Molyneux’s words of wisdom
Stefan Molyneux, an anarchist philosopher, has written a handful of books (available for free), one of which is Practical Anarchy, in which he addresses many concerns that non-anarchists often put forward when we talk about abolishing the state. In one of my favorite passages, he brings up the very good point that we don't often call for statist solutions to the problems we face in our personal and professional lives:
For instance, when you face a problem at work, I can’t imagine that you ever sit your team down and say:
“I’ve come up with the perfect solution to our problem – what we’re going to do, see, is pick two of us, give them guns, and then those two are going to force the rest of us to do whatever they want for the next few years, and then we are going to perhaps pick two other people who will get those guns, and then they’ll be able to force us to do whatever they want us to do for the next few years, and then we’ll start all over again…”
I have yet to see a business book with anything close to the title of: “Creating A Violent Internal Monopoly To Solve Your Customer Service Woes!”
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Boudreaux on Kennedy
Don Boudreaux is never accused of mincing his words, and there's no trace of equivocation here when he quite properly skewers Ted Kennedy and his hunger for power: Ted Kennedy's Appetites.
Don nicely illustrates the thoughts that go through my head when I hear someone hold up a statist politician as an example of someone doing great and noble and selfless things for their fellow man.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Wake County public schools in bed with churches
Many Wake County residents (and plenty of other folks) may be interested in knowing that the Wake County Public School System has recently implemented something called the Adopt-a-School Initiative, which seeks to partner every school in the system with a "faith-based organization" in order (ostensibly) to mentor problem students. To begin with, it turns out that not all "faith-based organizations" appear to be welcome. The program is headed by Assistant Superintendent of Student Support Services, Dr. Marvin Connelly, who also happens to be a Baptist pastor and is active in the Wake Baptist Missionary Association. At last check, hundreds of local Protestant churches had been notified of this program--no Catholic churches, and no non-Christian religious organizations. Very interesting.
And it gets even better. The "training" for participating individuals has been farmed out to a hardcore Protestant group called Another Step Forward Ministries. Their training brochure says the Adopt-a-School Initiative "links faith in God and good works for the improvement of life and the lives of others" and "seeks to build strong individuals, families, faith-based organizations, business and communities from a Kingdom perspective." Really? This somehow didn't seem problematic to the WCPSS Board?
This is almost certainly a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause, as well as objectively immoral since it involves the public school system that is funded with our tax dollars. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
[I submitted basically what you see above as a letter to the editor of the News & Observer.]
These kinds of problems are inherent in a government school system and just another reason to abolish it and prevent government from having anything to do with education. Then people could simply send their kids to whatever private schools best suit them. But in the meantime, the only fair solution is to not allow mingling of government and religion.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
A lion we can live without
It should come as no surprise that I do not mourn the loss of any statist politician, except to the extent of any concern I have that they might be replaced by someone even worse. In that vein, the death of Teddy Kennedy is no cause of sorrow for me, and Don Boudreaux points out one of Kennedy's final acts of despicable political maneuvering here: Lion of the Senate.
So Kennedy first pushes to restrict the power of the governor while that position is occupied by Mitt Romney (a statist of a different stripe) and then pushes for more power for the governor when his own brand of statist holds the office. Just one last abuse of power in a long career of such abuse.
Kennedy was a consummate politician in the truest sense of the word. Politics relates to the use of government power to coerce others, and a politician is one who practices such actions. Kennedy used his position in the political world to escape what would almost certainly have been a prison sentence for someone less well-connected in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, as well as to get away with things like drunkenly harassing college girls in D.C. bars (as witnessed first hand by a friend of mine a few years back). He also pushed some of the most atrocious abuses of government power, including minimum wage laws, confiscation of wealth from those who earned it to transfer it to those who did not (with the government taking its cut, of course), violations of the 2nd Amendment, and increased government control and regulation of business, education, and the health care process.
That's not to say he didn't take non-statist positions on some things (women's rights, immigration, gay rights, etc), but his overall effect was massively destructive of human freedom and prosperity. Just ask John McCain, who said Kennedy was "the single most effective member of the Senate if you want to get results." When the Senate 'gets results,' that usually involves expanding the size and scope of government (that is, increasing the overall level of coercion in society).
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Starving the beast
The latest in a recent spate of temporary government shutdowns, the Rhode Island government will shut down most of its operations for 12 days.
