Theme: Coercion

  • USING THE LEFT’S TACTICS AGAINST THEM : A PERSONAL EXAMPLE Yesterday the left se

    USING THE LEFT’S TACTICS AGAINST THEM : A PERSONAL EXAMPLE

    Yesterday the left sent a typical representative to harass the small meeting of conservatives. He came with a camera. He was black. He was young. When he was told that we weren’t going to allow filming, he tried to use a hidden microphone to record the meeting.

    So, I went after him using the left’s tactics: I just insulted him as a dishonest scumbag that wasn’t interested in allowing free speech, only speech they and their ilk agreed with. They’re just terrorists bent on disrupting honest debate and the free exchange of ideas. They aren’t there to learn they’re there to intimidate and oppress. That’s what the left does.

    But this process is always started by the left, and society degenerates, and rational discourse is lost because of it.

    Society is built on restraint. It’s destruction is based upon the loss of it.

    Fox News was developed as a reaction to CNN’s left bent. Conservative talking points were a reaction to the left’s use of ‘staying on message’ by repeating mantras rather than asking questions. The conservative think tanks were a reaction to the ownership of the mainstream media by the left. The liberation think tanks, and the Mises institute in particular, were a reaction to the ideological innovations of the communist community organizers.

    It’s offensive to conservatives to use these tactics. Until they use them. but personally I find it liberating.

    I made the guy leave. There is no point having a recording or a video of someone calling you out on your dishonesty. God knows they don’t want that kind of thing spreading on the internet. I mean, you’re welcome to get into a shouting match with me and I’ll win. I learned from Friedman and Rothbard: never give up, never surrender, never stop. THe left depends upon our distaste for ill manners.

    We have to make it good manners to shout down the left and adopt any tactic that they throw at us. There isn’t any other choice.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-05-07 11:20:00 UTC

  • The Institutional Answer To Bleeding Heart Libertarianism

    From Econlib

    RE: “they insist that social justice ought to be part of libertarianism but are unwilling to tell us what it means.”

    Thats right. They have no program, no argument, no artifice. Only a sentiment. This is why they’ll fail. But libertarianism, or at least propertarian reasoning within libertarianism, provides the solution to ‘social justice’ — if that term has any meaning other than ‘redistribution’. The solution arises from insight is that the ethic of voluntary exchange does not require unanimity of belief in anything. It only requires institutions that provide a means by which we can construct exchanges between groups that are not possible to construct by alternative means due to pervasive ‘cheating’. Cheating which is expressed as competition, is beneficial in a market for consumer goods, but a form of privatization or corruption when applied to infrastructure or services (commons). Institutions are necessary for creating those exchanges free of ‘cheating’– private appropriation of common investments. The problem for us lies in constructing the institutions that allow exchanges between groups. Even assuming representative government is a good, if for no other purpose than to divide the labor of decision making, the classical liberal model of multi-class government should have been expanded and reinforced so that classes could conduct exchanges, most of which are inter-temporal borrowings from one another. Instead we undermined that feature of the classical liberal government with fully democratic solutions disconnected from the material differences in interests in the population. Furthermore, institutions of all forms are under attack by ideological libertarians. Rothbardian Anarchism has stolen the libertarian movement. But, we don’t need to give up on institutions. We need to give up on creating institutions that depend on a unanimity of belief in ends, means and virtues. A requirement that does not pass the most casual scrutiny. Most ‘justice’ is simply accounting for and settlement of differences in production cycles. There is no reason we cannot bring forward to the disadvantaged the benefits of the difference in production cycles between the classes, in the same way we bring forward productivity through borrowing and interest between capitalists and entrepreneurs. There is no reason that is, other than we lack the political institutions to accomplish in politics what we accomplish daily in banking as a matter of course. That’s the answer to bleeding heart libertarianism: institutions. But we have to understand Rotbardianism as all but a prohibition on organization first. Curt

  • We Need A Very Different Government

    While we use it as such, Government is not a synonym for a bureaucracy that wields law with which it coerces others by the threat of violence. It is not government itself that people disagree with. It is government whose actions they disagree with. And those actions are only possible because we believe government must consist of a bureaucracy. Everything we disdain about government is a criticism of bureaucracy, and the iron law of oligarchy that is the unavoidable consequence of bureaucracy. We don’t need a bureaucracy. We dont need majority rule. We need a government where groups and classes can exchange with one another. We need something entirely different from what we have.

