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
I recently responded to a similar question about how to simply define libertarianism (liberty) here. As you know, freedom and liberty are often used interchangeably and synonymously. Unfortunately the term is generally abused by every movement out there trying to justify their cause. As a result the waters have been muddied and hardly anyone knows what it means anymore. Similarly as Karen DeCoster mentions,
- “A popular rallying cry is that we Americans “enjoy more freedom than any other citizens in the world.” However, I argue that freedom is not a test of measurements. Freedom is not merely a political end that is to be measured quantitatively against that which has been achieved historically in the U.S., or by others worldwide. Freedom is not a measurement to determine the amount of success that we gain, in increments, against our aggressors. Rather, freedom is an end gained via an objective moral order, rooted in the ability to entirely eliminate all coercion from the State, our main aggressor.” — Why We Are Not Free.
Striking at the root as to why there is a lot of confusion regarding the meaning of freedom is Murray Rothbard,
- “Some may object that man is not really free because he must obey natural laws. To say that man is not free because he is not able to do anything he may possibly desire, however, confuses freedom and power. It is clearly absurd to employ as a definition of “freedom” the power of an entity to perform an impossible action, to violate its nature.” — The Mantle of Science.
This clears up the erroneous definitions and uses outlined in your question; freedom from pain, pleasure, death, life, boredom, happiness, and oppression. How then, does one properly define freedom? Hans-Hermann Hoppe makes it very clear here:
- A society is free, if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or “homestead” previously un-owned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples’ property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions.
If you are attempting to apply the principle of non-aggression, sure - it should be a big tent, no matter the philosophical foundation. Issues of contention within the movement (abortion, immigration, fractional-reserve banking etc) need not exclude one from the movement. War however is a disqualifier… as there is no real attempt to apply the non-aggression principle, and to put it simply “war is the health of the state”.
There is no legitimate form of “left” or “right” wing libertarianism. These concepts are the remnants of the false left / right paradigm and fallaciously try to apply an adjective (eg. left or thick) to a noun (libertarianism), in an effort to influence what it means… except the attempt is bogus & violates what libertarianism actually is. When a person speaks of things (outside the realm of political philosophy) they do not do so as a libertarian.
Hence, libertarian qua libertarian has nothing to say on those matters. It is left over baggage people still possess. Their earlier positions failed under scruitiny, so the individual undertook an investigation into libertarianism but has not yet succeeded in ridding themselves of a tainted ideology. Libertarianism is unique, it is neither left nor right.
Remaining a ‘statist’ isn’t the key issue either. Hating the state (loving liberty) & being a radical (abolitionist) is.
“…Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays,you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he nevercrossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.
And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of “Our Enemy, the State” (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.
Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today? Why are almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists plonky conservatives and patriots? If the opposite of “radical” is “conservative,” where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our limited statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no splits between us. What divides the movement now, the true division, is not anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs. conservative. Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no.
To carry our analysis further, radical anti-statists are extremely valuable even if they could scarcely be considered libertarians in any comprehensive sense. Thus, many people admire the work of columnists Mike Royko and Nick von Hoffman because they consider these men libertarian sympathizers and fellow-travelers. That they are, but this does not begin to comprehend their true importance. For throughout the writings of Royko and von Hoffman, as inconsistent as they undoubtedly are, there runs an all-pervasive hatred of the State, of all politicians, bureaucrats, and their clients which, in its genuine radicalism, is far truer to the underlying spirit of liberty than someone who will coolly go along with the letter of every syllogism and every lemma down to the “model” of competing courts.
Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous “abolitionism” vs. “gradualism” debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes “conservatism”), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the “intellectual cowardice” of failing to set forth “feasible” methods of getting “from here to there.” Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a “button pusher” who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.
Ron Paul is a voluntarist*, however to many he is considered a supporter of limited government (and yet would fulfill Rothbard’s criteria of a radical regardless). This indicates precisely why he gets so much support from some areas and so little, even negative from others.
