Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • VAMPIRES IN WASHINGTON DC You know, this whole ‘farming’ the productive citizen

    VAMPIRES IN WASHINGTON DC

    You know, this whole ‘farming’ the productive citizen thing is really a wonderful analogy to what the federal government has become.

    In one of the Stargate science fiction worlds, there are these vampires that treat human populations as herds of cattle, and they ‘cull’ the herds to feed off of every so often.

    Now, the federal government doesn’t do that. THey just make sure that none of us will ever be self reliant enough to do without them, and so they harvest enough of our productivity through taxation that we continue to labor, but then, have to spend our old age in poverty.

    So, I tend to think of the federal government as an enormous vampire clan.

    Because it is.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 16:39:00 UTC

  • WHY YESTERDAY’S ABHU GRAIB ATTACK UNDER OBAMA IS CARTER’S IRAN AND REGAN’S BERUI

    WHY YESTERDAY’S ABHU GRAIB ATTACK UNDER OBAMA IS CARTER’S IRAN AND REGAN’S BERUIT

    You cannot let desert-raiding tribal people attack a standing fortress and win. It is the system of thought and ethics that their culture’s status signal hierarchy is built upon. It’s how their empire was built – by desert raiding the exhausted Byzantines. All that will happen now, is that every single group will try to attack physical assets, after spending the past decade trying to export attacks.

    I’m not countering the libertarian argument that we should or should not do anything. I’m pointing out that if you’re stupid enough to do X, then you need to be smart enough not do to it too badly – externalities often worse than the problem we seek to cure.

    What kind of idiot left that place vulnerable to the OBVIOUS? Gets our guys killed in Bahrain. Gets our people killed, and motivates the opposition in Abhu Graib. This administration is even worse at geopolitics than the last.

    Amateurs. We should eliminate the state department and make the military as independent as the judiciary and the central bank. Soldiers like to sit in barracks and only go out of them when they know they’ll win. This sitting duck in a hazard nonsense is only possible with moronic civilians using the military as a policy tool, rather than a line of last resort.

    If I was on the other side I’d be out recruiting more men, and planning my next ten adventures. A bunch of mobile guys with AK47’s and RPG’s are pretty much Unstoppable. Or did we not learn that using the Seals ourselves way back in Vietnam?

    Sigh.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 10:54:00 UTC

  • I WANT A KING (OR QUEEN) I know that the Queen says that she is the head of the

    I WANT A KING (OR QUEEN)

    I know that the Queen says that she is the head of the English speaking peoples. And in my world, she’s the head of my extended family. But I can’t live under her protection, just her influence. And as a minarchist, I’d prefer to live under her protection, in a private government, with some defense from the predatory state.

    Someday maybe there will be the level of unrest in the UK that there is currently in the states, and Windsor will issue Passports, for which I will gladly pay taxes in exchange for.

    One can only hope. 😉

    Right now I’m farmed by the US Government, the IRS, the NSA, the FBI, and both political parties.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 08:28:00 UTC

  • GOVERNMENT THINGS THAT I AM A FARM ANIMAL

    http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3v9pl6/MY GOVERNMENT THINGS THAT I AM A FARM ANIMAL.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 08:17:00 UTC

  • HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE LIFECYLE OF EMPIRE – THE USA IS A FAILED STATE – TIME TO B

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/michael-s-rozeff/the-us-is-a-failed-state/WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE LIFECYLE OF EMPIRE – THE USA IS A FAILED STATE – TIME TO BREAK IT UP AND START OVER


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 06:58:00 UTC

  • A Defense and Criticism of The Class Philosophy We Call ‘Libertarianism’

    [A]ll philosophy is class philosophy. All philosophies give precedence to one class or another. Libertarianism is a class philosophy as well. A CLASS PHILOSOPHY

      AN ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY Libertarianism is an economic philosophy that states that:

        A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Libertarianism as a political philosophy that states that:

