:15

An Argument for the Inviolability of Property

2010-11-06T11:24:00.002-04:00

This is an excerpt from a longer exposition on economics and politics which I'm still outlining.

In a Robinson Crusoe situation where it takes one day's labor to procure one day's resources one may be willing to do without for a day in order to improve one's method of procurement. If one is subsisting on fruit with either a thick stem or heavy rind one may decide to do without food one day and use the time not spent gathering and consuming fruit to fabricate a sharp stone tool which would enable the procurement of one day's food in half a day. One deems the present sacrifice acceptable for future gain. From that one period of time expended every subsequent day produces half the value of that single day. In two days one would have recovered all one had given and every day after one gains half as much again.

Given now the surplus time, one could choose to work all day to procure twice as much food in anticipation of future need or use that time for leisure or further utilization of resources and time to increase productivity, comfort and surplus time. In this way one has alone converted time, energy and resources, each exclusively controlled, into items of subjective material value to oneself. In this way one has created wealth to which no other can have claim as no other contributed to its production and accumulation. Wealth so acquired can scarcely be considered other than inviolable. Its disposition is subject to none but the owner.

A Brief Meditation on the Tea Party

2010-11-04T23:35:00.000-04:00

Electoral politics are immoral or at least futile. I have no illusions that the net effect of the recent elections will ultimately produce anything more than some wonderful entertainment for my inner cynic. However, I do think the Tea Party is articulating something important. The middle class, what's left of it, is losing faith in the state and the state has run out of options for pacifying them. It is in its death throes. I think people sense it on an intuitive level, but they haven't realized it consciously, yet. The Tea Party is that intuition grappling with uncertainty. The next few years are going to be the process of the intuition and impulse evolving into understanding.

2010-10-13T23:51:00.002-04:00

Statism is Dead Parts 1 Through 5

2010-08-25T21:20:00.000-04:00

Testing something...

2010-08-16T19:32:00.000-04:00

Testing something...
http://dev.tzimzum.net/
http://www.tzimzum.net/
http://tzimzum.net/

Hugh Masekela - Coal Train Live

2010-08-14T12:32:00.000-04:00

Eric Dondero

2010-08-08T20:32:00.002-04:00

Doooonnnnndeeeerrrroooooo!!!!

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, I'll bet you couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you smell?

Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it more rapidly.

You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood.

May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs. You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you.

You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot. And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake? You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease, you puerile, one-handed, slack-jawed, drooling, meatslapper.

On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go. You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod.

Bugger off, pillock. You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You gormless crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill. You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved.

I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go away. I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid, so stupid it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid.

Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me.

After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh. The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative post was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

RON PAUL is raising MMMMMMMMMMIiiilllllllliioonnssss. Mmmmmmiiiilllliioonnnnnssss and mmmmmmmiillllliioonnnnnsss of dolllllaaaarrrsss. Bwah ha ha ha ha. Now at last the time has come to unleash the the r3VOLution. Arise my fellow libertarian minions! Arise! No longer must we hide our true selves as we walk among the people. Show yourselves, stand up and be counted! For now at last our time has come, and we shall rule the earth!!

And what is the first thing we shall do once we seize the reigns of power? I will tell you. We will give Dondero a wedgie.

Market Relationships and Wealth Creation

2010-07-29T18:14:00.002-04:00

Market relationships are not just about economics, they are how people relate. There is always an exchange of value when two people interact, whether emotional, spiritual, intellectual, or, yes, economic. Most people expect to derive more value than the give else they'd not have the interaction in the first place unless force or coercion is involved. In that happy situation where two people exchange value voluntarily each walks away with more than they gave and wealth has been created.

Things I've Found July 29, 2010

2010-07-29T10:06:00.005-04:00

Just Think- Sam Harris part 1 of 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHHOiF-dFEg

Just Think- Sam Harris part 2 of 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG72wpp_mLM

Without Firing A Single Shot: Voluntaryist Resistance and Societal Defense
by Carl Watner

[I]n August 1915, Bertrand Russell published an article in THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY. He wrote: "Let us imagine that England were to disband its army, after a generation of instruction in the principles of passive resistance as a better defense than war. Let us suppose that England at the same time publicly announced that no armed opposition would be offered to any invader, that all might come freely, but that no obedience would be yielded to any commands that a foreign authority might issue. What would happen in this case?" First of all he noted that if England disbanded its army and navy, any would-be invader, such as Germany, would be hard-pressed to find a pretext for invasion. Suppose, however, that a German army invaded an England where no one offered violent resistance? After evicting the King from Buckingham Palace and taking over the Parliament building, what would the Germans do if all the existing British officials refused to cooperate?
Some of the more prominent would be imprisoned, perhaps even shot, in order to encourage the others. But if the others held firm, if they refused to recognize or transmit any order given by the Germans, if they continued to carry out decrees previously made by the English Parliament and the English government, the Germans would have to dismiss them all, even to the humblest postman, and call in German talent to fill the breach.
The dismissed officials could not all be imprisoned or shot; since no fighting would have occurred, such wholesale brutality would be out of the question. And it would be very difficult for the Germans suddenly, and out of nothing, to create an administrative machine. Whatever edicts they might issue would be quietly ignored by the population. If they ordered that German should be the language taught in schools, the schoolmasters would go on as if no such order had been issued; if the schoolmasters were dismissed, the parents would no longer send the children to school. If they ordered that English young men should undergo military service, the young men would simply refuse; ... . If they tried to take over the railways, there would be a strike of the railway servants. Whatever they touched would instantly become paralyzed, and it would soon be evident, even to them, that nothing was to be made out of England unless the population could be conciliated. ...
In a civilized, highly organized, highly political state, government is impossible without the consent of the governed. Any object for which a considerable body of men are prepared to starve and die can be achieved by ... [nonviolent] means, without the need of resort to force. And if this is true of objects desired by a minority only, it is a thousand times truer of objects desired unanimously by the whole nation.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/withoutfiringashot.php

How To Vote For Liberty
by Joe Sobran

http://voluntaryist.com/nonvoting/vote_for_liberty.php

This song always makes cry.

Samhain at Four Quarters Farm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK76IQD8sF0

Bradley Manning

2010-07-19T16:43:00.001-04:00

A 22-year-old US Army intelligence analyst, PFC (formerly SPC) Bradley Manning was arrested by the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command in May 2010. Manning was detained without charge for over a month in a military jail at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. In early July, he was faced with two charges of misconduct: "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorised software to a classified computer system" and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defence information to an unauthorised source". The maximum jail sentence is 52 years.

http://www.bradleymanning.org/

The Story of Your Enslavement

2010-04-19T17:36:00.000-04:00

Fighting for America's Tax Dollars

2010-04-16T17:38:00.000-04:00

I don't think it can be explained any better than this...

2010-03-25T20:04:00.001-04:00

HOWARD ZINN: “Holy Wars”

2010-02-21T18:45:00.002-05:00

I might disagree with his economic ideas, but that seems sort of minor compared to the things we agree on.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem

2010-02-10T17:43:00.004-05:00

Cause Void knows she isn't, not if she ever cries out Maranatha!

I already knew this having spent 10+ years as a fundamentalist, but it is interesting to hear it from the son-in-law of R. J. Rushdoony of all people...

In order for most of today’s Christians to escape physical death, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel must perish, soon. This is the grim prophetic trade-off that fundamentalists rarely discuss publicly, but which is the central motivation in the movement’s support for Israel. It should be clear why they believe that Israel must be defended at all costs by the West. If Israel were militarily removed from history prior to the Rapture, then the strongest case for Christians’ imminent escape from death would have to be abandoned. This would mean the indefinite delay of the Rapture. The fundamentalist movement thrives on the doctrine of the imminent Rapture, not the indefinitely postponed Rapture.

Every time you hear the phrase, "Jesus is coming back soon," you should mentally add, "and two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will be dead in ‘soon plus 84 months.’" Fundamentalists really do believe that they probably will not die physically, but to secure this faith prophetically, they must defend the doctrine of an inevitable holocaust.

This specific motivation for the support of Israel is never preached from any fundamentalist pulpit. The faithful hear sermons – many, many sermons – on the pretribulation Rapture. On other occasions, they hear sermons on the Great Tribulation. But they do not hear the two themes put together: "We can avoid death, but only because two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will inevitably die in a future holocaust. America must therefore support the nation of Israel in order to keep the Israelis alive until after the Rapture." Fundamentalist ministers expect their congregations to put two and two together on their own. It would be politically incorrect to add up these figures in public.

The Unannounced Reason Behind American Fundamentalism's Support for the State of Israel

I wonder what they will be saying when the children of everybody who was alive in 1948 have expired of old age and Jesus still hasn't come back...

Another Day In Paradise

2010-02-09T09:27:00.001-05:00

Here is a graph of my employers aggregate IP transit. I work for an ISP in DC. Many of our customers are government agencies, NGOs and the law firms that service them. It's interesting to see the effect of the Snowpocalypse on our traffic.

The Federal Government is closed again today, so I'm enjoying another day of working from home. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow!

Petty Tyranny

2010-02-09T00:51:00.005-05:00

America, where are you now?

City of King Declares State of "Emergency"

On February 5th, Stokes County, NC was hit pretty hard by a snow and ice storm. Downed trees and widespread power outages plagued the county, but Cliff and I were looking forward to a primitive, powerless, technologyless weekend. Much to our chagrin, our power was restored after just 5 short hours of gas log heat, and hand cranked emergency radio listening.

DSC_7164 This morning, the sun shone brightly. The ice and snow which once covered cold branches and power lines began to slink back into the ground in a shimmery display of ice crystals and light. The weather was relatively warm, and pleasant - especially considering 12 short hours before it had been a cold, rainy, icy, snowy mess.