The structure remains the same. Shouldn’t the victim, or next of kin be the ones determining the level of punishment? (If ‘aggressor’ found guilty by the judge, jury etc.) Not the state, or yourself? youtube.com/watch?v… :)
What about victims who don’t have a next of kin? Or a murderer with multiple victims whose next of kins don’t agree?
A very good question Molly. I actually had to stop and think about this (for those who might want to catch up on the exchange , , ). To address your first question..
If the victim had a will, which in a free society built on contracts would be more likely, they’d specify how to deal with such a situation if it were to arise - i.e issues relating to their death, organ donation etc. Dealing with their aggressor -if there is one- would be apart of that, and simply mean following through with their stated wishes. Either in relation to damages and the next of kin affected (children, dependents, spouse), or enacting the ultimate punishment: death. As pointed out in the Bob Murphy video linked above (which you didn’t watch ;p) I think more people would side with putting the ‘murderer’ to work, as opposed to removing their existence, though that is certainly an option.
If there isn’t a will to follow, is someone else able to step in and prosecute as an agent on behalf of the victim? First this needs to be broken down, it’s like there is a property conflict, but one side is missing and would be unable to bring the matter personally to court. ‘Agents’ can certainly do it for you, but if you hadn’t organized such a thing prior to, then how has the issue come to attention?
Someone must suspect foul play, investigate, find the ‘murderer’ and bring them to trial to see if they are guilty. Who could that be? Who has an incentive to investigate? The insurance company for starters, or some other interested party. Also where did the person die, on whose property? If a renter, then that’s the landlord. If a home owner with a mortgage, then the bank. These institutions, including others in the local community have a direct interest in seeing the criminal be reprimanded so it doesn’t happen again, because it drives down local values and prices, whilst it would raise their insurance premiums given an increase in crime in the area.
The only reason the state is interested, is because it lost a tax payer, and you can’t have people going around killing more taxpayers. That’s the government’s job.
In a free society anyone would be able to take precautionary action against a dangerous person that they suspect for whatever reason. If a person feels there is a dangerous person out there that isn’t being dealt with, then the logical place to address would be any of the local security agencies, because they stand to lose by it (they offer safety as a good).
So the security agencies (or the insurance agencies), would investigate that person’s background, their standing in the community, people who support them, etc. But the point is that the whole community has an interest in dealing with dangerous people. It is today that we have no way of filtering out good from bad people; it’s made illegal through legislation.
For example, it’s illegal to disallow people from your business (egalitarian, anti-discrimination legislation). Illegal to store trade and crime information (‘privacy’ legislation). We want to do those things, it’s in our interest, but we can’t because we live under a monopoly.
People have a reputation, which can be tarnished through contract arbitration and ostracism, but can also be tarnished through publication of evidence. Which anyone is free to do (unless singing a NDA I suppose), and anyone would be free to act on. However, you are currently not free to protect yourself and your community. Dealing privately with criminals would be perceived very differently probably, in the public eye. Because we would know exactly who is dangerous, yet out there. Best we know now is sex offenders; which a lot of the time was consensual.
The importance of next of kins are only relevant in terms of damages, not so much in terms of reputation/danger.
Or a murderer with multiple victims whose next of kins don’t agree?
I think this would be settled in arbitration among the families after conviction. Prior to, we can only speculate what a private law society would look like. Would there be multiple individual cases brought by the separate dispute resolution agencies against the one individual, or would it essentially take the form of a ‘class action’ suit where the plaintiffs all line up as one against the defendant. Who knows?
Naturally though, the more folks involved the less chance of agreement. The point being though, in a free society, the tendency would be exceedingly towards murder sprees not happening - given proper competitive protection and insurance agencies, not the inefficient monopoly we have now.
i34.tinypic.com/675b88…. .. prove what? ;p
Everything you can possibly prove about it. It’s synthetic a priori which implies you can symbolize it. If you symbolize it, and create appropriate rules of deduction, you can plug it into a computer program like Isabelle and it will prove every result that is possible to prove deductively
What’s to prove about it? That humans act? It’s already been done.