  • We Need A Very Different Government

    While we use it as such, Government is not a synonym for a bureaucracy that wields law with which it coerces others by the threat of violence. It is not government itself that people disagree with. It is government whose actions they disagree with. And those actions are only possible because we believe government must consist of a bureaucracy. Everything we disdain about government is a criticism of bureaucracy, and the iron law of oligarchy that is the unavoidable consequence of bureaucracy. We don’t need a bureaucracy. We dont need majority rule. We need a government where groups and classes can exchange with one another. We need something entirely different from what we have.

  • AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, IRAN I am perfectly fine with wandering around the world and

    AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, IRAN

    I am perfectly fine with wandering around the world and punishing people and governments for not controlling the actions of their citizens. If you make the mistake of establishing a state, you by definition are responsible for your people’s actions.

    But you can’t teach the illiterate superstitious tribal inbreeding peasantry to adopt democratic government. It’s antithetical to them. Might as well try to train apes to play chess. And it’s just as likely to succeed.

    But as other have said, it certainly feeds the military contractors, even if the soldiers don’t think it’s something that they should be doing. The purpose of soldiers is to kill people and blow stuff up.

    Manufacturing civilization can’t be outsourced to a foreign contractor. It’s a purely domestic production process. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-21 13:12:00 UTC

  • An Argument In Support Of Faith As A Limit On The State

    An Argument In Support Of Faith As A Limit On The State http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/04/16/an-argument-in-support-of-faith-as-a-limit-on-the-state/


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-17 17:16:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/192300628926664704

  • ECONOMICS “IS HOW ECONOMICS SHOULD BE DONE” But then, assuming the state will co

    http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/aggregated-confusionAUSTRIAN ECONOMICS “IS HOW ECONOMICS SHOULD BE DONE”

    But then, assuming the state will continue to pursue opportunities to increase taxes and decrease unemployment, the austrian approach would put the state in the position of trying to affect change via industrial policy. Meaning, being in bed with industries and unions.

    Maybe that isn’t all bad. It’s certainly better than being in bed with the financial sector.

    But then the state will always be in bed with someone.

    It needs someone to F***.

    (Apologies if light guttural humor is over the top. It was just THERE and I had to take it.)


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-16 16:43:00 UTC

  • An Argument In Support Of Faith As A Limit On The State

    My question is whether the criticism of faith are purely political: whether faith is a means of limiting political influence – coercion. As much as it WAS an instrument of coercion in the past. It’s content has changed since the darwinian revolution. Other than one remaining dogmatic super-cult, most are a personal religion now that defines a natural law that limits the state, by defining a communal preference over the demands of the state. If economic secularism is wrong. Faith is ‘right’. In other words, reason is insufficient to test the the content of faith or secular statism. The only scientific answer is which religion: the democratic secular economic religion of the state, or the christian/buddhist/hindu religion of the community is ‘true’, rather than a tautology. Reason is the language of the state, of commerce and of science. All of which dissolve community, family, and tribe. From which we gain our comfort. Our ‘gravity’. A force of nature which is present in our genes. To the broader question that separates religion from ‘faith’. To the argument as to whether faith is rational, the only reason to have this discussion is to persuade someone for some material reason. Otherwise we are arguing taste. And taste is not material. It is purely subjective. So the only reason to argue about faith is either political or commercial gain. Faith is an insulation against the political trevails of the overactive, and self interested. Political claims via reason, are claims on the actions and property of others. They must be. That is all it is possible for them to be. Reason by definition cannot a ‘subjective taste’. An honest discourse would not be conducted over a person’s faith, but over the property of individuals, and what must be exchanged for it. Rather, than over how individuals believe something, so that they will transfer their time, effort, or property at no cost, or lower cost. Political pundits are most often beggars in fine robes of reason. Faith then, is a means of saying “I’m not interested”. I am not sure that given the durability of the religions and the temporal nature of states, and the current understanding that we have of the limits of collective decision making, that ‘faith’ isn’t demonstrably ‘right’ and much of our political and economic theory ‘wrong’. Even if secularism is constructed of rational argument, and faith is constructed of myth and analogy, those constructs are not material — only the result of their application is. This has been said simply two millennia: the state is responsible for temporal affairs (commerce and war) and the church (faith) is responsible for limiting the state from expanding beyond commerce and war into the preferred state of man. And the preferred state of man is demonstrably that state of community that is found in the commonality of values, and the rituals that insulate us from the alienation of commerce and violence, and connect us to the security of our family and tribe. Faith has no place in State, commerce and science and vice versa. I mean, I don’t know really, why gravity works either. I don’t have to. But I would be uncomfortable in a world without gravity — genetic evolution has guaranteed I depend upon it. Likewise, I don’t know really why the different faiths ‘work’. I just know that I do not want to live in a world where there is no equivalent. I might prefer the Germans had succeeded in abandoning christianity in favor of return to their pagan roots. I might prefer my bible was of history, and gods, our heroes. But that is a question of taste. Whether the outcome of a more mystical christianity, or a more heroic history is superior, I am not sure I can forecast.