So. Needless to say, when we got a call from Cliff's brother, Chad, about a state of "emergency" being declared right down the road, we were shocked.

"WHAT?! ....... In STOKES county?........"

Evidently Chad and his family were out at the local Mexican food joint for an afternoon lunch in the small town of King, NC. Chad noticed the waitress posting signs about a "curfew" and not being "allowed to sell alcohol" until further notice. He learned that the City of King had sent law enforcement officials to local restaurants and business owners to inform them that no one was allowed to be out of their residential homes between the hours of 12:00am-5:00am, effective immediately.

Read it all here...

Anarchy in Real Life

2010-02-08T23:06:00.002-05:00

Dedicated to Jonathan Blaque

Excerpted from Butler Shaffer

I am often asked if anarchy has ever existed in our world, to which I answer: almost all of your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression. How you deal with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow customers in shopping malls or grocery stores, is often determined by subtle processes of negotiation and cooperation. Social pressures, unrelated to statutory enactments, influence our behavior on crowded freeways or grocery checkout lines. If we dealt with our colleagues at work in the same coercive and threatening manner by which the state insists on dealing with us, our employment would be immediately terminated. We would soon be without friends were we to demand that they adhere to specific behavioral standards that we had mandated for their lives.

Should you come over to our home for a visit, you will not be taxed, searched, required to show a passport or driver’s license, fined, jailed, threatened, handcuffed, or prohibited from leaving. I suspect that your relationships with your friends are conducted on the same basis of mutual respect. In short, virtually all of our dealings with friends and strangers alike are grounded in practices that are peaceful, voluntary, and devoid of coercion.

This is just too weird

2010-01-31T20:13:00.003-05:00

OK, first I stumbled across this...

SENATE BURGLARY: CIA DOMESTIC BLACK-OP TEAM ARRESTED
ALL 4 INVOLVED IN SENATE HOMELAND SECURITY BREAKIN CIA “N-O-C” AGENTS

CIA PROGRAM MAY HAVE TRAINED DOMESTIC “DEATH SQUADS”

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

Last week’s breakin at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in the New Orleans Federal Building was more than it seemed, much more. All of the 4 arrested had been trained by the CIA and, possibly, Israel. One arrested, Stan Dai, is listed as an Operations Officer of the Department of Defense Irregular Warfare Program and a known expert and lecturer on, not only surveillance but explosives training, assassinations and “false flag operations.” If you wanted a plane to crash, an enemy to get sick and die or a building to blow up, Dai would be the man to know how to make it happen. Problem is, his skills were being used as part of a criminal conspiracy inside the United States against members of our own government.
Read the rest...

"Great," I think, "pure Alex Jones, black black helicopter, wack-a-doodle, interwebs nonsense." However, I started looking around to find something like a snopes.com refutation and what do I find but this...

Lindsay Beyerstein notes that one of the four men arrested, Stan Dai, has past ties to Washington national security think tank, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. From the bio that accompanied his 2005-2006 Phillips Foundation College Leaders Program award:

STAN DAI, Lisle, Ill., attends The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He is editor-in-chief of The GW Patriot, an alternative conservative student newspaper, a Club 100 Activist of Young America’s Foundation, and an Undergraduate Fellow on Terrorism of the Foundation for the Defense of the Democracies.

FDD executive director Cliff May says Dai was part of an FDD summer terrorism/counterterrorism program for undergraduates in the summer of 2004. "He was one of our students six years ago," May said by email. "He was a serious student then. Sounds like he’s got himself in a heap of trouble now."

He said it was his understanding that after graduation, Dai went to work at National Defense University, although he wasn't sure in what capacity.

"We haven’t been in touch with him in recent years," May said.

Dai, an immigrant from China, was president of the Conservative Student Union at George Washington University.

In 2008, he was assistant director of an intelligence community "center for academic excellence" at Trinity Washington University.

"Stan Dai was a junior program administrator for one year in a grant-funded program at Trinity Washington University," Ann Pauley, media relations director at Trinity Washington University. "The program was called the Intelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence (ICCAE) and was one of several similar programs created with federal funding through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence following the September 11 attacks. The purpose of the program was to introduce students in liberal arts colleges to concepts in intelligence studies and potential careers in intelligence. Mr. Dai has not worked at Trinity since October 2008 when the grant ended. Trinity’s ICCAE program also ended at the same time."

Read the rest...

And this...

Some highlights from Stan Dai's bio:

B. Career History
• Mr. Dai has been involved in JSA since 2001: after attending summer school at Yale, he founded the JSA chapter at Naperville North, served in various Midwest region positions, and was a resident assistant at Georgetown.
• Mr. Dai was the first Assistant Director of the Intelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence at Trinity in D.C.
• Prior to that, he served as the Operations Officer of a Department of Defense irregular warfare fellowship program.
• Mr. Dai graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the George Washington University. He was the editor-in-chief of The GW Patriot, an alternative conservative student newspaper, a Club 100 Activist of Young America’s Foundation, and an Undergraduate Fellow on Terrorism of the Foundation for the Defense of the Democracies.

Read the rest...

What to make of it?

I don't know.

"Religon Is A Virus That Attacks The Minds of Children"

2010-01-17T22:05:00.002-05:00

A French Revelation, or The Burning Bush
JAMES A. HAUGHT

Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

Honest. This isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.

Read it all here.

Speaks for itself

2010-01-16T23:14:00.002-05:00

Terrorism Over Detroit?

2009-12-29T21:54:00.001-05:00

Stupid is as stupid does.

2009-12-08T20:11:00.001-05:00

Wow, Just Wow.

2009-12-07T23:20:00.005-05:00

It's weird how I sometimes find things that reinforce my conclusions after I reach them.

The only way to effectively bring about a revolution for the betterment of mankind is to reach the individual. The message is simple: You are freedom. You are peace. You are love. You are truth. You mustn’t wait for anyone else. You mustn’t be afraid. You mustn’t worry that mass murderers are continually lauded as bringers of peace. It will continue. But we needn’t continue along with it. They’ve set the table, but what they’re serving is rancid leftovers. Walk away. It will feel better when you do it in your own way, not the way some charismatic leader tells you to. If you are willing, you are The Prince of Peace. ~ B.R. Merrick

So why is the US still in Afghanistan?

2009-12-06T09:47:00.003-05:00

Pepe Escobar, the go to guy for all things AF-PAK:

What about the new great game?

So why is the US still in Afghanistan? Facing the camera, as if addressing "the Afghan people", the president said, "we have no interest in occupying your country". But he could not possibly tell it like it really is to American prime-time TV viewers.

For corporate America, Afghanistan means nothing; it's the fifth-poorest country in the world, tribal and definitely not a consumer society. But for US Big Oil and the Pentagon, Afghanistan has a lot of mojo.

For Big Oil, the holy grail is access to Turkmenistan natural gas from the Caspian Sea - Pipelineistan at the heart of the new great game in Eurasia, avoiding both Russia and Iran. But there's no way to build the hugely strategic TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) pipeline - crossing Helmand province, and then Pakistan's Balochistan province - with Afghanistan mired in chaos, thanks to the pitiful performance of the US/NATO occupation.

There's a hand in surveying/controlling the $4 billion-a-year drug trade, directly and indirectly. Since the beginning of the US/NATO occupation, Afghanistan became a de facto narco-state, producing 92% of the world's heroin under a bunch of transnational narco-terrorist cartels.

And there's the full spectrum dominance Pentagon agenda - Afghanistan as part of the worldwide US empire of bases, monitoring strategic competitors China and Russia at their doorstep.

Obama simply ignored that there is an ultra-high-stakes new great game in Eurasia going on. So because of all that Obama did not say at West Point, Americans are being sold a "war of necessity" draining a trillion dollars that could be used to reduce unemployment and really help the US economy.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KL03Df04.html

Good News and Information Sources

2009-12-05T23:32:00.002-05:00

Here are a couple of sources I've found.

Nightwatch, an "open source" intelligence summary:

"NightWatch is an executive level intelligence recap drawn from domestic and international reporting and is provided as a service by AFCEA Intelligence.

"Mr. John McCreary is the NightWatch editor. John spent 38 years serving the Department of Defense Intelligence as a strategic analyst, most of that time in the Directorate of Intelligence (J2) office of the Joint Staff serving the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and the Secretary of Defense."
http://www.afcea.org/mission/intel/nightwatch.asp

The raw links are here:
http://nightwatch.afcea.org/

Asia Times Online:

"Asia Times Online comprises atimes.com, a free website, atimes.net, an advertisement-free site for subscribers, and atchinese.com, a free site for Chinese readers around the world. These are quality Internet-only publications that report on and examine geopolitical, political, economic and business issues. We look at these issues from an Asian perspective; this distinguishes us from the mainstream English-language media, whose reporting on Asian matters is generally by Westerners, for Westerners."
http://www.atimes.com/

Short and to the point.

2009-10-23T22:49:00.001-04:00

Dollars All The Way Down

2009-10-10T07:15:00.001-04:00

Will Grigg is... well, Will Grigg...

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the dollar has lost 96 percent of its purchasing power. The fact that the dollar can be used to purchase anything of value is an abiding testimony to the power of official myths to contort the thinking process of human beings en masse.
There is nothing behind the dollar apart from the "full faith and credit" of the world's most powerful criminal syndicate -- well, that, and the willingness of oil-producing states to accept the dollar in exchange for petroleum. Cut that last lifeline, and there is nothing to impede the dollar's immediate fall into utter uselessness.
I find myself reminded of the old joke about an astrophysicist who is accosted after a public lecture by a crusty old man of decidedly pre-Copernican views of the universe.
"You seem like a very bright young fellow," the old man begins, seasoning his words with condescension he wasn't entitled to express, "but you've got it all wrong. You see, the earth is actually carried on the back of a giant turtle. That's the simple truth."
"But what supports that turtle?" inquires the astrophysicist with a mixture of amusement and annoyance."
"Why, another turtle, of course!" ripostes the old man.
"And what --" begins the increasingly irritated scholar, before being cut off.
"You're a clever fellow, but it won't work!" exclaims the old man. "It's turtles all the way down!"
Commissar Bernanke and other guardians of official monetary superstition are committed to preserving the delusion that prosperity can be sustained on the back of a currency that is backed by nothing but itself. It's dollars all the way down -- an infinite regression into worthlessness.

