[…] It is also far easier to sentimentalize the issues and get the public’s juices worked up by sobbing about the homeless, the foodless, etc. and calling for specific provision of these wants far easier than talking about the “moneyless” and calling upon the public merely to supply do-re-mi to the poor. Money does not have nearly the sentimental value of home and hearth and Christmas dinner.
Not only that: but focusing on money is likely to lead the public to begin asking embarrassing questions. Such as: WHY are these people without money? And isn’t there a danger that taxing A to supply B with money will greatly reduce the incentive for both A and B to continue working hard in order to acquire it? Doesn’t parasitism gravely weaken the incentives to work among both the producer and the parasite class?
Further, if the poor are without money because they don’t feel like working, won’t automatic taxpayer provision of a permanent supply of funds weaken their willingness to work all the more, and create an ever greater supply of the idle looking for handouts? Or, if the poor are without money because they are disabled, won’t a permanent dole reduce their incentive to invest in their own vocational rehabilitation and training, so that they will once again be productive members of society? And, in general, isn’t it far better for all concerned (except, of course, the social workers) to have limited private funds for charity instead of imposing an unlimited burden on the hapless taxpayer?
Focusing on money, instead of searching for an ever-greater variety of people to be pitied and cosseted, would itself tend to clear the air and the mind and go a long way toward a solution of the problem.
"In conjunction with the privatization of all assets according to the principles outlined, the government should adopt a private property constitution and declare it to be the immutable basic law of the entire country. This constitution should be extremely brief and lay down the following principles in terms as unambiguous as possible:
Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in anyway he sees fit so long as in doing so he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person’s body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between property owners are to be voluntary (contractual). These rights of a person are absolute. Any person’s infringement on them is subject to lawful persecution by the victim of this infringement or his agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of proportionality of punishment and of strict liability.
As implied by this constitution, then, all existing wage and price controls, all property regulations and licensing requirements, and all import and export restrictions should be immediately abolished and complete freedom of contract, occupation, trade and migration introduced. Subsequently, the government, now propertyless, should declare its own continued existence as unconstitutional-in so far as it depends on noncontractual property acquisitions, that is, taxation-and abdicate.”
“In the long run even the most despotic governments, with all their brutality and cruelty, are no match for ideas. Eventually, the ideology that has won the support of the majority will prevail, and cut the ground from under the tyrant’s feet. Then the oppressed many will rise in rebellion and overthrow their masters.”—Ludwig von Mises, Theory and History, p. 372.
Man stop being so American-centric. You don't have to rephrase everything in terms of American notions. It's not even correct to say Liberal Party =/= Republican Party. There's some comparison, but that's it. It comes across as if you're apologising for being Australian. You really don't have to. Forge your own path. Australian libertarianism is as valid as its American counterpart, but not if you shroud everything in terms of it being an American import. To put it lightly, it looks cultish.
Hello Anon, thanks for the feedback. Ok, so why the US ‘centrism’?
That’s the environment Ron Paul is operating in (where the current rEVOLution is happening), it’s also where the LvMI is. It’s where the discussion is mostly based for liberty ideas, and as a liberty lover the natural inclination is to be drawn to that sphere.
The US is an empire, so it’s kind of hard to ignore what’s going on there since it has consequences for the world over. It’d also be foolish to do so.
The Australian Govt is basically the US’s biatch when it comes to foreign policy. If ‘you guys’ bring your troops home, so will ‘we’. If the US Govt changed its ways, it’d do a lot to change the world over, hence the interest.
I plan on getting back there -briefly been to Hawaii and LA- on my next travel adventure and do a proper road trip from LA to NYC. Meeting some liberty folks along the way would be awesome.
Most of my followers are from the US, so would it not make sense to cater it to them? I discuss Australian matters with Aussies elsewhere (in the Mises Seminar FB group no less - which aims to be a major kickoff for the Austro-Libertarian movement down-under, and it will be). But point taken, the last thing I want to do is appear like I’m apologising for being Australian (difference between nation & nation-state obviously), because I’d never do that.
Anyway, cheers for the support? If anyone else wants to send some feedback, anon or not - feel free :).
Got results back for International Corporate Finance essay.. 18.5/20, even though I handed it in late? I don’t understand that one..
