I thought I would recommend some of the not so well known but nevertheless mind-blowing journal articles that should be read by everyone in the movement, especially by those outside it. This is the fourth in a series of many.
Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy? [voluntarism] by Alfred G. Cuzan
- “A major point of dispute among libertarian theorists and thinkers today as always revolves around the age-old question of whether man can live in total anarchy or whether the minimal state is absolutely necessary for the maximization of freedom. Lost in this dispute is the question of whether man is capable of getting out of anarchy at all. Can we really abolish anarchy and set up a Government in its place? Most people, regardless of their ideological preferences, simply assume that the abolition of anarchy is possible, that they live under Government and that anarchy would be nothing but chaos and violence. The purpose of this paper is to question this venerated assumption and to argue that the escape from anarchy is impossible, that we always live in anarchy, and that the real question is what kind of anarchy we live under, market anarchy or non-market (political) anarchy.”
- “Government is an agent external to society, a “third party” with the power to coerce all other parties to relations in society into accepting its conceptions of those relations. … However, that the idea of Government exists is no proof of its empirical existence. … That societies may have some form of organization they call the “government” is no reason to conclude that those “governments” are empirical manifestations of the idea of Government. … A closer look at these earthly “governments” reveals that they do not get us out of anarchy at all. They simply replace one form of anarchy by another and hence do not give us real Government. Let’s see how this is so…”
- Stephan Kinsella: I agree with David Gordon. I disagree with pro-voluntary slavery libertarians, like Walter Block (Thomas L. Knapp is another, though he pettifogs on the use of the term "voluntary slavery").
- Jeremiah Dyke: I too think it's insane not to have the ability to contract any percentage of your labor for any duration of time. [Sarcasm]
- Stephan Kinsella: This is not an argument. Abilities don't come from opinions. Let's be clear: to justify voluntary slavery means you have to justify the use of force by a would-be "master" against a would-be "slave", if the slave tries to run away or changes his mind or disobeys an order. The libertarian thinks use of violence against another person's body is unjustified aggression, unless it is (a) consented to, or (b) in response to aggression.
- But the slave has not committed aggression, so (b) is not a possible justification. Some alienabilists disingenuously argue that it IS "aggression" since the master owns the slave's body, so it's trespass (aggression) for the slave to use the master's property (the slave's body) in ways the owner (master) does not consent to. This argument is disingenuous because it is question-begging; it presupposes the legitimacy of body-alienability, in order to prove it. So this does not fly. I will say that I get very tired of people who engage in question-begging arguments. They do this all the time in IP -- where they label an act of copying "stealing" in order to show that what was "stolen" must have been ownable property. Horrible reasoning. I hope you don't engage in this kind of dishonest trick.
- As for (a); clearly the slave who tries to run away does NOT consent to the force the master wants to apply to him. The only way the alienabilist can get around this is to say that the PREVIOUS consent the slave gave (say, a week before) is still somehow applicable, i.e. that the slave cannot change his mind. Why not? because ... well ... because ... well ... because the slavery contract was binding! So we see, yet again, the sneaky and dishonest resort to question-begging; slavery contracts are binding because they are binding. Neat trick, that!
- The reason people can change their minds is that it does not commit aggression. And the reason a previous statement of intent is relevant is simply that it provides evidence of what the current consent is. It's a standing order, but one that can be overridden with better, more recent, evidence. If a girl tells her boyfriend he may kiss her now, and any time he feels like it in the future, then when tomorrow comes he is reasonable in assuming that she is still actually consenting NOW to another kiss, even if she says nothing, because she set up that presumption earlier. Her previous statement was not a binding contract, but just a way of establishing a standing presumption about what her ongoing consent IS. But if he goes to kiss her and she says NO, then we know that the previous statement about what her future consent WOULD be, was a bad prediction and has been undermined by the better, present/current evidence she is giving.
- It is no different in all the voluntary slavery situations.
1. A “beautiful post” consisting of absolutely no arguments. Wow, you clearly have ‘high’ standards! So ‘high’ in fact it leads to directly defending the Federal Reserve! Did Helicopter Ben give you a ‘free’ joy ride to the wonderful land of ‘legalized counterfeiting’ and promise you he’d shower all your favorite government programs with funding? Dr. Ron Paul prescribes a dose of Economics In One Lesson, and some Case Against the Fed to help rectify that blatant economic ignorance of yours.
- “The financial elites of this country, were responsible for putting through the Federal Reserve System as a governmentally created and sanctioned cartel device to enable the nation’s banks to inflate the money supply in a coordinated fashion.” — Murray Rothbard
Aren’t you meant to be against the financial elites? Aren’t you meant to be against the poor getting poorer, as they get screwed over via inflation? You don’t care that they lose their jobs thanks to the depression: a product of the central bank artificially lowering interest rates leading to the creation of an artificial boom through easy credit, thus resulting in malinvestment and an inevitable bust?