Pro Libertate: Have a Nice Apocalypse!

This Deserves Quoting...

2009-10-08T23:45:00.003-04:00

It's odd to watch the ethos of public affairs these days. Everyone seems to agree that mistakes were made in the past. People lived beyond their means. The boom created nutty financial arrangements in which people with no money and no jobs and no prospect of paying were able to enter into massive credit obligations lasting decades. Everyone seems to understand that there is something wrong here.

Where the split occurs is what to do about it. The party in power is under the belief that the way to fix a problem is to continue the practices that caused the problem in the first place, and delay for as long as possible the correction that must take place. On the other side are people who believe that reality needs to reassert itself, and the sooner the better.

Take note that I'm not talking about the need for blood in the streets or for lives to be shattered. I'm talking about moving to a different neighborhood, possibly renting rather than "owning," and generally downscaling. Is that really too much to ask? Not really, so the question appears: why is the government not insisting on this? I think the answer comes down to the banks and institutions that continue to hold bad assets. They don't want them repriced because that would be liquidation, and they are powerful enough to concoct policies that prevent that, for now.

Read it all here

Straying of teh Res...

2009-10-04T09:42:00.002-04:00

And we all know where that leads...

Iran is challenging both the U.S. and Israel in a region of the world that we and our allies have long dominated. If they are allowed to get away with it, other “rogue” nations will get ideas, and then there’s no stopping the unraveling of the “world order” we have worked so long and hard to maintain. We may bankrupt ourselves in the process, drive the price of oil up to $200 a barrel, and start World War III—but confront them we will, of that you can rest assured. It’s only a matter of time. ~ Justin Raimondo

Iran, like Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Sudan and many other countries, rejects the status of a “second-tier” country. These countries refuse to accept the authority of the Empire.

They have thrown off the yoke of colonial oppressors and have charted their own independent courses on the world stage. Their peoples are like runaway slaves who have established their own modern maroon colonies and as such are viewed as a threat to the orderly administration of the New World Order.

And they must be brought back under control, lest they serve as dangerous examples for those peoples still enslaved. ~Centre for Global Research

This is not to say that I think there is anything admirable about Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Sudan and all the rest, but if you had been on the receiving end of the foreign policy of the people who now stand in judgment of them, say that of the United State, Britain and France, you might be acting like a bit of a terrorist yourself.

We should never, ever forget that we're ruled by psychopaths, deeply disturbed, sick shits who formulate viciously destructive policies while posing with smiles in expensive suits. ~piglipstick

On Demonstrations And What's To Be Done

2009-09-15T23:57:00.002-04:00

I found this on comment on a Bob Higgs post...

[A] simple demonstration in Washington DC is ineffective. The MSM downplay it, and everyone else ignores it.

It also seems that voting and writing to representatives are also ineffective. They are no longer listening, and in most districts have safe seats, so they are not very afraid of being thrown out of office. A Congressional incumbent has a very good chance of remaining in office as long as he or she wishes.

So, what do we do? I have three answers, an easy one, a much harder one, and a much, much harder one.

1) Easy: Withdraw our consent. Stop voting. Stop helping them pretend that they represent us. Volunteer nothing, just do what is absolutely required. Get as many people as possible to stop participating in the political system. Then we wait for the system to collapse due to lack of support. The problem is that the system may not collapse for a long time. Even if effective, this approach could take decades.

2) Much harder: Apply the program of Gandhi, “Satyagraha” or “Holding on to truth”, that gained freedom for India from the British Empire. We would take dissent to the level of breaking the law. This takes enormous courage and dedication as we have to be willing to be put in jail not once, but many times. We have to be willing to suffer injury. And, very important, we _must_ have truth on our side. If so, then, in the words of Gandhi, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Many may say that we are not yet at the point of the people of India under the British Raj. But, it seems we are not far off. They were not citizens, and could not vote, and their protests were ignored.

So, if our votes are ineffective, and our protests are ignored, are we much farther behind? Does being a US citizen mean much of anything any more?

3) Much, much, harder: Secede. The program under 2) can be applied with a small group of people, as long as they have popular support. Secession requires a large organization, and is fraught will difficulties. We have to find or create a suitable political subdivision, and we have to get most of the people within it to adopt our program to create a separate nation-state. Then, we have to try to execute a separation in the face of certain resistance up to the level of civil war. This has been done, of course, in our own “Revolution” 200+ years ago, and more recently in other parts of the world, typically in places were there is a ethnic, linguistic and/or historic basis for a new nation-state. In my view, the situation here is not yet to the point that most people would consider this very serious undertaking justified, even though the taxes and regulations and other invasions of liberty we face today are increasingly heavier that those our ancestors rebelled against in the 1770’s.

So there you are, take your pick, or suggest something else.

The National Security State

2009-09-06T18:34:00.009-04:00

Fifty [two] years ago, Harry Truman replaced the old republic with a national-security state whose sole purpose is to wage perpetual wars, hot, cold, and tepid.

Exact date of replacement? February 27, 1947.

Place: The White House Cabinet Room.

Cast: Truman, Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson, a handful of congressional leaders

Republican senator Arthur Vandenberg told Truman that he could have his militarized economy only IF he first "scared the hell out of the American people" that the Russians were coming. Truman obliged. The perpetual war began. Representative government of, by, and for the people is now a faded memory. Only corporate America enjoys representation by the Congress and presidents that it pays for in an arrangement where no one is entirely accountable because those who have bought the government also own the media. Now, with the revolt of the Praetorian Guard at the Pentagon, we are entering a new and dangerous phase. Although we regularly stigmatize other societies as rogue states, we ourselves have become the largest rogue state of all. We honor no treaties. We spurn international courts. We strike unilaterally wherever we choose. We give orders to the United Nations but do not pay our dues...we bomb, invade, subvert other states. Although We the People of the United States are the sole source of legitimate authority in this land, we are no longer represented in Congress Assembled. Our Congress has been hijacked by corporate America and its enforcer, the imperial military machine..." ~Gore Vidal.

The More Things "Change"

2009-09-06T16:49:00.001-04:00

In following Bush, Obama was given the opportunity either to restore the rule of law and the balance of powers or to firmly establish in place what were otherwise aberrant abuses of power. Thus far, President Obama has, in all the areas mentioned above, chosen the latter course. Everything described, from the continuation of crimes to the efforts to hide them away, from the corruption of corporate power to the assertion of the executive power to legislate, is Obama's presidency in its first seven months.

Which doesn't mean there aren't differences in the two moments. For one thing, Democrats have now joined Republicans in approving expanded presidential powers and even--in the case of wars, military strikes, lawless detention and rendition, warrantless spying, and the obstruction of justice--presidential crimes. ~David Swanson

If You Believe In The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

2009-09-05T08:29:00.004-04:00

but this picture bothers you...

...you might be a Republican

L. Neil Smith on Anger in America

2009-09-01T22:20:00.002-04:00

As I've been saying for decades, there is enormous anger simmering just below the surface of America's Productive Class. Year after year, decade after decade, century after century, they have labored hard to supply everything necessary and good in our society—from diesel fuel to lemon meringue pie, from the wheels that get us from one place to another, to the homes in which we find our refuge and comfort—only to have the rewards of their labor snatched away by rapacious parasites intent on controlling every moment and aspect of their lives.
Yet it is they, the Productive Class, who are the first to be blamed, by elements of the Non-Productive Class who couldn't tell a cotter pin from cottage cheese, for everything, real and imagined, that is said to be wrong with that society, from bad taste in color, cars, and clothing, to air pollution, depleted ozone, and global warming.
To the average politician, newspaper columnist, hairsprayed TV commentator, or Hollywood airhead, suburbia is a kind of despicable, disgusting, fetid swamp to be crawled out of, rather than as close to Utopia as humankind has ever come, the locus of all the wishes, hopes, and aspirations of a people whose only wish is to be left the hell alone.
And all these idiots can think of—congressthings and others of the so-called "dominant culture" who believe they own us—is how to suppress that anger for another year, another decade, another century. They desperately want to deny that their opposition is significant and serious. They want to dismiss it as right-wing racism and childish ingratitude. It would never occur to them to consider what that anger might be about, or that it might be justified. They simply want it managed. It's probably too late for that, but they'll be the last to know.
Read it all here...

The Genius of Ben Bernanke

2009-08-28T19:22:00.001-04:00

Obituary

2009-08-26T21:47:00.002-04:00

Ten Lost Years

2009-08-21T20:42:00.002-04:00

Thomas Woods. As usual...

2009-08-20T23:49:00.000-04:00

...right

Tasers

2009-08-10T23:07:00.001-04:00

Representatives of the government torture innocent citizens into unconsciousness, on camera, in United States courtrooms with tasers. They use them on prisoners and on motorists and on political protesters and bicycle riders, on mentally ill and handicapped people and on children And it's happening with nary a peep of protest.

America's torture problem is much bigger than Gitmo or the CIA or the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The government is torturing people every day and killing some of them. Then videos of the torture wind up on Youtube where sadists laugh and jeer at the victims. It's the sign of profound cultural illness.

Digby, Let's talk about tasers

Lodge Doctors

2009-08-08T18:39:00.007-04:00

Lower East Side Tenement Museum: Abraham Rogarshevsky's Doctor - Louis Freedman

Fraternal organizations, like the Sons of Telsh, hired physicians to treat members and their families in return for a set annual fee. Numerous immigrant groups in urban areas engaged doctors in this way, but commentators associated the system especially with New York Jewish burial societies.