They finally found me. I have been summoned for Jury Duty. I’m obligated to reply to their letter apparently, or else involuntary servitude! Oh wait, that’s what happens regardless. So I have to indicate my availability, for Dec 12 +2 weeks. $30 a day. 9am-5pm. If you get called in, then you go into a second ballot. If you are called there, you may get questioned and eventually used in a trial. Providing a reason to be ‘left alone’ shouldn’t be too hard, although I am seriously debating whether I should rock up with a top hat and monocle, and try get rejected. Being on a murder trial could be interesting, it could also be something painful like a drug trial where I’d probably be able to put up better arguments than the defense (not within the framework of legal positivism obviously). Alternatively, I could go with the jury nullification approach? I dunno, being involved seems somewhat sadistic. Suggestions?
My internets is cap’d (and now slowed)… internet saturation is a long way behind most other places, less companies, telecom monopoly until the federal government sold of parts of its ownership and finally opened up the sector for some competition. They’re now introducing the NBN (national-broadband-network, which is basically a way to get net ‘neutrality’ in through the backdoor). Colossal boondoggle. Anyway, it’s snails pace.. so no tumblr, facebook etc. until like Nov 11th. Yay for productivity?!
Heading up to the Sunshine Coast before the weekend & staying till Monday. Hopefully the surf is good and the rain stays away. Might get some study done, but that’s probably unlikely. Halfway through Les Miserables.. I should probably finish it. Taking the bike up aswell.. although I won’t be doing the Noosa Triathlon. Just supporting a few friends. I was meant to be doing the 1.5km swim leg, but nuts to that.. for the moment anyway. I am also meant to be doing an anti-war podcast with a colleague soon, so feel free to send me your ‘best arguments’ or articles and resources to check over.. I want to basically fit in every single argument against war in a 15-20min time-frame. If it’s an epic argument I missed I’ll give you a shout out.
I’m out for now, though I’ve gone ahead and queued some things. Do us a favor and tag me if you post/reblog something awesome. Have a sweet weekend folks! Let me know how it goes :) and I’ll be back in many a days time..
Big farewell for two close mates who are now in the UK, and will then be bumping round Europe for quite some time.. possibly doing a ski season somewhere. One managed to get a 5 year visa (some long lost relative) just to be dramatic, and bought a one way ticket to amp it up even more haha. The joke is he’ll be back before Christmas.
Great night, basically had the whole place to ourselves (cool little bar called Kerbside) even at capacity. Began the trip home just before “lockout” (the state makes it a crime to let anyone into the premises after a specified time, this currently being 3am). Words cannot describe how f…….
Anyway, I randomly bumped into a friend who was heading back to a house party nearby. Invited me along. Gotta love random adventures. What makes this interesting though is he’s a Ron Paul supporter, top bloke - even bought me a RP 2008 shirt back in the day. However, he is working within the Labor Party in my state, is president of the ‘youth’ wing of the party and doing a good job running a few libertarian branches, trying to get a caucus, exert influence.. etc.
They had just had a ‘mock parliament’ event, although it’s not as good as it sounds (they aren’t paying out the concept, they’re reenacting it). The Liberal Party is right wing conservative vs. the Labor Party, which is more left wing orientated. All they do is rhetorically take jabs at each-other and talk their party (themselves) up.
At the Labor after-party, having a good time (somehow I can manage to do that just about anywhere), what’s amusing is that my RP friend loves to single me out on the issue being discussed [‘you should hear what this guy has to say]’ and square me off against people. Spoiler alert: one dude couldn’t handle it, we’ll call this guy WOG (Walk-Out-Guy).
I forget where the topic started; but as you know.. when you smack down one error/fallacy, the next one is not so far away. It vaguely went along the lines of:
How did the global financial crisis happen? WOG suggested de-regulation etc. I inquired, “of what?” (the banks). I countered with “the central bank” is the problem. I asked for his take on the business cycle. He told a story about how his family did real well in real estate, and that even he’s for more regulations etc. (Images flash of the folks on OWS saying they are the 1% & asking to be taxed more). I again asked for his understanding of the business cycle… he said it’s inherit to capitalism. I pointed out the problems are Keynesianism, and began explaining the Austrian Business Cycle theory (i.e what actually happened: Alan Greenspan had artificially low interest rates at 1% that causes…). He kept interrupting. I explained Obama is basically the 3rd term of Bush. I claimed it’s a false paradigm the ‘left’ ‘right’ wing, they are essentially the same, they only differ in rhetoric. I did run over the RP talking points briefly; they have the same monetary policy, same foreign policy.. He couldn’t handle that.