          BRANCHES OF LIBERTARIANISM

          • CLASSICAL LIBERALISM
          • MINIMAL STATE LIBERTARIANISM
          • ANARCHISM
          • ROTHBARDIAN

          LIBERTARIANISM IS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST MONOPOLY AND BUREAUCRACY – NOT SOCIAL GOODSLibertarianism is not an argument against ‘government’. It is an argument against monopoly and bureaucracy which hinder individual innovation and competition, and the creating of ‘differences’ (inequalities) which we then seek to eliminate. Libertarianism is not a prohibition on government. IT IS A PROHIBITION ON A MONOPOLY BUREAUCRACY that we call the STATE, that is able to issue COMMANDS under the guise of LAWS, because it maintains a monopoly on the use of violence to enforce those commands, because that state is isolated from competition, and as such, can pursue the interests of the bureaucracy, or become a tool of special interests that likewise desire monopoly privileges, at the expense of the citizenry. THE POWER OF LIKE-MINDED COMMUNITIES EVEN IF THEIR POWER IS BASED SOLEY ON THEIR VALUE AS CONSUMERS Libertarianism allows us to form our own communities with our own rules and norms, in a balance of power between communities with similar interests. These communities will then compete with one another for population, talent, and services. And people can choose which community to belong to. In this model there is no ‘state’. There are just collections of people who form contractual alliances. Just as we make voluntary commercial organizations, we can make voluntary civic organizations. Consumers are very important. Without consumers and credit it is impossible for commercial organizations to make money, and without the ability to make money there is no ability for people to organize into groups. The lower classes are consumers, and quite honestly, produce very little of value other than their consumption. Lower classes in the libertarian model will either exchange adoption to norms for redistributions in wealthy communities, or organize into their own organizations and charge fees for access to their consumers, which can then be redistributed, thereby minimizing profit. COOPERATING ON MEANS EVEN IF WE HAVE DIFFERENT ENDS: BY EXCHANGES IN THE MARKET AND IN GOVERNMENT The market for competition lets us compete toward different ends and preferences, even if we cooperate on means of achieving them. Monopoly government forces us to compete in government in a win-lose battle for control of the monopoly bureaucracy. Humans have been cooperating in the market on means, despite having disparate ends, for millennia There is no reason that we cannot take this insight as far as possible. MORALITY AND COMPETITION The market allows us to compete upon ends while cooperating upon means. However, competition is morally objectionable to human beings inside the family group, village or tribe. We license and encourage competition, because it produces positive results: a virtuous cycle. We tolerate only one form of immorality: competition. Every other form of involuntary transfer: violence, theft, fraud, omission, externalization, free riding, rent seeking and privatization, systemic corruption, systemic procedural involuntary transfer and warfare – we have constrained or outlawed. We can, in the market, use boycott to deprive organizations of wealth. But it is not always a strong lever. We can use the courts to protect us from violence, theft, fraud and omission if we do not surrender our right to sue. We can use government to protect us from unnecessary competition, free riding and privatization of the commons. when we invest in commons. We can use the state ‘bank’ as an insurer of last resort. We can use multiple houses of government, where we have them, to negotiate exchanges between the classes where market exchange is not possible or creation of commons is not possible, because of the asymmetry of reward of investment in various commons’. But we can only use market and government to cooperate on means of achieving disparate ends, if government is not open to corruttion. And government is open to corruption if it can make laws rather than conttracts. Only the courts can find or discover laws. The government if not corrupt, can only negotiate contracts impossible to negotiate in the market. This emphasis on contracts relies upon the morality of exchange, rather than the immorality of majority rule, or arbitrary command in pursuit of some artificial common ‘good’. ANY OTHER SOLUTION MEANS YOU’RE A THIEF That is, unless your desire is to STEAL rather than EXCHANGE. And you are most likely to want to STEAL rather than exchange if government provides a systematic means of stealing from others. And that’s what government does. It provides a systematic means of stealing. THe common law and property rights provide a systematic means of exchanging instead of stealing.

          ON THE NECESSARY, ADVANTAGEOUS, AND LUXURY FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT

          A) NECESSARY PROPERTIES The NECESSARY properties of of a government are:

            These are the minimum properties of a government. B) ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES In addition to these properties, it may also be possible for a group of people to afford to also have government engage in the following:

              These are advantageous properties of government. C) PROPERTIES THAT ARE LUXURIES In addition to these properties, it may be possible for a group of people to afford to also have the government engage in the following LUXURIES:

                These are LUXURIES that can be provided by some governments under rare circumstances in exceptional periods of time, where malthusian and group selection problems have been temporarily held at bay by technological innovation. The government is not the source of the ‘good things’. The courts, under the common law and property rights is the source of ‘good things’. The government has destroyed the common law, the rule of law, and crated both corporatism and socialism. And we now suffer between two factions that try to control the government for corporatist or socialist means.