The system of hiring doctors gave society members access to primary health care. But just as importantly, it preserved the immigrants' sense of dignity and guaranteed them a great deal of power in the doctor-patient relationship. For the cost of $2-3 (the cost of one or two visits from a private physician), an immigrant family could enjoy the services of a society doctor for the entire year. The services of the lodge doctor resembled those of a private physician in that treatment was carried out at the home, and therefore at the convenience of the patient. Inexpensive access to medical care probably encouraged early treatment, may have prevented the progression of disease, and definitely limited the use of patent medicines and folk healers.

The system also benefited the doctors. A recently graduated physician could build up a practice by securing a society contract, while he built up an independent clientele. Physicians who were immigrants themselves often had a limited pool of potential patients, since they faced social and cultural barriers to practicing outside their immigrant community. The medical profession was particularly popular among Eastern European Jews in New York; a 1906 study reported on the overabundant supply of physicians.

Serving as a society doctor was hard work. Physicians sometimes served as many as ten different fraternal organizations. An article in the Tageblat estimated that the lodge doctor might see upwards of 100 patients a day. Not, surprisingly, the hours were long. For example, Dr. Freedman had office hours from 8-10am, 2-3pm, and 6-8pm. In addition, he had to make house calls, frequently over a wide geographic area. Forced to climb up and down tenement stairs, lodge doctors found their patients exceedingly demanding. Physicians' harried schedules and inexperience sometimes compromised the quality of care provided by lodge doctors. The Tageblat reported, "sad is the life of the lodge and society doctor, but sadder still is the suffering of the majority of patients who are treated by this sort of doctor."

Members of burial societies did not have to resort to public dispensaries, like the Good Samaritan Dispensary at the corner of Broome and Essex Streets, or hospital clinics, the other major healthcare providers for the poor, which carried the stigma of charity. Dispensaries, the main alternative to contract medicine, had all its deficiencies plus the taint of charity. Like their colleagues in society practice, dispensary doctors faced overwhelming workloads. Patients waited for hours in crowded conditions for perfunctory examinations. The doctors, frequently hailing from a different ethnic and class background than their patients, were viewed with suspicion. After 1899, because of a law, only the indigent could visit dispensaries. Thus, use of the clinics constituted a public declaration of penury and left the patients open to a range of intrusive investigations regarding their worthiness for medical care.

Pro:

The services of the lodge doctor resembled those of a private physician in that treatment was carried out at the home, and therefore at the convenience of the patient. Inexpensive access to medical care probably encouraged early treatment, may have prevented the progression of disease, and definitely limited the use of patent medicines and folk healers.

The system also benefited the doctors. A recently graduated physician could build up a practice by securing a society contract, while he built up an independent clientele. Physicians who were immigrants themselves often had a limited pool of potential patients, since they faced social and cultural barriers to practicing outside their immigrant community.

Con:

Physicians sometimes served as many as ten different fraternal organizations. . . .the lodge doctor might see upwards of 100 patients a day. Not, surprisingly, the hours were long. For example, Dr. Freedman had office hours from 8-10am, 2-3pm, and 6-8pm. In addition, he had to make house calls, frequently over a wide geographic area. Forced to climb up and down tenement stairs, lodge doctors found their patients exceedingly demanding. Physicians' harried schedules and inexperience sometimes compromised the quality of care provided by lodge doctors.

Compared to What?

Members of burial societies did not have to resort to public dispensaries, like the Good Samaritan Dispensary at the corner of Broome and Essex Streets, or hospital clinics, the other major healthcare providers for the poor, which carried the stigma of charity. Dispensaries, the main alternative to contract medicine, had all its deficiencies plus the taint of charity. Like their colleagues in society practice, dispensary doctors faced overwhelming workloads. Patients waited for hours in crowded conditions for perfunctory examinations. The doctors, frequently hailing from a different ethnic and class background than their patients, were viewed with suspicion. After 1899, because of a law, only the indigent could visit dispensaries. Thus, use of the clinics constituted a public declaration of penury and left the patients open to a range of intrusive investigations regarding their worthiness for medical care.

Medical Care Before the Welfare State, 1900-1930

On the face of it, a historical study of fraternal societies seems to be a subject fit only for connoisseurs of the arcane. Few Americans these days come into contact with such groups. When many of us hear the word lodge, we think of it as a place where television characters from our youth, such as Ralph Kramden (of the Loyal Order of Raccoons) and Fred Flintstone (of the Loyal Order of Water Buffalos), escaped from their more sensible wives to engage in childish hijinks—parading around with silly hats and mouthing pretentious rituals.

There was a time, however, when fraternal societies could not be so easily dismissed. Before the rise of the welfare state, they were rivaled only by churches as organizational providers of social welfare. By conservative estimates eighteen million American men and women were members in 1920 at least three out of every ten adult males. While fraternal societies differed in ethnicity, class, and gender, most shared a common set of characteristics. In general, this included a decentralized lodge system, some sort of ritual, and the payment of cash benefits in times of sickness and death.

By the turn of the century, an increasing number of societies began to add treatment by a doctor to their menu of services. This arrangement was known as lodge practice. It involved a simple contract under which a physician provided care in exchange for an annual salary determined by the size of lodge membership. To qualify, a prospective lodge doctor had to win an election by the members. Generally lodge practice plans did not extend beyond basic primary care and minor surgery, although a few provided hospitalization.

Lodge practice became particularly extensive in urban and industrial centers. In 1915, for example, Dr. S.S. Goldwater, Health Commissioner of New York City, went so far as to assert that in many communities it had become “the chosen or established method of dealing with sickness among the relatively poor.” In the Lower East Side of New York City, he noted, 500 physicians catered to Jewish societies alone. Among blacks in New Orleans there were over 600 fraternal societies with lodge practice during the 1920s.

The most important beneficiary of lodge practice was, of course, the patient of modest means. He or she was able to obtain the care of a doctor for about two dollars a year roughly equivalent to a day’s wage for a laborer. If translated into 1994 dollars, this annual fee would be equivalent to about 14 dollars, the hourly wage of some construction workers today!

The remuneration paid to the lodge doctor was a far cry from the higher fee schedules favored by the profession. A local medical society in Pennsylvania was typical in setting for its members the following minimum fees: one dollar per physical examination, surgical dressing, and housecall (daytime) and two dollars (nighttime). Such prices, at least for continual service, would have been out of reach for many poor Americans.

And what happened to these what must be judged on the whole as successful private social service initiatives?

Even before the Depression, lodge practice had begun to fall into a state of decline. The pressure exerted by the leaders of organized medicine hastened the demise. By the 1910s, doctors had launched an all-out war against lodge practice. Throughout the country, medical associations imposed a range of sanctions against lodge doctors, including expulsion from the association and denial of hospital facilities. In certain instances, campaigns were organized to deny patient care, even in emergencies, to members of offending lodges. Most commentary from both sides of this conflict indicates that these sanctions were highly effective. In any case, by the end of the 1930s, the once vibrant health care alternative of lodge practice, which less than two decades before had inspired trepidation throughout the medical establishment, had virtually disappeared.

Over time the AMA was successful in establishing a cartel

1913
AMA establishes a "Propaganda Department" to gather and disseminate information concerning health fraud and quackery
1922
Judicial Council amended The Principles of Medical Ethics, outlawing the solicitation of patients by physicians, a policy that remained in effect until the new Principleswere adapted in 1980
1934
During the Depression, the Judicial Council amended the Principles by making it unethical for any physician to dispose of his or her services to any lay body, organization, group, or individual under the conditions that would permit any of them to receive a profit on the doctor's services

A standard response to the suggestion that society can be ordered and organized by non-coercive means is what Stefan Moylneux calls the Argument from Apocolypse.

The basic argument is that if we accept proposition “X,” civilized society will collapse, children will die in the streets, the old will end up eating each other, and the world will dissolve into an endless and apocalyptic war of all against all.

When it is suggested that perhaps the federal government might not be capable of engineering the health care "system" it means, of course, you want to keep things as they are now, only worse because you want old people to eat dog-food and die in the streets of swine flu!

But there was a time when ease of entry, voluntary association and price competition--in other words, a free market--provided normative health care to the "poor" without the enforcement arm of the state.

I Did Not Know This

2009-08-08T17:55:00.003-04:00

The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing or even seeing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight? Particularly when hundreds of billions of dollars of currency swaps have been announced and implemented, the Fed’s negotiations with the European Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and other institutions should face increased scrutiny, most especially because of their significant effect on foreign policy. If the State Department were able to do this, it would be characterized as a rogue agency and brought to heel, and if a private individual did this he might face prosecution under the Logan Act, yet the Fed avoids both fates. More...

Now I do.

H.R.1207: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009
S.604: Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009

Nock: Turning Every Contingency Into A Resource

2009-08-08T11:12:00.006-04:00

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." ~ Rahm Emanuel.

. . .many of our people were in hard straits; to some extent, no doubt, through no fault of their own, though it is now clear that in the popular view of their case, as well as in the political view, the line between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor was not distinctly drawn.

Popular feeling ran high at the time, and the prevailing wretchedness was regarded with undiscriminating emotion, as evidence of some general wrong done upon its victims by society at large, rather than as the natural penalty of greed, folly or actual misdoings; which in large part it was.

The State, always instinctively "turning every contingency into a resource" for accelerating the conversion of social power into State power, was quick to take advantage of this state of mind. All that was needed to organize these unfortunates into an invaluable political property was to declare the doctrine that the State owes all its citizens a living; and this was accordingly done.

It immediately precipitated an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, an enormous resource for strengthening the State at the expense of society

~ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy The State

Hypothetically Axiomatic Praxeology

2009-08-07T22:51:00.002-04:00

With a nod toward Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

In every voluntary exchange both exchange partners must benefit from the exchange, otherwise the exchange would not have taken place.