It then moved onto some other topic, I asked if they’d force me into their system. The social contract was brought up. Then ‘take it or leave it’ fallacy. I made Chris Leithner’s point, but not as clear. WOG called me an idiot and left to never return haha. I laughed and thanked the other dude I was verbal jousting with for the lively conversation.
It was real interesting hearing them discuss inner party politics. Talking private law to folks who are actively trying to get into the public ‘law’ branch is a hard task, anyway got home after sunrise, felt pretty rough the next day.
how much is our body our property? or more specifically, when does it stop being ours?
if you are in a doctor’s office and they need to take your blood/cells/etc and later use them for commercial gain is that okay? do they need your consent at that point? the tissue is no longer attached to/physically part of your body, so do you still have rights to it? should doctor’s be able to use it for whatever research purposes they please or only to aid you specifically?
does anyone have a strong opinion on this or perhaps an article regarding this issue i could read?
Hello Grace :), You haven’t sold it when you give it for testing. You only give it for that purpose. If they use it for other purposes without your consent, then that would be violating the agreement / contract.
You own your body, and you thus own your cells. However, you don’t own the structure, or design of the particular DNA you have. Just like you cannot own the design or structure of the layout you have for the furniture in your living room. It can also be compared to a recipe. Others access to it is at your discretion. If you don’t want anyone to copy, or take it - then don’t give them access to it, and take measures to restrict such an event ever occurring. If the cells are no longer ‘attached’ it depends on how they were acquired. If you give it for an expressed purpose and no other, then any other use is a violation.
The comparative, ordinal nature of the “better claim” test
Under the homesteading principle, it is not necessary to establish a first appropriation claim that lives up to any absolute standard of evidence of what is “sufficient” to be a valid claim. It is only necessary to establish that one party has the better or best claim when compared with conflicting claims.
This is analogous to Mises’s conception of ordinal valuation. The praxeologically defined act of choice means preferring “this” to “that” in a specific rank order, which carries no implication of any cardinal valuation scale. It is a criterion concerned with relative order only. Any alternative to this ordinal approach would require a claim to meet some devised standard of evidence showing some objectivistically defined degree of linkage. However, the legitimacy of an appropriation claim requires no such technocratic approach.
Assuming a competition among claims, each of which are based on some objective links between claimant and resource (some act of appropriation), the first such claim in time is likely to be superior to any later claim. While it is categorically true that the first claim is superior to any later claim, exceptions are possible when an earlier claim is found to lack evidence of an applicable act of appropriation. A first claim may have been overstated in relation to the “relevant technological unit” of the particular claimed resource. For example, perhaps I invented a radio transmitter and sold radios in a certain area. My device transmits only in a certain spectrum over a specified usable radius, but I thereby attempt to claim ownership of all radio waves in all possible spectra and in all places, even with regard to frequency bands and locations that in no way interfere with my radio operations.
Or say I have built a log cabin in one nook of a valley, and announce, “this entire valley is now mine,” expecting the valley to be socially recognized as mine. Clearly, my objective linkage to the use of the entire valley is probably too weak to hold up to any reasonable counterclaim that others might make to other parts of the valley on the basis of their respective activities. I have never put those areas to use in any way that others could possibly perceive.
The clarification and elucidation of the homesteading principle which many would-be libertarians, and even solidly advanced ones can sometimes get perplexed about. You often see this when inevitably someone searches for an objective absolute standard by which they can suddenly proclaim: “If you homestead this land for X time or degree, you can then claim legitimate ownership of it”. Or if you have “mixed your labor with it in such a way you can now claim Y.” As has been shown, it is not necessary to establish a first appropriation claim that lives up to any absolute standard of evidence of what is “sufficient” to be a valid claim.
Stewart pulled no punches, calling Michele Bachmann “crazy” for her promise to build a “double wall” along the border. And then there’s Mitt Romney, who entered into such a shouting fest with the other candidates that he was able to inspire a look of shock on an audience member. Rick Perry: Calling Herman Cain “brother”? Is maybe not a good thing to do. Ron Paul also gets a good mention. Here’s the segment, via Comedy Central [video at the link].
Vice Chancellor of the University of Buckingham (Britain’s only independent university), Terence Kealey is critical of government funding of science. His first book, ‘The Economic Laws of Scientific Research,’ argues that state funding of science is neither necessary nor beneficial, a thesis that he developed in his recently published analysis of the causes scientific progress, ‘Sex, Science and Profits.’ In it, he makes the stronger claim that not only is government funding not beneficial, but in fact measurably obstructs scientific progress, whilst presenting an alternative, methodologically-individualist understanding of ‘invisible colleges’ within which science resembles a private, not a public, good.
