For those of you who may not know: the image here is not me. It is just what you get if you search for a stock image of a man waving goodbye. I am waving my own internal goodbye these days to the ideology of anarcho-capitalism, which for particularity I used to call Rothbardian anarcho-cap. It may come as news to some readers that there are varieties of anarcho-cap but, take it from me, yes there are. Rothbard's is different from, say, Molyneux's. I no longer care enough to try to explain why. But I wasn't exactly a Rothbardian either. I understand now that my anarcho-cap was unique. It embodied chiefly a sense that (1) the myth of sovereignty is the source of most of the evil in the world, (2) by debunking that myth we can help move humanity forward to a new and (in consequentialist terms) a better equilibrium -- better than anything that can be achieved on a globe shared among nation-states, and (3) that new equilibrium will look like a lot like a supercharged capita...
Posts
One observer of matters libertarian remarked recently that there are only twelve true anarcho-caps in the world. The rest of the claimants are poseurs, trolls, or bots. I'm happy to be part of such a narrow elite! I wonder what we twelve should call each other? The Dirty ... uh, it's been done. The Ditzy Dozen ... closer to the mark, but gives up too much. Twelve Angry Men ... been skipping out on those diversity classes? Hoppe's Last Hopes! There ya go. For the uninitiated, that's a photo of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who might reasonable be considered the leader of the twelve, above.
Insofar as any individual is THE public voice and face of anarcho-capitalism these days, it is not me (alas) but Stefan Molyneux. Be sure to spell his first name properly when looking for information about him. Though there is a well-known Stephen Molyneux, he's different person. At any rate, Stefan's rise to prominence has made me grateful that I am no longer editor of a publication on anarcho-cap and related subjects. Were I still at The Pragmatist, I would be expected to say something about him. And the sort of thing one can say must be either (a) ranks-closed against the mutual statist foe, or (b) shocking/edgy/pointed. My own reaction falls between the two stools. I have had no journalistic responsibilities within the world of libertarian and anarcho-capitalistic theorising since well before 2005, the year Molyneux founded what has been his punditry base ever since, FreeDomain Radio, out of Ontario. I fear that Molyneux, on balance, harmed rather than advanced...
I’m an anarcho-capitalist, so I’m not the right person to ask about the particulars of money laundering policy by a nation state, though I do sometimes try to think “within the box” of statist assumptions. In the Hastert matter, there are different layers of operating assumptions behind this indictment. As Mrs Falbo said, “When you ‘assume’ something, you make an ass out of u and me.” Forewarned, I proceed. One might, at the outmost layer of our box, question why there are banks in the modern (post-Renaissance) sense in the first place, and whether they’re a blessing or a curse. Socialists of many varieties think banks are evil, many Moslems think any institution that charges interest on loans is evil, but I’ll set them both aside. What I’m somewhat more interested in is the argument about the “fractional reserve” nature of banking. Modern banks hold customer deposits and promise to give the customers this money back on demand. But of course they aren’t holding it...
In the Facebook group "anarcho-capitalism," one participant asked this: "Hypothetical: If I ran for political office on the platform that I ma an anarchist and that my ultimate goal is to end the government would you vote for me?" Among anarcho-caps there is of course a lot of distrust of the institution of voting as such, whoever is eliciting votes. So this is a natural question for the group. My own answer: No. I distrust the adjective "ultimate." Everybody is for all nice things "ultimately" even people who are doing quite nasty things now. Or especially them. All warriors are for "ultimate" peace, etc. And every Lenin or Chomsky will tell you he is for a stronger state but that since it will "ultimately" wither away, not to worry. Now, that was more concise than complete. There are contexts in which I don't distrust the word. There is some value to metaphysical/eschatological discussion of ultimates. But one is...
Some words today from the great anarcho-capitalist historian, Murray Rothbard: A radical libertarian, MR said, is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical – whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire – cannot think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we'll cut the income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we'll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can.
Lew Rockwell's new book, AGAINST THE STATE, is now available. Here's the amazon page. Party on.
On a message board site, someone asked me recently what I understand by the phrase "religious freedom." I began my answer with words from Thomas Jefferson, but soon incorporated them into something broader, and something that may hold some interest for you, dear blog reader. I have three thoughts on the subject. First, that my neighbor's belief that there is no God, or that there is one God, or that there are a thousand gods, in no case picks my pocket or breaks my bones. It in no case gives me a grievance against that neighbor. Secondly, that I should consider in the same spirit my neighbor's belief that there is one God who is Three Persons. Suppose I believe that to be logically incoherent and obscurantist. Or ... suppose I believe it to be right, but also believe that my neighbor misunderstands this Trinitarian idea completely. Again, in no case does that give me a grievance against my neighbor. Thirdly, my thought is that there is no obligation ...