Is this statement hypothetical or axiomatic?

Is it akin to saying the world consumes twice as much beef than pork or an object cannot be in two places at the same time?

The former could be reversed without saying something patently absurd: The world consumes twice as much pork than it does beef. It can also be tested. The latter, though, an object can be in two places (or more) at the same time is nonsense on the face of it (except perhaps on some quantum level that has nothing to do with faces smacking into windshields). How could you even construct a test to prove, or better, falsify it? According to Karl Popper, if you can't test it it's not true. But you can't test it except to examine every particle in the universe. Is it any less true regardless?

So is the statement about voluntary exchange of the type the world consumes more beef than pork or an object cannot be in two places at once?

The thing is, obscure as that might be, as much as you may see angels dancing on the head of a pin, so much about the study of economics as a science flows from the answer to that question that I shudder to think that the people who have complete control of the economic and political structures of our society have never considered it. Yet on they blather... agreggate consumer confidence... monetary easing... abracadbra... alakazam!

Whenever I get confronted with something like this the first time it clicks it is an almost Zen moment of knowing. Later I want to poke the guy who asked it in the eye with a stick.

Socrates got what he had coming.

Functionally Atheist

2009-08-07T20:56:00.003-04:00

I'm not an atheist, actually, but can make no claims about God, whatever God may be or not be, outside of my own subjective experience. When it comes to God, there is no "out there" out there where God could be. There is only "in here" and I'm the only one in here, besides God.

However, I live in what is, or at least some how appears to be, a real, material universe. By reality I mean what Phillip K. Dick put perfectly: "That which does not go away because you stop believing it." In that place, the only place we exist as far as others are concerned, the only medium through which we can communicate, there is no evidence of God. Nothing objective anyway.

The net effect is, when it comes to material reality I'm a stone cold materialist. I believe some ever more precise combination of physics (and all it entails) and reason will account for all that we experience. This is not to say there is no God, just that everything we've learned as we've turned away from ignorance and superstition has taught us God is not required.

I think that's about as close to falsifiability as you get with respect to God and God does not do well in the encounter.

On the other hand. Inside where I live, where my existence is a continuing play of symbols and metaphor, grasping for patterns in the waves of sensation constantly pouring over me, there is a place where I experience something larger than me. I don't know how else to describe it. I truly experience it rarely, but when I do. mostly in some sort of meditative state, or when genuinely at peace--sitting on a hillside on a warm spring day--I can see forever and feel the all of everything humming. A soft warmth in the darkness. Encompassing.

But totally subjective. I wouldn't think of trying to prove such a thing.

Ain Soph Aur
Ain Soph
Ain
.

God
is
Not!

God=Not

!God

Things I Found August 7, 2009

2009-08-07T19:49:00.003-04:00

Feds at DefCon Alarmed After RFIDs Scanned

LAS VEGAS — It’s one of the most hostile hacker environments in the country –- the DefCon hacker conference held every summer in Las Vegas.

But despite the fact that attendees know they should take precautions to protect their data, federal agents at the conference got a scare on Friday when they were told they might have been caught in the sights of an RFID reader.

The reader, connected to a web camera, sniffed data from RFID-enabled ID cards and other documents carried by attendees in pockets and backpacks as they passed a table where the equipment was stationed in full view.

Read it all here.

AP ENTERPRISE: Federal tax revenues plummeting

AP ENTERPRISE: Plummeting tax revenues starve government just as Obama embarks on big plans

STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
AP News

Aug 03, 2009 19:51 EST

The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation's plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab. The numbers could hardly be more stark...

Agog over Bush's comments on Gog and Magog

It's awkward to say openly, but now-departed President Bush is a religious crackpot, an ex-drunk of small intellect who "got saved." He never should have been entrusted with power to start wars.

For six years, Americans really haven't known why he launched the unnecessary Iraq attack. Official pretexts turned out to be baseless. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, after all, and wasn't in league with terrorists, as the White House alleged. Collapse of his asserted reasons led to speculation about hidden motives: Was the invasion loosed to gain control of Iraq's oil -- or to protect Israel -- or to complete Bush's father's old vendetta against the late dictator Saddam Hussein? Nobody ever found an answer.

Now, added to the other suspicions, comes the goofy possibility that arcane, supernatural Bible prophecies were a factor. This casts an ominous pall over the needless war that has killed more than 4,000 young Americans and cost U.S. taxpayers perhaps $1 trillion.

Read it all here.

Pro Libertate: The Plague of Punitive Populism

2009-08-07T19:45:00.001-04:00

Will Grigg has once again outdone himself...

The Plague of Punitive Populism

By William N. Grigg

"Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there."

-- Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath

I suggest that liberty-minded Americans... can learn much about themselves and those around them through [what] we could call the "Tom Joad Test."

I'm not a fan of Steinbeck's incurably wrong-headed economic views or his idiosyncratic collectivist politics in general, although I must admit a sneaking respect for anybody who attracts the hostile interest of the FBI solely on the strength of his published writings.

His creation Tom Joad isn't among my favorite fictional characters. But there is substantial merit in Joad's pledge to sympathize with those who are victims of Power.

Early in The Grapes of Wrath, Joad--recently paroled after serving four years in prison for killing a man who stabbed him in a fight -- becomes re-acquainted with Jim Casy, a fallen Oklahoma Pentecostal preacher who has embraced a populist version of Emerson's "oversoul" concept: "Maybe all men got one big soul ever'body's a part of."

Thus was planted the seed that would sprout into Joad's famous soliloquy, which included the pledge that "Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there."

So here, stated briefly, is the question that serves as the shibboleth/sibbolet dividing line in the "Tom Joad Test":

When you see a cop -- or, more likely, several of them -- beating up on a prone individual, do you instinctively sympathize with the assailant(s) or the victim?

If it's the former, you're an authoritarian, irrespective of your partisan attachments or professed political philosophy.

If it's the latter, you're an instinctive libertarian, whether or not you are consistently guided by that impulse in your political decisions.

It may later be demonstrated that the figure on the receiving end of the beating had committed some horrible crime. However, such a disclosure wouldn't invalidate the results of the Tom Joad Test, because that test reveals a subject's default assumptions about the relationship between the individual and the state.

Read it all here.

Things I Found August 5, 2009

2009-08-05T20:13:00.004-04:00

I will let you in on a secret: the government could never own you even if you tried to sell yourself to it. Government has nothing with which to purchase you, since government can't legitimately own anything. And, if it did try, you would be admitting that you own yourself in order to legitimately sell yourself to the state.

~ Kent McManigal. Government is a Euphemism for Slavery

It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power. There is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.

~ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy The State

The broader question of where we go as a nation pulses with tragedy. History is clearly presenting us with a new set of mandates: get local, get finer, downscale, and get going on it right away. Prepare for it now or nature will whack you upside the head with it not too long from now. Attempting to maintain anything on the gigantic scale will turn out to be a losing proposition, whether it is military control of people in Central Asia, or colossal bureaucracies run in the USA, or huge factory farms, or national chain store retail, or hypertrophied state universities, or global energy supply networks.

These imperatives are so outside-the-box of ordinary experience right now, that to drag them into the arena of politics can only evoke blank stares or nervous giggling. But whether we like it or not, these are the things that will really matter in the years ahead — not whether General Motors can ever make a profit again, or what Target Store’s sales figures are next quarter, or whether the latest high-rise condo-and-gambling complex in Las Vegas will be successfully marketed.

Here, in the dog days of summer, it seems to me that the situation in the USA is so fundamentally bad, so unpromising, so booby-trapped for failure, that I wonder if there has ever been a society so badly deluded as ours. We’re prisoners of our wishes, living in a strange dream-time, oblivious to the forces gathering at the margins of our vision, lost in a wilderness of our own making.

James Howard Kunstler, Monumentally Tragic Disappointment on the Horizon

Things I Found August 4, 2009

2009-08-04T19:32:00.003-04:00

[T]he SEC says that Bank of America executives concealed information from its shareholders prior to the shareholder vote to merge, harming those shareholders. Therefore, the same shareholders who were harmed by the concealment now have to pay another $33 million. Is this justice?

~ Randall Holcombe

The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitable he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.

~ H.L. Mencken

One of the most perversely misleading myths about government is that it promotes order within its own bailiwick, keeps groups from constantly warring with each other and somehow creates togetherness and harmony. In fact, that’s the exact opposite of the truth. There’s no cosmic imperative for different people to rise up against one another – unless they’re organized into political groups. The Middle East, now the world’s most fertile breeding ground for hatred, provides an excellent example.

Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together peaceably in Palestine, Lebanon and North Africa for centuries, until the situation became politicized after WWI. Until then an individual’s background and beliefs were just personal attributes, not a casus belli. Government was at its most benign, an ineffectual nuisance that concerned itself mostly with extorting taxes. People were busy with that most harmless of activities, making money.

But politics does not deal with people as individuals. It scoops them up into parties and nations. And some group inevitably winds up using the power of the state (however innocently or "justly" at first) to impose its values and wishes on others, with predictably destructive results. What would otherwise be an interesting kaleidoscope of humanity then sorts itself out according to the lowest common denominator peculiar to the time and place.

The Essence of Government, Doug Casey

Mandatory Binding Arbitration

2009-08-03T21:52:00.006-04:00

In looking for something which I have now forgotten I came across this editorial in the Washington Post on the topic of private arbitration. In truth, I came across the the response from Kia C. Franklin first, then found the original editorial. Since DROs and other methods of stateless conflict resolution rely upon third party arbitration, I though it might be of value to see what the current non-free model is and if it has anything to teach about how it could or would work in a voluntary society.

I suppose the first sticking point I have is with the term mandatory. I'm already halfway out the door when I hear that.

As the editorialist said...