                RESERVATIONS ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM

                THE ANCIENT SOURCE OF LIBERTY AND THE DESIRE FOR LIBERTARIANISM White males (the european, or perhaps germanic, race) seek status under the ancient indo-european proscription for heroism via competition. The west is unique for having produced this philosophy of aristocratic egalitarianism – inclusion in equalitarian leadership, and therefore obtaining the reward of property rights, by demonstrated heroism. And the high trust society of the west is the result of aristocratic egalitarianism (heroic achievement, demonstrated excellence, virtue). For most of history, and pre-history, males could achieve this only through combat. With the advent of manorialism, males could demonstrate their fitness through hard work. With the advent of chivalry males could demonstrate their heroic status by charitable service. With the advent of consumer capitalism, males could demonstrate their heroic fitness in commerce. Heroic achievemnet grants access to mates (we have a lof of data on this now that confirms this fact – to the point where we know how many dollars in income per inch of height under 5’10” you must earn to gain the same quality of attractive woman…. Really.) Women are as shallow about status as men are about physical attraction – and the data is the data. As such, white males are intuitively attracted to libertarianism if they see in libertarianism a means of pursuing traditional signals for mating, social status, and wealth. That libertarianism is a rigorous philospohy equalled in detail only by Marxism, and is articulated in economic language and analytical philosophy. It is accessible only to those people with both incentive to learn it, and the ability to understand it. This is why libertarianism is a minority white male philosophy. It is an aristocratic philosophy and difficult to access. Other cultures lack both the mythology and cultural values for heroism and egalitarianism Which is why other cultures also cannot produce the high trust society. And without the high trust society, the wealth necessary for redistribution (charity) is impossible to achieve at scale. RESERVATIONS ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM

                • 1) DISCOUNT-DRIVEN PACIFISM.
                • 2) LIBERTY IS A DESIRE OF THE MINORITY.
                • 3) LACK OF ORGANIZATION.
              • DIALOG ON RACE WITH CLINTON : CIRCULAR LOGIC Listen. I know that solving the pro

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwlEIPfb_WoA DIALOG ON RACE WITH CLINTON : CIRCULAR LOGIC

                Listen. I know that solving the problem of race is a goal of monopolistic government.

                But there are those of us who want to solve the problem of monopolistic government even if it doesn’t solve the problem of race.

                The difference between these two factors is only whether the people in government think their goal is of greater priority than the goal of those of us whose priority is freedom from monopolistic government.

                Race is a problem only because of government.

                ALthough, since most social problems are caused by government prohibiting natural economic and social behavior to play out through voluntary exchange, the fact that government tries to fix the problem it creates is both illogical and impossible.

                The way to solve the race problem is to eliminate race from government, and hopefully to eliminate government as we currently understand it: a territorial monopoly that uses violence at the whim of a predatory bureaucracy.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwlEIPfb_Wo&list=TL2UE0Zb0nryc


                Source date (UTC): 2013-07-21 12:00:00 UTC

              • The Rate Of Technological Change Determines The Value Of Different Models Of The State