- “Mises’s great insight was that economic reasoning has its foundation in just this understanding of action; and that the status of economics as a sort of applied logic derives from the status of the action-axiom as an a priori-true synthetic proposition. The laws of exchange, the law of diminishing marginal utility, the Ricardian law of association, the law of price controls, and the quantity theory of money all the examples of economic propositions which I have mentioned can be logically derived from this axiom. And this is why it strikes one as ridiculous to think of such propositions as being of the same epistemological type as those of the natural sciences. To think that they are, and accordingly to require testing for their validation, is like supposing that we had to engage in some fact-finding process without knowing the possible outcome in order to establish the fact that one is indeed an actor. In a word: It is absurd.” ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe, ESAM.
In regards to symbolizing it, I think you have already checked out Mises excerpt from Human Action, but definitely take a look at Rothbard’s journal article on Praxeology. It explicitly goes into this topic around page 5, i.e verbal logic and mathematical logic.
Mathematics versus Economic Logic by Ludwig von Mises
- …The deliberations which result in the formulation of an equation are necessarily of a nonmathematical character. The formulation of the equation is the consummation of our knowledge; it does not directly enlarge our knowledge. […] No such constant relations exist, however, between economic elements. The equations formulated by mathematical economics remain a useless piece of mental gymnastics and would remain so even it they were to express much more than they really do.
- …The mathematical method is at a loss to show how, from a state of nonequilibrium, those actions spring up which tend toward the establishment of equilibrium. It is, of course, possible to indicate the mathematical operations required for the transformation of the mathematical description of a definite state of nonequilibrium into the mathematical description of the state of equilibrium. But these mathematical operations by no means describe the market process actuated by the discrepancies in the price structure. The differential equations of mechanics are supposed to describe precisely the motions concerned at any instant of the time traveled through. The economic equations have no reference whatever to conditions as they really are in each instant of the time interval between the state of nonequilibrium and that of equilibrium. Only those entirely blinded by the prepossession that economics must be a pale replica of mechanics will underrate the weight of this objection. A very imperfect and superficial metaphor is not a substitute for the services rendered by logical economics…
Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics by Murray N. Rothbard
- …Moreover, even if verbal economics could be successfully translated into mathematical symbols and then translated into English so as to explain the conclusions, the process makes no sense and violates the great scientific principle of Occam’s Razor: avoiding unnecessary multiplication of entities…
- …Although himself a mathematical economist, the mathematician son of Carl Menger wrote a trenchant critique of the idea that mathematical presentation in economics is necessarily more precise than ordinary language:
Consider, for example, the statements (2) To a higher price of a…
A Note on Mathematical Economics by Murray N. Rothbard
- …The best readers’ guide to the jungle of mathematical economics is to ignore the fancy welter of equations and look for the assumptions underneath. Invariably they are few in number, simple, and wrong. They are wrong precisely because mathematical economists are positivists, who do not know that economics rests on true axioms.
The mathematical economists are therefore framing assumptions which are admittedly false or partly false, but which they hope can serve as useful approximations, as they would in physics. The important thing is not to be intimidated by the mathematical trappings.
I’m not sure of the value of such an undertaking. Or maybe I’ve misinterpreted the intended goal. Whatever the case, I’d definitely be interested in reading your thoughts when you eventually have time to flesh them out :).
evokit asked: Thanks for responding to my question on Antitrust. What is your view on government laws setting minimum fish size and catch limits?
No worries, and another good question you have here :). The state is illegitimate for numerous reasons. So I will focus primarily on the consequences of such arbitrary ad hoc legislation (often designed by special interest lobby groups to help out their big business backers), and put forward the legitimate private property rights alternative which would actually solve the concerns of conservationists, as opposed to making matters worse via state legislation.