Most consumers aren't aware that many of the contracts they sign include these provisions. Even those aware of the provisions are helpless to do anything about them because consumers generally must accept contracts in their entirety. And some provisions -- such as those that force consumers to travel cross-country to attend arbitration hearings -- can be unfair.

I suppose the caveat of freely entered into could apply. If you signed a contract a contract knowing the provisions contained in it, well, what can I say?

Courts from time to time have struck down extreme provisions, but there are no uniform national standards. Several bills pending in Congress attempt to address these inequities.

As Stefan Molyneux would say, "More guns will solve everything!"

The typical unreasoned response to the suggestion that if you remove coercive monopoly violence from the social equation is to protest that without the restraining hand of the state there would be no rules or order, people would just run around doing whatever they wanted. It would be a chaotic nightmare.

But what is more chaotic, abiding by the terms of a signed contract or facing the agreed upon sanctions or not knowing if the terms will be upheld because a judge or legislator can set them aside later in favor of one party or the other?

The state creates the very uncertainty and doubt it claims to be protecting us from.

Services that require you to accept onerous terms are not monsters of exploitation--well, maybe they are, but that's a different discussion. In this context they represent an opportunity for enterprising entrepreneurs. Offer the same service on better terms if you can. If you can't then don't turn to the someone with a gun to solve your problem for you.

The Washington Post
A Good Arbiter
Congress considers new laws regulating the resolution of disputes between businesses and consumers.
Saturday, April 12, 2008; Page A14
VIRTUALLY everyone who carries a credit card is subject to something called a binding mandatory arbitration agreement. So is almost anyone who owns a cellphone or who recently purchased a car from a dealer.
These agreements are often buried deep in the fine print of consumer contracts; they mandate that any dispute between the consumer and the company be resolved through private arbitration. That means a neutral third party -- often a former judge -- rules on the issue, and both sides are bound by the decision. Arbitration is generally cheaper and speedier than litigation. Surveys show that business strongly favors it, while consumers are also generally approving.
Still, binding mandatory arbitration provisions in consumer contracts have come under attack recently, and for some good reasons. Most consumers aren't aware that many of the contracts they sign include these provisions. Even those aware of the provisions are helpless to do anything about them because consumers generally must accept contracts in their entirety. And some provisions -- such as those that force consumers to travel cross-country to attend arbitration hearings -- can be unfair. Courts from time to time have struck down extreme provisions, but there are no uniform national standards. Several bills pending in Congress attempt to address these inequities.
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) would prohibit binding mandatory arbitration provisions in all consumer and employment contracts; the bill allows arbitration only after a dispute arises and only if both parties agree. This goes too far and risks eliminating arbitration as a serious alternative to litigation for such routine matters as warranty disputes, as even some supporters of the bill acknowledge. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) provides a better framework to improve the system. Mr. Sessions's bill would, among other things, force companies to more prominently display arbitration provisions and provide an explanation of how the costs of the arbitration are to be split between consumer and business. The bill also would allow consumers to opt out of arbitration in favor of small-claims court. Any hearing would have to take place in a location convenient to the consumer, and arbitrators would be required to apply the laws of the state in which the consumer resides.
This week, Sens. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) introduced legislation to ban mandatory arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts. This narrow exception may be warranted. Nursing home residents are among the most vulnerable in the country, and decisions to place family members in these facilities are often made under the most stressful of circumstances. Allowing residents or their families to sue may be the only way to prod nursing homes to improve care.

The Injustice of Private Arbitration
Monday, April 21, 2008; Page A14
Your April 12 editorial "A Good Arbiter" completely ignored the high upfront costs, the heavy anti-consumer bias and the gross procedural disadvantages that characterize private arbitration as opposed to our public courts of law.
These features are why consumer groups, patient advocates, employment rights activists -- essentially everyone besides the corporate lobby -- generally oppose mandatory arbitration of disputes between corporations and regular people.
Arbitration creates grave injustices for the up to 20 percent of American workers who, to keep or get jobs, must waive their constitutional right to take lawbreaking employers to court. If their employer underpays, discriminates against, denies workers' compensation to or otherwise illegally mistreats employees, the employer's handpicked private arbitration company will hear the dispute.
Unlike the measure from Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), the bill by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) does absolutely nothing for the most financially vulnerable Americans, who in this economy must choose between much-needed employment opportunities and much-cherished constitutional rights. More is at stake here than $200 cellphone contract disputes that can be taken to small-claims court.
KIA C. FRANKLIN
Senior Fellow in Civil Justice
Drum Major Institute for Public Policy
New York

Everyday Anarchy Moving.

2009-08-03T20:50:00.004-04:00

I have been posting Stefan Molyneux' Everyday Anarchy section by section the past few days. I will cease now. The reason being that it is appearing here instead. It is currently at Everyday Anarchy 05: Politics And Self-Interest.

I'm am reserving this space for more informal purposes and day-to-day stuff.

I think getting Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy in HTML format is important. Molyneux makes strong arguments. It's good to have a ready reference for them. Being able to link to them directly as opposed to a PDF will be more likely to drive others to read them, perhaps the ideas will sink in.

One can always hope.

Spontaneous Order

2009-08-02T16:14:00.006-04:00

The study of complexity, or chaos, informs us of patterns of regularity that lie hidden in our world, but which spontaneously manifest themselves to generate the order that we like to pretend authorities have created for us. There is much to discover about the interplay of unseen forces that work, without conscious direction, to make our lives more productive and peaceful than even the best-intended autocrat can accomplish. As the disruptive histories of state planning and regulation reveal, efforts to impose order by fiat often produce disorder, a phenomenon whose explanation is to be found in the dynamical nature of complexity. In the words of Terry Pratchett: "Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. Chaos always defeats order because it is better organized." ~ Butler Shaffer

If we progressively increase the temperature of the bottom plane, there will be a temperature at which something dramatic happens in the liquid: convection cells will appear. The microscopic random movement spontaneously becomes ordered on a macroscopic level, with a characteristic correlation length. The rotation of the cells is stable and will alternate from clock-wise to counter-clockwise as we move along horizontally: there is a spontaneous symmetry breaking.
[T]he deterministic law at the microscopic level produces a non-deterministic arrangement of the cells: if you reproduce the experiment many times, a particular position in the experiment will be in a clockwise cell in some cases, and a counter-clockwise cell in others. Microscopic perturbations of the initial conditions are enough to produce a macroscopic effect: this is an example of the Butterfly effect from Chaos theory.

Anarchy: You're Doing It Right! (Already)

2009-08-02T15:37:00.008-04:00

Stephan Kinsella

If most people did not already have the character to voluntarily respect most of their neighbors’ rights, society and civilization would be impossible. Most people are good enough to permit civilization to occur, despite the existence of some degree of public and private crime.

Butler Shaffer

I am often asked if anarchy has ever existed in our world, to which I answer: almost all of your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression. How you deal with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow customers in shopping malls or grocery stores, is often determined by subtle processes of negotiation and cooperation. Social pressures, unrelated to statutory enactments, influence our behavior on crowded freeways or grocery checkout lines. If we dealt with our colleagues at work in the same coercive and threatening manner by which the state insists on dealing with us, our employment would be immediately terminated. We would soon be without friends were we to demand that they adhere to specific behavioral standards that we had mandated for their lives.
Should you come over to our home for a visit, you will not be taxed, searched, required to show a passport or driver’s license, fined, jailed, threatened, handcuffed, or prohibited from leaving. I suspect that your relationships with your friends are conducted on the same basis of mutual respect. In short, virtually all of our dealings with friends and strangers alike are grounded in practices that are peaceful, voluntary, and devoid of coercion.

Stefan Moylneux

For instance, take dating, marriage and family.
In any reasonably free society, these activities do not fall in the realm of political coercion. No government agency chooses who you are to marry and have children with, and punishes you with jail for disobeying their rulings. Voluntarism, incentive, mutual advantage - dare we say "advertising"? - all run the free market of love, sex and marriage.
What about your career? Did a government official call you up at the end of high school and inform you that you were to become a doctor, a lawyer, a factory worker, a waiter, an actor, a programmer - or a philosopher? Of course not. You were left free to choose the career that best matched your interests, abilities and initiative.
What about your major financial decisions? Each month, does a government agent come to your house and tell you exactly how much you should save, how much you should spend, whether you can afford that new couch or old painting? Did you have to apply to the government to buy a new car, a new house, a plasma television or a toothbrush?
No, in all the areas mentioned above - love, marriage, family, career, finances - we all make our major decisions in the complete absence of direct political coercion.
Thus - if anarchy is such an all-consuming, universal evil, why is it the default - and virtuous - freedom that we demand in order to achieve just liberty in our daily lives?
If the government told you tomorrow that it was going to choose for you where to live, how to earn your keep, and who to marry - would you fall to your knees and thank the heavens that you have been saved from such terrible anarchy - the anarchy of making your own decisions in the absence of direct political coercion?
Of course not - quite the opposite - you would be horrified, and would oppose such an encroaching dictatorship with all your might.
This is what I mean when I say that we consider anarchy to be an irreducible evil - and also an irreducible good. It is both feared and despised - and considered necessary and virtuous.
If you were told that tomorrow you would wake up and there would be no government, you would doubtless fear the specter of "anarchy."
If you were told tomorrow that you would have to apply for a government permit to have children, you would doubtless fear the specter of "dictatorship," and long for the days of "anarchy," when you could decide such things without the intervention of political coercion.
Thus we can see that we human beings are deeply, almost ferociously ambivalent about "anarchy." We desperately desire it in our personal lives, and just as desperately fear it politically.

Today In Oleomargarine History

2009-08-02T15:04:00.006-04:00

Today in History for Sunday, August 2, 2009

The Oleomargarine Act established the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) laboratory system, 1886.

From *The Old Farmer's Almanac*.