  • Stratfor On Iran’s Strategy

    Depending upon your concept of the world: universalist democratic socialist, or hierarchical tribalist, or utilitarian economist, you might see US policy toward Iran in a different light. One thing is for sure: we are accomplishing for militant islam, on behalf of Iran, precisely what the Persians and the radicals have always desired — a restoration of the empire from the mediterranean to the Sino-Hindu border, and a vehicle for concentrating wealth via oil revenues that will surpass both the classical era’s means of concentrating wealth via agriculture, the renaissance era’s means of concentrating wealth through shipping, or the industrial era’s means of concentrating wealth through institutional capitalism and industrial production. We will have an expansionist, anti-rational, totalitarian civilization, operating on non-market principles, with which much of the developed world cannot compete. We will lose the dollar as a reserve currency, and as a Petro-currency, and finish the cycle of credit expansion, finish the Keyenesian economic era, and eradicate the ability of the west to pursue debt-dependent social programs. We will see europe need to remilitarize just when it cannot afford to. We will see the USA split between a hostile and patient china and a hostile and impatient islam, just when the USA is itself split by political, regional and racial discord. You cannot ‘spread democracy’. You can only spread capitalism and consumerism. Democracy is a unique property of the west, because the west is the only civilization to have broken familial and tribal bonds — having forbidden intermarriage for centuries. Democracy will never succeed except among families, tribes, villages and small cities. It is antithetical to human nature. Even capitalism is ‘democratic’. Nations adopt democratic republicanism when the middle class requires access to politics, and when the antiquarian political systems can no longer accomodate the increased number of people with economic interests. Republican democracy is not ideological, it is simply a necessity born of increases in the numbers of economic interests. For these reasons I did, and do, favor war in the middle east on an entirely humanistic, as well as economic, as well as cultural basis: We have spent five hundred years raising humanity out of agrarian ignorance and poverty, through the spread of rationalism, science, technology and the capitalist institutions that make industrial production possible. We must treat Islam as we did the Soviets and the Chinese communists: a militaristic, expansionist form of anti-market regressiveism. A threat to our existing way of life, by a mystical, tribal and familial empire, its culture and religion. Until the last, most primitive civilization has joined the movement, they are a regressive threat to all of humanity. They are the latest luddite movement — yet another variation on Marxism, and nothing more. An attempt by existing power structures, and existing cultural investments, to hold onto antiquity despite the obvious failure of their culture in the contrast to others. And while my libertarian friends do not like battle drums, they too often ignore the fact, that one must defend one’s market from non-market forces. Markets of the peculiar composition in the west, were made by man, by intent, not by accident. The institution of property itself requires defense of not only the property itself, but the institutions of property, and the market itself. Our libertarianism evolved within that set of institutions. And within that set of Institutions it is viable. That does not mean the same principles apply without. Those broader threats pose to high a risk. Ideology is for children living under the convenience of those institutions. Although I would argue that the attempt to contain Germany actually caused the suicide of the west, our attempts to contain the Russians, Chinese and now islam has not been so.

    www.stratfor.com
    For centuries, the dilemma facing Iran (and before it, Persia) has been guaranteeing national survival and autonomy in the face of stronger regional powers like Ottoman Turkey and the Russian Empire. Though always weaker than these larger empires, Iran survived for three reasons: geography, resource…
  • THE LEFT IS A FUNDAMENTALLY CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION “…when we consider guerrilla

    THE LEFT IS A FUNDAMENTALLY CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

    “…when we consider guerrilla warfare … either of the classic Maoist rural form, or the newer urban-guerrilla (“terrorist”) approach, or simply the strategy of building ominous and threatening paramilitary militias. These strategies work for leftist revolutionaries because they are essentially criminal in nature, and leftism – whose Yeatsian passionate energy is inseparable from its capacity for pure plunder – is fundamentally a criminal movement.” — Moldbug

    PRICELESS

    (thank you for the pointer)


    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-04 12:01:00 UTC