The unowned oceans are a tragedy of the commons. The fish and mammals within them are in a similar situation. Hence, much like the buffalo basically going extinct for the exact same reason, you have cows & cattle that are privately owned, and never came close. This is analogous to the whales. You should be able to own and do what you want with them. So, instead of Greenpeace etc. fighting the Japanese and getting no-where, they would go out and claim specific whales before the Japanese do. A simple tracking device attached, or branding to broadcast their claim should suffice. If the Japanese steal your property, they are criminals, pure and simple. Whale watching is a massive industry, there would be incentives to keep them alive and numerous. If the Japanese want to eat them, that is the cost they will have to bare, it’s none of your business. Private property is the solution, the same goes with fishing. Aqua culture would spring up if property rights were enforced, but they are currently not.
Minimum fish size (minimum wage) and catch limits (quotas).
If restrictions, regulations, and price floors create massive deadweight losses, they also create incentives for firms and individuals to evade those restrictions, regulations, and price floors. Those with a comparative advantage in evading (or violating) the law will be most successful; thus, labor market regulation gives implicit encouragement and support to the unscrupulous. Restriction and regulation reduces the relative price of dishonesty, which means we can expect greater levels of it in the marketplace.
Advocates of higher minimum wages are often motivated by the purest of concerns for the poor. However, the minimum wage has been described as a “maximum folly” by many economists for many years because it hurts precisely the people who most desperately need help. Self-styled friends of the poor are unrelenting in their advocacy of a higher minimum wage, but with friends like these, the poor do not need enemies.
Fishermen often catch over the quota on a good day (not purposefully), and are then forced to dump the dead fish into the sea. Every year tons of perfectly good fish are dumped into back into the sea after they have died. So much for feeding the poor? Quotas allow for an artificially high price to be maintained, thus benefiting the ‘big fish’ within the industry & reducing competition. It’s a form of protectionism.
This is just one example, I’m sure more could be thought of - there are always tons of unintended consequences that result from legislation.
A lot of people wonder how you can “homestead” the ocean? It pays to remember that the proper principle is first original appropriation, and would be regarding the ‘relevant technical unit’.
But what about the process of de-socialization / de-statization, how to go about that? Would suddenly every shipping lane have to pay to one group of ownership? No, and the libertarian rationale is provided by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Want to keep this short as possible, so here is some further reading:
- Property Rights and Whales Wars - Jeremiah Dyke
- Why No Oceans Program? - Tibor R. Machan
- Water Privatization - Walter Block
- Law, Property Rights and Air Pollution - Rothbard
- Save the Bluefin Tuna Through Property Rights - Bob Murphy
- The Privatization of the Oceans - Rögnvaldur Hannesson
- Marine Mammal Conservation With Just 4% Ocean Privatization - Jeremiah Dyke
- Conservationism, Ecology and Growth - Rothbard, For a New Liberty Chapter 13.
- Freemarket Environmentalism Youtube
booksofthought asked: Thanks for answering my question with your post on the Warlord Objection, but it didn't quite address what I was getting at. My concern was less that an anarchy would degenerate into constant war, but more that it's more susceptible to some tyranny emerging, possibly from a cult of personality, while a limited government only becomes repressive by great violence or over a long period of time. Your answer helped, but didn't fully address the concern.
G’day BooksofThought :). Such is the nature of only having one hundred odd characters to deal with. You’re right but implicit within that, the examples you describe in your question; are failed states. In no way are they an indictment of ‘anarchy’, or the concept of a free society. To better address your question:
“I am of the opinion that a minarchy (that is, a state that only has control of law, and not necessarily monopolistic law) provides a valuable service to a free and voluntary people: it prevents the emergence of a much more intrusive and repressive state.”
This is essentially Robert Nozick’s Immaculate Conception of the State.