The scientific controversy […]The geologists who studied these formations fell into two groups: those who got it right and those who did not. The ones who got it right came to a correct understanding of the earth’s shifts (tectonics). They did not think that it was normal for this region to have metamorphic rock on top of unmetamorphic rock. The ones who got it wrong thought the opposite.
Their controversy lasted 50 years: “The worst in-fighting occurred between two groups that were relatively disparate and fairly antagonistic. These were Official Geology, almost exclusively the Geological Survey, and Unofficial Geology, the university geologists and amateurs.” The official group worked in the Geological Survey of Great Britain, a state-funded organization created in 1835. (It still exists.)
Official Geology was the group that had got it wrong. Unofficial Geology had got it right. But what was worse than its error was that Official Geology had suppressed Unofficial Geology and covered up its blunder for decades.[…]
"The reason for the business cycle is as elementary as it is fundamental. Robinson Crusoe can give a loan of fish (which he has not consumed) to Friday. Friday can convert these savings into a fishing net (he can eat the fish while constructing the net), and with the help of the net, then, Friday, in principle, is capable of repaying his loan to Robinson, plus interest, and still earn a profit of additional fish for himself. But this is physically impossible if Robinson’s loan is only a paper note, denominated in fish, but unbacked by real-fish savings, i.e., if Robinson has no fish because he has consumed them all.
Then, and necessarily so, Friday must fail in his investment endeavor. In a simple barter economy, of course, this becomes immediately apparent. Friday will not accept Robinson’s paper credit in the first place (but only real, commodity credit), and because of this, the boom-bust cycle will not get started. But in a complex monetary economy, the fact that credit was created out of thin air is not noticeable: every credit note looks like any other, and because of this the notes are accepted by the takers of credit.
This does not change the fundamental fact of reality that nothing can be produced out of nothing and that investment projects undertaken without any real funding whatsoever (by savings) must fail, but it explains why a boom — an increased level of investment accompanied by the expectation of higher future income and wealth — can get started (Friday does accept the note instead of immediately refusing it). And it explains why it then takes a while until the physical reality reasserts itself and reveals such expectations as illusory.”
A master, remixes a master. Nu-disco, synthesize your way on a galactic journey to the stars and back. Happiness in audio form. This can be played: (A) to start your night. (B) Re-kickstart your night & (C) To end your night in a blaze of glory.
"While one would think that scarcity ranks among the general facts of society and economic theory, Rawls’s parties, who supposedly knew about scarcity were themselves strangely unaffected by this condition. In Rawls’s construction of the "original position," there was no recognition of the fact that scarcity must be assumed to exist even here. Even in deliberating behind a veil of ignorance, one must still make use of scarce means - at least one’s physical body and its standing room, i.e., labor and land. Even before beginning any ethical deliberation then, in order to make them possible, private or exclusive property in bodies and a principle regarding the private or exclusive appropriation of standing room must already be presupposed. In distinct contrast to this general fact of human nature, Rawls’s moral “parties” were unconstrained by scarcities of any kind and hence did not qualify as actual humans but as free-floating wraiths or disembodied somnambulists.
Such beings, Rawls concluded, cannot but “acknowledge as the first principle of justice one requiring an equal distribution (of all resources). Indeed, this principle is so obvious that we would expect it to occur to anyone immediately.” True; for if it is assumed that “moral parties” are not human actors but disembodied entities, the notion of private property must indeed appear strange. As Rawls admitted with captivating frankness, he had simply “define[d] the original position so that we get the desired result.” Rawls’s imaginary parties had no resemblance whatsoever with human beings but were epistemological somnambulists; accordingly, his socialist-egalitarian theory of justice does not qualify as a human ethic, but something else entirely.
If anything useful could be found in Rawls in particular and contemporary political philosophy in general, it was only the continued recognition of the age-old universalization principle contained in the so-called Golden Rule as well as in the Kantian Categorical Imperative: that all rules aspiring to the rank of just rules must be general rules, applicable and valid for everyone without exception.”
Once again.. down goes any kind of justification for the social contract.
What is your view of government regulators like the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) who can prevent mergers which would create monopolies or an anti-competitive environment?