This warms my heart! I've been glad, of course, when government shutdowns have occurred in the past due to the two state-sponsored parties being unable to come to agreement on how much money to confiscate from people and what to spend it on (i.e. budget debate impasses). But for governments to be shutting down from lack of tax income--this is a whole new ball game (at least in recent memory). It shows, I think, that it is potentially possible to "starve the beast" and force government to waste away, particularly as envisioned in agorism. We should all try to do our part by engaging in as much black and gray market economic activity as reasonably feasible (like when you pay a babysitter or buy produce from an acquaintance). What the government can't see, it can't tax!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Kinsella on libertarianism
Stephan Kinsella's description of libertarianism: What Libertarianism Is
A few excerpts:
...libertarians maintain that the only way to violate rights is by initiating force — that is, by committing aggression. (Libertarianism also holds that, while the initiation of force against another person's body is impermissible, force used in response to aggression — such as defensive, restitutive, or retaliatory/punitive force — is justified.)
...each person is, at least prima facie, the owner of his own body.
Nonlibertarian political philosophies have a different view. Each person has some limited rights in his own body, but not complete or exclusive rights. Society — or the state, purporting to be society's agent — has certain rights in each citizen's body, too. This partial slavery is implicit in state actions and laws such as taxation, conscription, and drug prohibitions.
Libertarians believe in self-ownership. Nonlibertarians — statists — of all stripes advocate some form of slavery.
The libertarian seeks property assignment rules because he values or accepts various grundnorms such as justice, peace, prosperity, cooperation, conflict-avoidance, and civilization. The libertarian view is that self-ownership is the only property assignment rule compatible with these grundorms; it is implied by them.
...the libertarian position on property rights is that, in order to permit conflict-free, productive use of scarce resources, property titles to particular resources are assigned to particular owners. As noted above, however, the title assignment must not be random, arbitrary, or particularistic; instead, it has to be assigned based on "the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between owner" and the resource claimed. As can be seen from the considerations presented above, the link is the physical transformation or embordering of the original homesteader, or a chain of title traceable by contract back to him.
Civilized man feels uneasy at the prospect of violent struggles with others. On the one hand, he wants, for some practical reason, to control a given scarce resource and to use violence against another person, if necessary, to achieve this control. On the other hand, he also wants to avoid a wrongful use of force.
...because of this uneasiness, when there is the potential for violent conflict, the civilized man seeks justification for the forceful control of a scarce resource that he desires but which some other person opposes. Empathy — or whatever spurs man to adopt the libertarian grundnorms — gives rise to a certain form of uneasiness, which gives rise to ethical action.Civilized man may be defined as he who seeks justification for the use of interpersonal violence. When the inevitable need to engage in violence arises — for defense of life or property — civilized man seeks justification. Naturally, since this justification-seeking is done by people who are inclined to reason and peace (justification is after all a peaceful activity that necessarily takes place during discourse), what they seek are rules that are fair, potentially acceptable to all, grounded in the nature of things, and universalizable, and which permit conflict-free use of resources.
Libertarian property rights principles emerge as the only candidate that satisfies these criteria.
...libertarianism may be said to be the political philosophy that consistently favors social rules aimed at promoting peace, prosperity, and cooperation.
And he ends with a statement that might help people see that the term "anarchist" has been perverted among the general public and even among many people who identify themselves as libertarians:
And as I have argued elsewhere, because the state necessarily commits aggression, the consistent libertarian, in opposing aggression, is also an anarchist.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Government agents promoting religion
A Florida high school principal and athletic director are "facing criminal charges and up to six months in jail" for violating a court order not to promote religion at school-sponsored events. This particular school (and the type of employees it seems to attract) has long been infamous for unconstitutionally promoting religion:
"The defendants all admitted wrongdoing," said Daniel Mach, director of litigation for its [the ACLU's] freedom of religion program. "For example, the Pace High School teachers handbook asks teachers to 'embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the practice of every Christian virtue.' "
I have virtually no sympathy for these people. They, as part of the government, and being paid with tax dollars, promoted a religion at school events and in their capacity as agents of the government. There can be no excuse for this abuse of power and violation of individual rights (the right not to have their taxes spent to support someone's religion).
What is so hard for so many people to understand about the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."? When combined with the 14th Amendment, this restriction applies to the states, too (as determined by the courts). Almost exactly the same language is in Florida's constitution. But even if this rule was not part of the U.S. or Florida constitutions, it would still be clearly immoral for government to take any actions to promote religion.