- no existing State has been immaculately conceived, and therefore Nozick, on his own grounds, should advocate anarchism and then wait for his State to develop;
- even if any State had been so conceived, individual rights are inalienable and therefore no existing State could be justified;
- every step of Nozick’s invisible hand process is invalid: the process is all too conscious and visible, and the risk and compensation principles are both fallacious and passports to unlimited despotism;
- there is no warrant, even on Nozick’s own grounds, for the dominant protective agency to outlaw procedures by independents that do not injure its own clients, and therefore it cannot arrive at an ultra-minimal state;
- contrary to Nozick, there are no “procedural rights,” and therefore no way to get from his theory of risk and nonproductive exchange to the compulsory monopoly of the ultra-minimal state;
- there is no warrant, even on Nozick’s own grounds, for the minimal state to impose taxation;
- there is no way, in Nozick’s theory, to justify the voting or democratic procedures of any State;
- Nozick’s minimal state would, on his own grounds, justify a maximal State as well; and
- the only “invisible hand” process, on Nozick’s own terms, would move society from his minimal State back to anarchism.
Thus, the most important attempt in this century to rebut a private law society and to justify the State fails totally and in each of its parts.”
You mention no monopoly of law, then it’s not a state… and if it’s competing with others which are voluntarily funded via contract, then you’re at a free market in security & defense and provision of law: you’re a voluntarist, anarcho-capitalist, supporter of private law. Otherwise, your claim begs the question - how does it prevent the emergence of a much more intrusive and repressive state?
If you keep a minarchy on a leash, it’ll be a lot harder to get people on board with any would-be kingdom or dictatorship, as there will be no “power vacuum” to fill, as many historical examples of anarchy have had (think Afghanistan between the Soviets leaving and the Taliban taking over, or England between the death of Charles I and the restoration of the monarchy).
Limited government, minarchy is utopian. As mentioned earlier, the countries set up as examples - are examples of failed states. As you note, monopolies are bad. Only the market provides real checks and balances. For those that are poor, services are provided - like they are now, done via the market.
In regards to the “power vacuum”, what vacuum? Only such a vacuum exists when the state is taken as granted and eternal. It’s not, and is the antithesis of liberty. Here is an actual historical example that makes the case.
In regards to how would private law work, both Hoppe and Murphy deal with it quite well.
In response to:
“it’s more susceptible to some tyranny emerging, possibly from a cult of personality, while a limited government only becomes repressive by great violence or over a long period of time.”
You’ll have to walk me through the logic with this one. To a large degree it begs the question. Because isn’t it exactly the opposite. Hasn’t America experienced: The Articles of Confederation -> U.S Constitution -> World Empire… and didn’t we see a cult of personality in Barack Obama during the last election?
Anonymous asked: Would you ask HHH whether he still thinks immigration should not be free? He says that the State should restrict immigration because it is the institution that governs the so called public property and accordingly should use it in the most effective way in concert with the interest of the public. The proposition that the State can effectively manage the "public property" is a contradiction in terms. State policies on immigration (or whatever the issue) can't represent the interest of the public.
Hello, unfortunately I’ve seen this too late. I have no idea where you came to the above conclusion, so I’d ask you to quote said source and back up your assertion. In any respect, I think you are mistaken, and to be charitable, it sounds more like a Stephan Kinsella type argument, not one from Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
The whole issue is often an argument over seconds bests, that is why there is no libertarian ‘solution’ to it whilst the state exists. I hope that helps :).
Anonymous asked: What is your view on Ron Paul's alleged racist remarks in his younger years?
Why is this even still an issue? I ignored this for quite some time, but hopefully this answer may clear some things up for a few people. Let’s for the sake of argument concede that the newsletters were written by him two decades ago. Well what about now, does he support policies that coincide with that view? The exact opposite in fact.
- Ron Paul cited the unfair disparity in the percentage of blacks imprisoned over drug offenses in proportion with the relative percentage of black drug users, giving example to the system’s racial bias. He’s the only one running Republican or Democrat who is against it.
- Ron Paul would pardon all non-violent drug offenders currently in prison, and end the war on drugs.