I'm an anarcho-cap, not a "libertarian" in the usual sense of the term (that is, not a minarchist). But I sympathize with the libertarians, I was active in the LP myself for a time, and I would like to see them prosper. One of the online journals of opinion that does some good toward that end is LewRockwell.com. It proudly describes itself as "anti-state, anti-war, pro-market." Bravo on all three counts. But I do wish they would stop running pieces by wolves in sheep's clothing, by social conservatives like the imbecile Fred Reed. Here's a further explanation of why .
If this comes out illegibly, here's the text. Top left panel, question: "So you think there should be no government?" Top left panel, answer: "Well, yes. Call it what you want: anarchist, voluntarist, advocate for a stateless society -- whatever. I am against a monopoly on force, I think everything it does is immoral, and everything it does produces worse results than would be produced without the state." Top right panel, question: "I am skeptical but intrigued. Say, could you answer how police could work in that society as well as give some further material on learning?" Top right panel, answer: "Absolutely! Now I won't know how every aspect would be handled as no one can know plus there being many possible competing solutions, but I can provide you a basic outline and give you some stuff to read and watch." Top right panel, Jeffrey Tucker: "Good job, guys! Asking inquisitive questions plus info for further insight f...
I mentioned Friedman rather tangentially in yesterday's post, so I thought that before writing this one I should check up on what David F. has been up to lately. Not much, it turns out. The last writing of his that I would describe as a contribution to the public intellectual's case for liberty was a contribution to an anthology edited by Andrew I. Cohen and Christopher Heath Wellman, Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics . That came out in 2005 -- eight years ago. Since then, Friedman seems to have been trying to turn himself into a novelist. His second novel, Salamander, a bit of medievalist fantasy, appeared in March 2011. If you look at that Amazon page to which I just linked you, you'll find the book description. But in case you're feeling lazy, I'll reproduce it here: Magister Coelus, the College’s young and brilliant theorist, finally has a student capable of learning theoretical magery at the level at which he can teach it. He invites her to help...
Stefan Molyneux seems to be the hot new thing among young anarcho-capitalists. Not old fuddy-duds like me. He is the author for example of Universally Preferable Behavior, a book that attempts to expound a rationally impregnable (and secular) ethical system. I have not read that, or anything else of Molyneux's. I leave to those who have read it to pass on its merits. I do not rely entirely upon secondary sources, though. I did spend some time listening to one of his podcasts, the beginning of a comprehensive course on philosophy he offers here . That particular link leads you to a forty minute effort to introduce the subject matter of the remainder of a series. The gist of it, if I understand it at all, is that philosophy, in the sense in which Molyneux proposes to use the term for the duration of the course, the sort of philosophy he hopes to teach, is: a lot like empirical science -- indeed it is empirical science, writ large -- such that any inferences a ph...
I expect that if I don't say something about this subject I will soon be the only regular blogger in the northeastern United States who hasn't. My sympathies of course to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, the dead and the injured and the families of both. The death of someone as young as Martin Richard is always especially heartbreaking. But you don't come here for the usual hearts and flowers dear reader. Let's see if we can say something not already said. We can do so if we turn our attention to the manhunt, which began in earnest Thursday evening with another crime, the murder of a security officer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Late Thursday evening, Sean Collier, responding to a disturbance, was shot and killed. That set off a wild 24-hour period that ended with one of Collier's murderers dead and the other in custody. Perhaps this is something of a take-away. We're often told that government is necessary to keep people ...
I've just googled the expression "you didn't build that" and received more than 40 million hits. Most of them surely (and all of them that I see on the first page of the list) involve the President's recent speech, and his statement two weeks ago about how successful people should recognize that they didn't get there, they didn't build their business, on their own. It is pretty clear from the context, where the phrase "on your own" appears repeatedly, what is meant. There are efforts to create a furor over this, but the statement in itself is unexceptional. Of course you didn't get there alone. If you are a successful entrepreneur, you are perfectly aware of the fact that you are not a hermit living in a self-constructed hut in the rain forest. There aren't any customers or investors in the rain forest. Why would you try to create a business there? You built your business in the middle of a social world, and a lot of ...