Hello :), apologies for letting this sit so long.
Firstly, I find amusement in the irony of a monopoly (of ultimate decision making over a given territory with the ability to tax) i.e a state: trying to ‘create’ competition or prevent other ‘monopolies’. It is a glaring contradiction and illogical to support a monopoly, in an effort to prevent monopolies, or anti-competitive behavior.
The state cannot create competition, just like it cannot create wealth. All it can do is redistribute what has already been stolen. The state inhibits competition by its very nature. Regulations when not done by the market, are often used to reduce competition in favor of big business and hurt the little guy. The self interest for the politicians is of financial support to get re-elected.
Monopoly is properly defined as ‘a barrier of entry’. Cartels and anti-competitive behavior such as collusion can only be maintained through the use of the state.
Australia’s anti-trust legislation is known as the Competition and Consumer Act (2010), formerly the Trade Practices Act (1974). The arbitrariness of the legislation can be seen in the following:
Prices too low: price war, anti-competitive to kill competition.
Prices the same: collusion.
Prices too high: gouging the public.
Whatever businesses do, they can be considered criminal. It’s a joke & completely arbitrary.
"We do not know, and economics cannot tell us, the optimum size of a firm in any given industry. The optimum size depends on the concrete technological conditions of each situation, as well as on the state of consumer demand in relation to the given supply of various factors in this and in other industries."
~ Murray N.Rothbard. Man, Economy and State, Chapter 10 Monopoly and Competition, p.629-754.
sweet blog! Thanks for spreading the message of peace and freedom! You mentioned you like 80's style music and I thought I'd share this song/band with you, in case you haven't heard 'em: youtube - watch?v=TC3ZktGtPvk. Thank you! Chip thinkchip at gmail
No worries :). Thanks, it’s a bit different to the music I generally froth on, but I dooo like the song. Cheers for that!
No better is the propensity, very popular nowadays, to brand supporters of other ideologies as lunatics. Psychiatrists are vague in drawing a line between sanity and insanity. It would be preposterous for laymen to interfere with this fundamental issue of psychiatry. However, it is clear that if the mere fact that a man shares erroneous views and acts according to his errors qualifies him as mentally disabled, it would be very hard to discover an individual to which the epithet [p. 186] sane or normal could be attributed. Then we are bound to call the past generations lunatic because their ideas about the problems of the natural sciences and concomitantly their techniques differed from ours. Coming generations will call us lunatics for the same reason. Man is liable to error. If to err were the characteristic feature of mental disability, then everybody should be called mentally disabled.
Neither can the fact that a man is at variance with the opinions held by the majority of his contemporaries qualify him as a lunatic. Were Copernicus, Galileo and Lavoisier insane? It is the regular course of history that a man conceives new ideas, contrary to those of other people. Some of these ideas are later embodied in the system of knowledge accepted by public opinion as true. Is it permissible to apply the epithet “sane” only to boors who never had ideas of their own and to deny it to all innovators?
The procedure of some contemporary psychiatrists is really outrageous. They are utterly ignorant of the theories of praxeology and economics. Their familiarity with present-day ideologies is superficial and uncritical. Yet they blithely call the supporters of some ideologies paranoid persons.
”—Ludwig von Mises. Human Action, Chapter 9 Sec 2, The Role of Ideas: World view and ideology.
*For the next time you are called either ‘crazy’ or ‘insane’.
What real independent journalism looks like. A must read from the start, click the link. Otherwise here are some excerpts:
[…] Eventually the errant protesters were given summons for causing a public disturbance. Protesters accuse the police of causing the problem by letting protesters out onto the roadway in the first place rather than informing them to take the pedestrian way. They also point out that shutting down the bridge for hours caused much more of a public disturbance than letting the protesters pass for 15 minutes. Regardless of any agents provocateurs on both sides, though, it’s a good bet that the bulk of the 700 who got arrested were just sheep, going along with the crowd.