How much you wanna bet it was stuck in as a rider on some unread amendment? For the children!

Arguing From First Principles

2009-08-02T12:52:00.003-04:00

Stephan Kinsella does

[A]nyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)

As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression – the initiation of force against innocent victims – is justified. No surprise; it is not possible to show this. But criminals don’t feel compelled to justify aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?

Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won’t "work" or is not "practical" is just confused. Anarchists don’t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved – I for one don’t think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.

[U]tilitarian replies like "but we need a state" do not contradict the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the initiation of force against innocent victims – i.e., he shares the criminal/socialist mentality. The private criminal thinks his own need is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his needs; to hell with what is right and wrong. The advocate of the state thinks that his opinion that "we" "need" things justifies committing or condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as that. Whatever this argument is, it is not libertarian. It is not opposed to aggression. It is in favor of something else – making sure certain public "needs" are met, despite the cost – but not peace and cooperation. The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the same – innocent lives are trampled by physical assault. Some have the stomach for this; others are more civilized – libertarian, one might say – and prefer peace over violent struggle.

Audit The Fed

2009-08-02T11:09:00.005-04:00

When they what to know what's is in your bank account they get one of these.

When we want to know what's in theirs we get one of these.

You have a congressional representative...
H.R. 1207: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009

...and two senators.
S. 604: Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009

Make them do their job.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin...

Everyday Anarchy 04: Anarchy And History

2009-08-02T09:56:00.000-04:00

EVERYDAY ANARCHY

By Stefan Molyneux

ANARCHY AND HISTORY

Our clichéd vision of the typical anarchist tends to see him emerging shortly before World War I, which is very interesting when you think about it. The stereotypical anarchist is portrayed as a feverish failure, who uses his political ideology as a self-righteous cover for his lust for violence. He claims he wishes to free the world from tyranny, when in fact all he wants to do is to break bones and take lives.

We typically view this anarchist as a form of terrorist, which is generally defined as someone committed to the use of violence to achieve political ends, and place both in the same category as those who attempt a military coup against an existing government.

However, when you break it down logically, it seems almost impossible to provide a definition of terrorism which does not also include political leaders, or at least the political process itself.

The act of war is itself an attempt to achieve political ends through the use of violence - the annexation of property, the capturing of a new tax base, or the overthrow of a foreign government - and it always requires a government that is willing and able to increase the use of violence against its own citizens, through tax increases and/or the military draft. Even defending a country against invasion inevitably requires an escalation of the use of force against domestic citizens.

Thus how can we easily divide those outside the political process who use violence to achieve their goals from those within the political process who use violence to achieve their goals? It remains a daunting task, to say the least.

What is fascinating about the mythology of the "evil anarchists" - and mythology it is - is that even if we accept the stereotype, the disparity in body counts between the anarchists and their enemies remains staggeringly misrepresented, to say the least.

Anarchists in the period before the First World War killed perhaps a dozen or a score of people, almost all of them state heads or their representatives.

On the other hand, state heads or their representatives caused the deaths of over 10 million people through the First World War.

If we value human life - as any reasonable and moral person must - then fearing anarchists rather than political leaders is like fearing spontaneous combustion rather than heart disease. In the category of "causing deaths," a single government leader outranks all anarchists tens of thousands of times.

Does this seem like a surprising perspective to you? Ah, well that is what happens when you look at the facts of the world rather than the stories of the victors. Another example would be an objective examination of murder and violence in 19th- century America. The typical story about the "Wild West" is that it was a land populated by thieves, brigands and murderers, where only the "thin blue line" of the lone local sheriffs stood between the helpless townspeople and the endless predations of swarthy and unshaven villains.

If we look at the simple facts, though, and contrast the declining 19th century US murder rates with the 600,000 murders committed in the span of a few years by the government- run Civil War, we can see that the sheriffs were not particularly dedicated to protecting the helpless townspeople, but rather delivering their money, their lives and their children to the state through the brutal enforcement of taxation and military enslavement.

When we look at an institution such as slavery, we can see that it survived, fundamentally, on two central pillars - patronizing and fear-mongering mythologies, and the shifting of the costs of enforcement to others.

What justifications were put forward, for instance, for the enslavement of blacks? Well, the "white man's burden," or the need to "Christianize" and civilize these savage heathens - this was the condescension - and also because if the slaves were turned free, plantations would be burned to the ground, pale-throated women would be savagely violated, and all the endless torments of violence and destruction would be wreaked upon society - this was the fear-mongering mythology!

Slavery as an institution could not conceivably survive economically if the slave owners had to pay for the actual expense of slavery themselves. Shifting the costs of the capture, imprisonment and return of slaves to the general taxpayer was the only way that slavery could remain profitable. The use of the political coercion required to make slavery profitable, of course, generates a great demand for mythological "cover-ups," or ideological distractions from the violence at the core of the institution. Thus violence always requires intellectualization, which is why governments always want to fund higher education and subsidize intellectuals. We shall get to more of this later.

Even outside war, in the 20th century alone, more than 270 million people were murdered by their governments. Compared to the few dozen murders committed by anarchists, it is hard to see how the fantasy of the "evil anarchist" could possibly be sustained when we compare the tiny pile of anarchist bodies to the virtual Everest of the dead heaped by governments in one century alone.

Surely if we are concerned about violence, murder, theft and rape, we should focus on those who commit the most evils - political leaders - rather than those who oppose them, even misguidedly. If we accept that political leaders murder mankind by the hundreds of millions, then we may even be tempted to have a shred of sympathy for these "evil anarchists," just as we would for a man who shoots down a rampaging mass murderer.

Everyday Anarchy 03: Ambivalence and Bigotry

2009-08-01T14:54:00.001-04:00

EVERYDAY ANARCHY

By Stefan Molyneux

AMBIVALENCE AND BIGOTRY

It is a truism - and I for one think a valid one - that the simple mind sees everything in black or white. Wisdom, on the other hand, involves being willing to suffer the doubts and complexities of ambivalence.

The dark-minded bigot says that all blacks are perfidious; the light-minded bigot says that all blacks are victims. The misogynist says that all women are corrupt; the feminist often says that all women are saints.

Exploring the complexities and contradictions of life with an open-minded fairness - neither with the imposition of premature judgment, nor the withholding of judgment once the evidence is in - is the mark of the scientist, the philosopher - of a rational mind.

The fundamentalists among us ascribe all mysteries to the "will of God" - which answers nothing at all, since when examined, the "will of God" turns out to be just another mystery; it is like saying that the location of my lost keys is "the place where my keys are not lost" - it adds nothing to the equation other than a teeth-gritting tautology. Mystery equals mystery. Anyone with more than half a brain can do little more than roll his eyes.

The immaturity of jumping to premature and useless conclusions is matched on the other hand only by the shallow and frightened fogs of modern - or perhaps I should say post- modern - relativism, where no conclusions are ever valid, no absolute statements are ever just - except that one of course - and everything is exploration, typically blindfolded, and without a compass. There is no destination, no guidepost, no sense of progress, no building to a greater goal - it is the endless dissection of cultural cadavers without even a definition of health or purpose, which thus comes perilously close to looking like fetishistic sadism.

The simple truth is that some black men are good, and some black men are bad, and most black men are a mixture, just as we all are. Some women are treacherous; some women are saints. "Blackness" or "gender" is an utterly useless metric when it comes to evaluating a person morally; it is about as helpful as trying to use an iPod to determine which way is north. The phrase "sexual penetration" does not tell us whether the act is consensual or not--saying that sexual penetration is always evil is as useless as saying that it is always good.

In the same way, some anarchism is good (notably that which we treasure so much in our personal lives) and some anarchism is bad (notably our fears of violent chaos, bomb- throwing and large mustaches). As a word, however, "anarchism" does nothing to help us evaluate these situations. Applying foolish black-and-white thinking to complex and ambiguous situations is just another species of bigotry

Claiming that "anarchism" is both rank political evil and the greatest treasure in our personal lives is a contradiction well worth examining, if we wish to gain some measure of mature wisdom about the essential questions of truth, virtue and the moral challenges of social organization.

Everyday Anarchy 2: Everyday Anarchy

2009-08-01T14:35:00.001-04:00

EVERYDAY ANARCHY

By Stefan Molyneux

EVERYDAY ANARCHY

For instance, take dating, marriage and family.

In any reasonably free society, these activities do not fall in the realm of political coercion. No government agency chooses who you are to marry and have children with, and punishes you with jail for disobeying their rulings. Voluntarism, incentive, mutual advantage - dare we say "advertising"? - all run the free market of love, sex and marriage.

What about your career? Did a government official call you up at the end of high school and inform you that you were to become a doctor, a lawyer, a factory worker, a waiter, an actor, a programmer - or a philosopher? Of course not. You were left free to choose the career that best matched your interests, abilities and initiative.

What about your major financial decisions? Each month, does a government agent come to your house and tell you exactly how much you should save, how much you should spend, whether you can afford that new couch or old painting? Did you have to apply to the government to buy a new car, a new house, a plasma television or a toothbrush?

No, in all the areas mentioned above - love, marriage, family, career, finances - we all make our major decisions in the complete absence of direct political coercion.

Thus - if anarchy is such an all-consuming, universal evil, why is it the default - and virtuous - freedom that we demand in order to achieve just liberty in our daily lives?

If the government told you tomorrow that it was going to choose for you where to live, how to earn your keep, and who to marry - would you fall to your knees and thank the heavens that you have been saved from such terrible anarchy - the anarchy of making your own decisions in the absence of direct political coercion?

Of course not - quite the opposite - you would be horrified, and would oppose such an encroaching dictatorship with all your might.

This is what I mean when I say that we consider anarchy to be an irreducible evil - and also an irreducible good. It is both feared and despised - and considered necessary and virtuous.