Whether $1M or a single penny, the spending of tax payer money to print religious sayings on money, to engrave religious sayings on public buildings, or to pay the salary of someone who is leading prayer in their capacity as a government agent is, to varying extents, an establishment of religion that violates the 1st Amendment as well as basic moral decency and the secular principles of our country.
Now maybe jail is a little harsh for these jokers, but is what they did really much different than if they had come up to you, robbed you at gunpoint, and used the stolen cash to spread their religion? In fact, the only difference is that they got the tax collecting arm of the government to do the robbing for them.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Mexico moves ahead of U.S. in drug legalization
Mexico just legalized possession of small amounts of drugs.
Much more needs to be done, especially considering the corruption stemming from illegal drug activity in that country, but it's a step in the right direction. The United States should follow suit, and take it a step further by fully legalizing all drugs in all amounts. Only a complete end to drug prohibition will decimate law enforcement corruption and gang violence, help business and peaceful activity thrive in the currently ruinous parts of our cities, and remove a major obstacle to addicts seeking treatment. And from a strictly moral standpoint, when government uses force or threat of force to prevent people from doing something that does not involve initiating force against others (i.e. nonviolent drug use or trafficking), the government then becomes the initiator of force and acts wholly immorally.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Burden of proof
The following is a passage from George H. Smith's Why Atheism?
Suppose that a person who believes in the existence of invisible elves (let us call him an "elfist") does not have the sole burden of proof, and that a person who does not believe in their existence (an "aelfist") has an equal responsibility to prove that invisible elves do not exist. "Granted," says the elfist, "I cannot offer even a scintilla of evidence to support my claim, so I do not expect the aelfist to believe as I do. Nevertheless, the aelfist cannot prove me wrong: He cannot prove that invisible elves do not exist. If the aelfist cannot see what I do, this is because he does not have the faith that is necessary if one is to perceive invisible elves. For these elves, sensitive critters that they are, will not reveal themselves to skeptics and disbelievers. You must have faith, you must first believe that they exist, before you can see them as I do. If the aelfist does not wish to make this commitment of faith, then that is his right, but it is not his right to dismiss my belief as unjustified merely because I cannot prove what I say. On the contrary, since the aelfist cannot prove that my elves do not exist, his disbelief is no more justified than my belief.
It of course is meant to show that the theist has the burden of proof when claiming the existence of a god, but I tend to think it equally shows that those who believe in the legitimacy of government (talking compulsory government here, not some sort of voluntary organization) also have the burden of proof because they're demanding the acceptance of an entity that necessarily violates certain natural rights (at a minimum, it uses compulsory taxation and forcible prevention of competing defense organizations and legal systems). It seems like those who advocate such a coercive entity have a lot of splainin' to do.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Something fishy
By now everyone knows about the infamous White House blog post calling for people to e-mail anything "fishy" they hear or read about the current health care "reform" proposal. It says:
If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
Now, I'm sure they would say that they're not looking for individuals, but rather only the arguments they're using to oppose the "reform" bill. Nevertheless, you can't be too careful in this era of disappearing civil liberties, and I want to do the right thing and come forward rather than have someone else turn me in. So here's an e-mail I just sent to flag@whitehouse.gov:
Dear White House Disinformation Control Center (or whatever you call it),
I would like to turn myself in for spreading what you refer to as "disinformation" about health care reform. You say that "facts are stubborn things," and I couldn't agree more. Here are a few that I'm aware of:
1. Every time a human being freely takes a particular action (or opts to not take an action), he does so for one reason--to bring about circumstances for himself that he believes will make him better off in some way than any alternative choices he could have made.
2. When two parties engage in a voluntary exchange, they do so because they both benefit (whether physically, financially, emotionally, or in any other way).
3. Any barriers to such voluntary exchange decrease the wealth or utility that is produced by such an exchange.
4. Health care and health insurance are goods, like any others, that people seek to obtain or provide in order to improve their circumstances.
5. There is no possible way for government to legislate goods into existence.
6. There is no possible way for government to make better decisions for people than they make for themselves when they engage in voluntary exchanges based on actual costs and benefits.
7. Health care costs are rising precisely because of widespread government interference with individuals' choices regarding how to improve their circumstances.
8. Additional actions by government will comprise even greater barriers to individuals' ability to obtain low cost, high quality health care.
9. The only thing government can do to improve the state of health care is eliminate the actions it currently takes to hinder voluntary exchanges among free people.
Facts are indeed stubborn things.
Darren O'Connor
XXXX XXXXXXX Drive
Durham, NC XXXXX
NoCoercion.com
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!