For me, that’s the “narrative”: stupidity and ignorance on both sides cause things like this, rather than malicious intent - barring a few on both sides who want to see the problem escalate. […]
By the way, while Wall Street may be responsible for bad things, it is Wall Street who financed putting a million miles of fiber optic cables crisscrossing continents and under oceans. It is Wall Street that financed the thousands of cell towers. It is Wall Street from which venture capital comes to finance startups like Twitter. Thus, tweeting “Down with capitalism” from your iPhone for those around the world to read seems to be the most ironic thing a person can do. The live stream from the protest site, shared with 12,000 (at this moment) people across the Internet is a testament to Wall Street’s allocation of capital that these protesters fight against. (Obligatory Monty Python reference) […]
The protesters are also predominantly white with blacks underrepresented. On the flip side, blacks are over-represented in the police force. The protesters often compare themselves to the Civil Rights Movement, but the photographs of the recent arrests often show black policemen arresting white protesters. I don’t know if this is a vindication of the Civil Rights Movement or if there is still more work to go, to get the blacks better ensconced in middle-class American to send their kids off to college with that combination of privilege and entitlement that turns them into protesters.
The makeup of the protesters also led to amusement among the cops, stationed in pairs on all four sides of the park. For some, their normal beat is in the poor areas of New York City. The police, who daily see the struggle of the real poor, had little use for protesters complaining about jobs while they carried around expensive MacBook computers paid for by their parents.
I mention the racial makeup for a specific reason. The Tea Party was also predominantly white, which was frequently reported in the news, despite the fact that guidelines tell reporters to avoid mentioning race when it’s not relevant. They nonetheless reported it because it fit the narrative they wanted to tell about the Tea Party (that it has a racist component). In much the same way, they don’t mention the racial makeup of the Occupation because it doesn’t fit their narrative. […]
Here’s my point: the press and pundits have already decided on the “narrative” that’s independent of what’s really going on. For example, many Republicans and Fox News commentators insist that this is “planned” by the left for some nefarious purpose. It isn’t (although that might change if politicos seize control of the occupation). Conversely, the Left has a narrative about police oppression that isn’t quite right, either.
I see a different narrative. The love and acceptance of dissenting views is huge. The intimacy of the occupation over night is amazing. The excitement from the live stream and Twitter feed is infectious. The populism hinting at totalitarianism is frightening. The occasional irony is amusing. More citations are needed.
I think there is something interesting going on here. It’s not just another protest. I think it’s a more enduring addition to our culture. A decade from now, when the U.S. invades France over a cheese dispute, protesters will “occupy” the streets using the same principles being developed now.
“The network of these free exchanges in society - known as the “free market” - creates a delicate and even awe-inspiring mechanism of harmony, adjustment, and precision in allocating productive resources, deciding upon prices, and gently but swiftly guiding the economic system toward the greatest possible satisfaction of the desires of all consumers. In short, not only does the free market directly benefit all parties and leave them free and uncoerced; it also creates a mighty and efficient instrument of social order. Proudhon, indeed, wrote better than he knew when he called “Liberty, the Mother, not the Daughter, of Order.”—Murray Rothbard. Man, Economy & State, Chap 12.
“[T]he word “marxism” contains an implicit negation of Marx’s basic tenet that individuals are unimportant; from which it follows that, having been individuals, Marx and Lenin are unimportant – and therefore those who accept the collectivist view of social causation should forget about them.”—Stanislav Andreski, Social Sciences as Sorcery (New York: St. Martins Press, 1973), p. 185
The overwhelming majority of state supporters are not philosophical statists, i.e., because they have thought about the matter. Most people do not think much about anything philosophical. They go about their daily lives, and that is it. So most support stems from the mere fact that a state exists, and has always existed as far as one can remember (and that is typically not farther away than one’s own lifetime). That is, the greatest achievement of the statist intellectuals is the fact that they have cultivated the masses’ natural intellectual laziness (or incapacity) and never allowed for the subject to come up for serious discussion. The state is considered as an unquestionable part of the social fabric.
The first and foremost task of the intellectual anti-intellectuals, then, is to counter this dogmatic slumber of the masses by offering a precise definition of the state, as I have done at the outset, and then to ask if there is not something truly remarkable, odd, strange, awkward, ridiculous, indeed ludicrous about an institution such as this. I am confident that such simple, definitional work will produce some serious doubt regarding an institution that one previously had been taken for granted.
“It is evident that the common enthusiasm for equality is, in the fundamental sense, anti-human. It tends to repress the flowering of individual personality and diversity, and civilization itself; it is a drive toward savage uniformity. Since abilities and interests are naturally diverse, a drive toward making people equal in all or most respects is necessarily a leveling downward. It is a drive against development of talent, genius, variety, and reasoning power. Since it negates the very principles of human life and human growth, the creed of equality and uniformity is a creed of death and destruction.”—Education Free & Compulsory by Murray N. Rothbard