If you were told that tomorrow you would wake up and there would be no government, you would doubtless fear the specter of "anarchy."

If you were told tomorrow that you would have to apply for a government permit to have children, you would doubtless fear the specter of "dictatorship," and long for the days of "anarchy," when you could decide such things without the intervention of political coercion.

Thus we can see that we human beings are deeply, almost ferociously ambivalent about "anarchy." We desperately desire it in our personal lives, and just as desperately fear it politically.

Another way of putting this is that we love the anarchy we live, and yet fear the anarchy we imagine.

One more point, and then you can decide whether my patient is beyond hope or not.

It has been pointed out that a totalitarian dictatorship is characterized by the almost complete absence of rules. When Solzhenitsyn was arrested, he had no idea what he was really being charged with, and when he was given his 10-year sentence, there was no court of appeal, or any legal proceedings whatsoever. He had displeased someone in power, and so it was off to the gulags with him!

When we examine countries where government power is at its greatest, we see situations of extreme instability, and a marked absence of objective rules or standards. The tinpot dictatorships of third world countries are regions arbitrarily and violently ruled by gangs of sociopathic thugs.

Closer to home, for most of us, is the example of inner-city government-run schools, ringed by metal detectors, and saturated with brutality, violence, sexual harassment, and bullying. The surrounding neighborhoods are also under the tight control of the state, which runs welfare programs, public housing, the roads, the police, the buses, the hospitals, the sewers, the water, the electricity and just about everything else in sight. These sorts of neighborhoods have moved beyond democratic socialism, and actually lie closer to dictatorial communism.

Similarly, when we think of these inner cities as a whole, we can also understand that the majority of the endemic violence results from the drug trade, which directly resulted from government bans on the manufacture and sale of certain kinds of drugs. Treating drug addiction rather than arresting addicts would, it is estimated, reduce criminal activity by up to 80%.

Here, again, where there is a concentration of political power, we see violence, mayhem, shootings, stabbings, rapes and all the attendant despair and nihilism - everything that "anarchism" is endlessly accused of!

What about prisons, where political power is surely at its greatest? Prisons seethe with rapes, murders, stabbings and assaults - not to mention drug addiction. Sadistic guards beat on sadistic prisoners, to the point where the only difference at times seems to be the costumes. Here we have a "society" that seems like a parody of "anarchy" - a nihilistic and ugly universe usually described by the word "anarchy" which actually results from a maximization of political power, or the exact opposite of "anarchy."

Now, we certainly could argue that yes, it may be true that an excess of political power breeds anarchy - but that a deficiency of political power breeds anarchy as well! Perhaps "order" is a sort of Aristotelian mean, which lies somewhere between the chaos of a complete absence of political coercion, and the chaos of an excess of political coercion.

However, we utterly reject that approach in the other areas mentioned above - love, marriage, finances, career etc. We understand that any intrusion of political coercion into these realms would be a complete disaster for our freedoms. We do not say, with regards to marriage, "Well, we wouldn't want the government choosing everyone's spouse - but neither do we want the government having no involvement in choosing people spouses! The correct amount of government coercion lies somewhere in the middle."

No, we specifically and unequivocally reject the intrusion of political coercion into such personal aspects of our lives.

Thus once more we must at least recognize the basic paradox that we desperately need and desire the reality of anarchy in our personal lives - and yet desperately hate and fear the idea of anarchy in our political environment.

We love the anarchy we live. We fear the anarchy we imagine - the anarchy we are taught to fear.

Until we can discuss the realities of our ambivalence towards this kind of voluntarism, we shall remain fundamentally stuck as a species - like any individual who wallpapers over his ambivalence, we shall spend our lives in distracted and oscillating avoidance, to the detriment of our own present, and our children's future.

This is why I cannot just let this patient die. I still feel a heartbeat - and a strong one too!

Everyday Anarchy 1: Introduction

2009-08-01T13:50:00.004-04:00

EVERYDAY ANARCHY

By Stefan Molyneux

INTRODUCTION

It's hard to know whether a word can ever be rehabilitated - or whether the attempt should even be made.

Words are weapons, and can be used like any tools, for good or ill. We are all aware of the clichéd uses of such terms as "terrorists" versus "freedom fighters" etc. An atheist can be called an "unbeliever"; a theist can be called "superstitious." A man of conviction can be called an "extremist"; a man of moderation "cowardly." A free spirit can be called a libertine or a hedonist; a cautious introvert can be labeled a stodgy prude.

Words are also weapons of judgment - primarily moral judgment. We can say that a man can be "freed" of sin if he accepts Jesus; we can also say that he can be "freed" of irrationality if he does not. A patriot will say that a soldier "serves" his country; others may take him to task for his blind obedience. Acts considered "murderous" in peacetime are hailed as "noble" in war, and so on.

Some words can never be rehabilitated - and neither should they be. Nazi, evil, incest, abuse, rape, murder - these are all words which describe the blackest impulses of the human soul, and can never be turned to a good end. Edmund may say in King Lear, "Evil, be thou my good!" but we know that he is not speaking paradoxically; he is merely saying "that which others call evil - my self-interest - is good for me."

The word "anarchy" may be almost beyond redemption - any attempt to find goodness in it could well be utterly futile - or worse; the philosophical equivalent of the clichéd scene in hospital dramas where the surgeon blindly refuses to give up on a clearly dead patient.

Perhaps I'm engaged in just such a fool's quest in this little book. Perhaps the word "anarchy" has been so abused throughout its long history, so thrown into the pit of incontestable human iniquity that it can never be untangled from the evils that supposedly surround it.

What images spring to mind when you hear the word "anarchy"? Surely it evokes mad riots of violence and lawlessness - a post-apocalyptic Darwinian free-for-all where the strong and evil dominate the meek and reasonable. Or perhaps you view it as a mad political agenda, a thin ideological cover for murderous desires and cravings for assassinations, where wild-eyed, mustachioed men with thick hair and thicker accents roll cartoon bombs under the ornate carriages of slowly-waving monarchs. Or perhaps you view "anarchy" as more of a philosophical specter; the haunted and angry mutterings of over-caffeinated and seemingly-eternal grad students; a nihilistic surrender to all that is seductive and evil in human nature, a hurling off the cliff of self-restraint, and a savage plunge into the mad magic of the moment, without rules, without plans, without a future...

If your teenage son were to come home to you one sunny afternoon and tell you that he had become an anarchist, you would likely feel a strong urge to check his bag for black hair dye, fresh nose rings, clumpy mascara and dirty needles. His announcement would very likely cause a certain trapdoor to open under your heart, where you may fear that it might fall forever. The heavy syllables of words like "intervention," "medication," "boot camp," and "intensive therapy" would probably accompany the thudding of your quickened pulse.

All this may well be true, of course - I may be thumping the chest of a broken patient long since destined for the morgue, but certain... insights, you could say, or perhaps correlations, continue to trouble me immensely, and I cannot shake the fear that it is not anarchy that lies on the table, clinging to life - but rather, the truth.

I will take a paragraph or two to try and communicate what troubles me so much about the possible injustice of throwing the word "anarchy" into the pit of evil - if I have not convinced you by the end of the next page that something very unjust may be afoot, then I will have to continue my task of resurrection with others, because I do not for a moment imagine that I would ever convince you to call something good that is in fact evil.

And neither would I want to.

Now the actual meaning of the word "anarchy" is (from the OED):

Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.
A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder).

Thus we can see that the word "anarchy" represents two central meanings: an absence of both government and social order, and an absence of government with no implication of social disorder.

Without a government...

What does that mean in practice?

Well, clearly there are two kinds of leaders in this world - those who lead by incentive, and those who lead by force. Those who lead by incentive will offer you a salary to come and work for them; those who lead by force will throw you in jail if you do not pick up a gun and fight for them.

Those who lead by incentive will try to get you to voluntarily send your children to their schools by keeping their prices reasonable, their classes stimulating, and demonstrating proven and objective success.

Those who lead by force will simply tell you that if you do not pay the property taxes to fund their schools, you will be thrown in jail.

Clearly, this is the difference between voluntarism and violence.

The word "anarchy" does not mean "no rules." It does not mean "kill others for fun." It does not mean "no organization."

It simply means: "without a political leader."

The difference, of course, between politics and every other area of life is that in politics, if you do not obey the government, you are thrown in jail. If you try to defend yourself against the people who come to throw you in jail, they will shoot you.

So - what does the word "anarchy" really mean?

It simply means a way of interacting with others without threatening them with violence if they do not obey.

It simply means "without political violence."

The difference between this word and words like "murder" and "rape" is that we do not mix murder and rape with the exact opposite actions in our life, and consider the results normal, moral and healthy. We do not strangle a man in the morning, then help a woman across the street in the afternoon, and call ourselves "good."

The true evils that we all accept - rape, assault, murder, theft - are never considered a core and necessary part of the life of a good person. An accused murderer does not get to walk free by pointing out that he spent all but five seconds of his life not killing someone.

With those acknowledged evils, one single transgression changes the moral character of an entire life. You would never be able to think of a friend who is convicted of rape in the same way again.

However - this is not the case with "anarchy" - it does not fit into that category of "evil" at all.

When we think of a society without political violence - without governments - these specters of chaos and brutality always arise for us, immediately and, it would seem, irrevocably.

However, it only takes a moment of thought to realize that we live the vast majority of our actual lives in complete and total anarchy - and call such anarchy "morally good."

Everyday Anarchy 0: Preluding thoughts

2009-08-01T13:38:00.003-04:00

This is from the PDF version of Everyday Anarchy, by Stefan Molyneux:

Please feel free to distribute this book to whomever you think would benefit from it, but please do not modify the contents.

What follows, probably sporadically, will be excerpts from Molyneux' ebooks. I am posting them in sections, unmodified save for formatting within the context of this blog. Should you come across this and feel compelled to comment, by all means, indulge yourself.