There is in fact legitimate and valid reasoning behind every single vote Ron Paul has made.. it’s just that you, and your fellow cohort of intellectual sloths are satisfied with taking everything you are spoon fed at face value. How about asking “why?” every once in a while? How about doing your job… which as a wannabe future journalist actually involves doing some investigating!
If you possessed a modicum of competency you would have discovered that the reason Ron Paul was the sole vote against the “Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act” is because he’s not a warmongering economic illiterate who understands that:
- H.R. 180 is premised on the assumption that divestment, sanctions, and other punitive measures are effective in influencing repressive regimes, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Proponents of such methods fail to remember that where goods cannot cross borders, troops will.
- Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and numerous other countries failed to topple their governments. Rather than weakening dictators, these sanctions strengthened their hold on power and led to more suffering on the part of the Cuban and Iraqi people. To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, it was brought about by private individuals working through the market to influence others.
- No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the United States government has no business entangling itself in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties. Any further divestment action should be undertaken through voluntary means and not by government fiat.
- H.R. 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the federal government over American businesses, force this country into yet another foreign policy debacle, and do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the residents of Darfur.
- The safe harbor provision opens another dangerous loophole, allowing fund managers to escape responsibility for any potential financial mismanagement, and it sets a dangerous precedent.
So here we discover that you and your contemporaries are nothing but rabidly confused intellectual pygmies. As for the claims of racism this sets the record straight.
2. An excellent example of cherry picking fallacy (content displayed of the bill) with no attempt at all to ascertain why Ron Paul voted the way he did. The error of such an approach is exactly the same as above, except here parts of the bill are displayed. It also attempts to shift the burden of proof. The one supporting the initiation or threat of aggression must attempt to justify the actions, even if done through arbitrary ad hoc legislation created by a self-interested ruling political elite. It’s erroneous to assume that such a framework is an implicit given.
All it does is begs the question of its validity, because I and others clearly didn’t sign any social contract. Furthermore, the point is that it is impossible - not that the said “signing” occurred generations ago. This short video I’ve posted previously lays waste to the concept. You cannot have a contract with a concept. A social contract violates methodological individualism, it contains circular reasoning. The state does not defend us. The state operates in a legal vacuum. A tax-funded protection agency is a contradiction in terms.
3. Here Adam Kokesh from Adam vs. The Man responds directly to: Ten Reasons Not to Vote For Ron Paul. After shattering the arguments, he also provides some of his own ten reasons not to vote for Ron Paul:
- 10. I hate freedom
- 9. I love paying taxes for stupid crap the government shouldn’t be doing
- 8. I don’t want to lose my sweet job groping children at TSA checkpoints
- 7. I love seeing Bradley Manning tortured for speaking out against all these awesome wars
- 6. Obama still gives me that tingling sensation up my leg
- 5. The drug war is awesome!
- 4. I love paying the inflation tax to the Federal Reserve… even though I don’t know what that means
- 3. Don’t we need government to protect us from ourselves?
- 2. But Obama promised to keep me from ever having to take any real responsibility for myself
- 1. If Ron Paul wins then I won’t get to call anyone who disagrees with me a racist for not supporting our dear great imperial leader Barack Hussein Obama
The Adam Smith Myth — Murray N. Rothbard
- [S]mith was scarcely the founder of economic science, a science which existed since the medieval scholastics and, in its modern form, since Richard Cantillon. … The problem is that he originated nothing that was true, and that whatever he originated was wrong; that, even in an age that had fewer citations or footnotes than our own, Adam Smith was a shameless plagiarist, acknowledging little or nothing and stealing large chunks, for example, from Cantillon. … For it is not just that Smith’s Wealth of Nations has had a terribly overblown reputation from his day to ours. The problem is that the Wealth of Nations was somehow able to blind all men, economists and laymen alike, to the very knowledge that other economists, let alone better ones, had existed and written before 1776. The Wealth of Nations exerted such a colossal impact on the world that all knowledge of previous economists was blotted out, hence Smith’s reputation as Founding Father. The historical problem is this: how could this phenomenon have taken place with a book so derivative, so deeply flawed, so much less worthy than its predecessors?
The answer is surely not any lucidity or clarity of style or thought. For the much revered Wealth of Nations is a huge, sprawling, inchoate, confused tome, rife with vagueness, ambiguity and deep inner contradictions. …
That should answer your question. However, Mises is more tempered than Rothbard.