- The individual is the smallest minority there is. Ron Paul defends individual rights, he doesn’t see or judge others in terms of groups, be it because of their skin colour or gender i.e a form of collectivism, but by the content of their character.
- Martin Luther King Holiday Money bombs…
- Offering to chip in and pay out of his own pocket for a Gold Medal for Rosa Parks, who he considers a hero, along with Gandhi.
- This lady explains why others should not support candidates based on their race or gender.
But the thing is, and I’m glad you used the word alleged, because it is key here. They were not penned by him, though the Newsletter has his name written on the header. Here is an open letter from Wendy McElroy (who is close within the movement) to the newsletter writer.
[…] I appeal to the author to do the decent thing. Don’t let Ron Paul take the fall for your words and actions. Don’t further sully the libertarian movement by your silence. I know that — in writing this — I am severing all connection between us in the future and, frankly, I am sorry to do so. Nevertheless… so be it. Through our years of association, one thing I have never considered you to be is a coward. Please prove my assessment correct; please take responsibility.- Wednesday 09 January 2008.
Some people cite Ron Paul being against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as some kind of argument that he’s racist. Really?
Though Paul said that while he thought Jim Crow laws were illegal, he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act “because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws.”
- Jim Crow laws -> government legislation, by state decree. Segregation in the military -> government legislation, by state decree. The purveyors of the problem.
…Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
- “…But, when all is said and done, the truth about race and IQ means a lot more to liberals and to neocons than it does to libertarians. For the liberals and neocons, being statist to the core, are obliged to seize control of resources and to allocate them somehow among the various groups of the population. Liberals-neocons are “sorters,” they aim to sort people out, to subsidize here, to control and restrict there. So, to the neocon or liberal power elite, ethnic or racial science is a big thing because it tells these sorters who exactly they should subsidize, who they should control, who they should restrict and limit. Should they use taxpayer funds to subsidize the “disadvantaged” or geniuses? Which is more socially productive, which dysgenic?
When it comes to discrimination, at a political philosophical level - you have the right to do what you want with your property, as long as you don’t aggress against anyone else. You can choose to serve or not serve whoever you want, for whatever reason. In the same vein as Defending the Undefendable, Walter Block has written a “The Case for Discrimination”. Also Discrimination and a Free Society by Lawrence M. Vance:
…Just as no one has a right to enter my home, so no one should have a right to stay at my inn, hotel, or motel; eat at my restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, or lunch counter; enjoy a beverage at my soda fountain; fill up at my gas station; view a movie at my theater; listen to a concert in my hall; or watch a sporting event at my arena or stadium.
There should be no distinction between a private home and a private business. In a free society, as Jacob Hornberger has recently pointed out, “a person has the fundamental right to associate with anyone he chooses and on any basis he chooses.” In a free society, business owners, like homeowners, would have the right to run their businesses as they choose, including the right of exclusion. In a free society, everyone would have the right to discriminate in his place of business — yes, discriminate — against male or female, Blacks or Whites, Christians or Jews, Protestants or Catholics, heterosexuals or homosexuals, atheists or theists, natives or immigrants, smokers or nonsmokers, obese or anorexic.
The simple truth is that Americans don’t live in a free society, although they may think they do. We live in a relatively free society compared to people in many other countries, but we do not live in a society that is absolutely free. We have a nanny state. We have a government full of politicians, bureaucrats, and regulators and a society full of statists, authoritarians, and busybodies who all want to use the force of government to impose their values, remake society in their own image, and compel others to associate with people of their choosing. It is futile to attempt to change human nature. Like attracts like, whether it is political preference, sexual orientation, religious piety, or skin color.
Forcing a Jewish person to serve a Nazi, or forcing an African American to serve a member of the KKK is the same in principle as forcing A to serve B against his will for whatever reason. It is disgusting, and that is what anti-discrimination laws do. Put down the gun statists, violence isn’t the answer.