                [T]he totalitarian system, whether it’s the military or the communist system, is very useful for doing very simple things: fighting wars, imposing education, imposing some system of property rights, and building infrastructure. These are processes of execution, not of invention, research and development in consumer goods. But the totalitarian system cannot improve affairs when there is no understanding of what it must to to approve affairs. The totalitarian system cannot administrate what it does not understand, and it can only understand what is simple and preexisting. The individualist system is superior for invention. It improves affairs. It is scientific not ideological, because science is simply trial and error. For this reason the individualist model is superior when you do not know what to do, because the resource which we call technological knowledge, has been exploited into applications that are beyond the grasp of any group of individuals. If your civilization ‘falls behind’ or becomes ‘calcified by bureaucracy’ then totalitarianism (or revolution) are useful tools for fixing it. But individualism will always out-innovate totalitarianism because it places no prior (input based) constraint on the individual actors in the population. We tend to think in terms of a mixed economy in which the state should focus on execution while the private sector focuses on invention. But our government is not constructed to facilitate this behavior. Its incentives are as Hoppe has shown, to consume cultural, civic, and resource capital as fast as possible in order to maintain power. This doesn’t mean it’s not POSSIBLE to create a mixed government. It’s just not possible to do so under representative democratic republicanism in a heterogeneous polity where each generation possesses the illusion of their own genius, instead of possessing the wisdom that they are members of a cycle reacting to a chain of prior cycles, and that their preferences, beliefs and attitudes, are predictable. It’s the technology that isn’t predictable.

              • The Rate Of Technological Change Determines The Value Of Different Models Of The State

                [T]he totalitarian system, whether it’s the military or the communist system, is very useful for doing very simple things: fighting wars, imposing education, imposing some system of property rights, and building infrastructure. These are processes of execution, not of invention, research and development in consumer goods. But the totalitarian system cannot improve affairs when there is no understanding of what it must to to approve affairs. The totalitarian system cannot administrate what it does not understand, and it can only understand what is simple and preexisting. The individualist system is superior for invention. It improves affairs. It is scientific not ideological, because science is simply trial and error. For this reason the individualist model is superior when you do not know what to do, because the resource which we call technological knowledge, has been exploited into applications that are beyond the grasp of any group of individuals. If your civilization ‘falls behind’ or becomes ‘calcified by bureaucracy’ then totalitarianism (or revolution) are useful tools for fixing it. But individualism will always out-innovate totalitarianism because it places no prior (input based) constraint on the individual actors in the population. We tend to think in terms of a mixed economy in which the state should focus on execution while the private sector focuses on invention. But our government is not constructed to facilitate this behavior. Its incentives are as Hoppe has shown, to consume cultural, civic, and resource capital as fast as possible in order to maintain power. This doesn’t mean it’s not POSSIBLE to create a mixed government. It’s just not possible to do so under representative democratic republicanism in a heterogeneous polity where each generation possesses the illusion of their own genius, instead of possessing the wisdom that they are members of a cycle reacting to a chain of prior cycles, and that their preferences, beliefs and attitudes, are predictable. It’s the technology that isn’t predictable.

              • THE RATE OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE DETERMINES THE VALUE OF DIFFERENT MODELS OF THE

                THE RATE OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE DETERMINES THE VALUE OF DIFFERENT MODELS OF THE STATE

                The totalitarian system, whether it’s the military or the communist system, is very useful for doing very simple things: fighting wars, imposing education, imposing some system of property rights, and building infrastructure. These are processes of execution, not of invention, research and development in consumer goods. But the totalitarian system cannot improve affairs when there is no understanding of what it must to to approve affairs. The totalitarian system cannot administrate what it does not understand, and it can only understand what is simple and preexisting.

                The individualist system is superior for invention. It improves affairs. It is scientific not ideological, because science is simply trial and error. For this reason the individualist model is superior when you do not know what to do, because the resource which we call technological knowledge, has been exploited into applications that are beyond the grasp of any group of individuals.

                If your civilization ‘falls behind’ or becomes ‘calcified by bureaucracy’ then totalitarianism (or revolution) are useful tools for fixing it. But individualism will always out-innovate totalitarianism because it places no prior (input based) constraint on the individual actors in the population.

                We tend to think in terms of a mixed economy in which the state should focus on execution while the private sector focuses on invention. But our government is not constructed to facilitate this behavior. Its incentives are as Hoppe has shown, to consume cultural, civic, and resource capital as fast as possible in order to maintain power.

                This doesn’t mean it’s not POSSIBLE to create a mixed government. It’s just not possible to do so under representative democratic republicanism in a heterogeneous polity where each generation possesses the illusion of their own genius, instead of possessing the wisdom that they are members of a cycle reacting to a chain of prior cycles, and that their preferences, beliefs and attitudes, are predictable.

                It’s the technology that isn’t predictable.


                Source date (UTC): 2013-07-21 06:59:00 UTC