I am curious to see what you all think about this because I noticed Mike99 has a “9/11 was an inside job” avatar. Conspiracy theories are something that libertarians are (unfortunately) often associated with because we tend to question everything. And that’s a good thing. Unfortunately this noble quality can often morph into things much more… retarded… than a reasonable person would entertain.
It’s too easy to generalize conspiracy theories as being poorly backed crackpot theories–but, make no mistake, there are certainly many things that the establishment hides from the general public for ulterior motives.
However, dramatic, overblown conspiracies like the moon landing, 9/11, illuminati, aliens, etc. tend to be based on the same sensationalism that the mainstream media uses to rope impressionable people in. This is nothing more than the outright exploitation of naturally existing fear and doubt.
I find it funny that libertarians, the group ones that consistently decry the efficacy and competancy of the state–the same state that cannot even make the goddamn mail come on Sunday–believes that the state masterminded the greatest conspiracies the world has ever seen.
As Penn Jillette said, “The Government couldn’t even fucking cover up a break-in to a psychiatrist’s office in a fucking cheesy hotel! Watergate is the answer to all this shit. If they couldn’t cover that up, they fucking can’t do anything.”
This topic is common on the Free Talk Live radio program and I agree with their answer:
It is pointless to subscribe to conspiracy theories because there are only three possibilities for any conspiracy:
Government is correct and there is no conspiracy at all. Well then holding to the theory was a waste of time from the beginning.
There is a conspiracy and huge cover-up. Ok so what. How does that change where we are now? Did the knowledge of any conspiracy ever lead to a decrease in the size/scope of government?
Part conspiracy and part truth. This is worse than 2 as government can focus on the true parts.
The only things of interest are the reasons for the original lie in the first place and how government reacted to it.
Besides these events are known conspiracies with lies and cover-ups and nothing changed when the proof of the conspiracy surfaced?
Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
Attack on US Liberty.
WMDs in Iraq.
Now the one conspiracy that came to light that angered the public to a high degree was Watergate where Nixon was forced to resign. Again, SO WHAT? The Gold Standard was not re-implemented. Medicare is still with us. The EPA is more powerful than ever. The Executive branch of goverment has grown more secrative.
Well I don’t believe in aliens or that the moon landings were fake. On the illuminati, I do buy into the collectivist and one world government theory. And as for 9/11, I now believe there was something fishy going on. For years, I thought truthers were nothing but a bunch of Alex Jones type wackos. But after doing some recent research into the science of destruction, I’ve concluded that it is near impossible that WTC 7 could not have come down because of fires. It would take all bottom steel columns to destruct at the same time, which it did, in order to bring the building down in as neatly and quickly as it did. It throws doubt into the truthfullness of any bit of the official report. Also, you may want to research Marvin Bush, the brother of W.
“I prefer to call it realistic analysis of what’s happening” - Murray Rothbard
So, you’re positing a conspiracy theory where the Establishment at least does nothing to to stop misinformation and false conspiracy theories - or perhaps even encourages them - in order to cover up its actual misdeeds? I agree!
The State is incompetent only in its stated aims. The mantra of general State incompetence arises from going along with the polite pretense that the governments’s stated aims are, in fact, it’s only aims. But this is simply not true. The government is not incompetent at all once its true aims are rightly understood. In fact, the State is astoundingly competent. Imagine trying to collect money from hundreds of millions of people and waging wars and covert actions around the world affecting the lives of billions in such a way as to keep expanding your turf and keep quelling dissent?
Well, I have nothing but respect for Penn but I think he falls into the trap of attributing good motives to government; once you realize that the government does not, in fact, have good motives, then you realize that its true aims are not its stated aims, and that explains the chasmic difference between its competence in its true aims and its stated aims. Contrast, say, the SEALs with the TSA. Get it?
Now you know the true purpose of Alex Jones type wackos or, at least, their ring-leaders.
You just can’t get from “scattered office fires” to “symmetrical collapse.” It’s possible in exactly the same sense that it’s possible that you could win the Megabucks jackpot 10 times in a row.
Now you know the true purpose of Alex Jones type wackos or, at least, their ring-leaders.
Sadly, yes. I’m also beginning to think some of the posters here may belong to AJ’s inner circle. Especially the ones who present absurd hologram plane theories.
Also, pardon my grammar error. I was half asleep. I meant to say it is near impossible that WTC 7 could have come down because of fires.
I second most of what Clayton said. However, you (OP) must realize it is not the entire government in all of its standard channels of bureaucracy that commit the “conspiracies” that we discuss. It is a loose knit group of people with connections to and of power that are able to use that to their advantage when “conspiring.”
Also, the language used in official documents is differnt from the more colloquial terms that conspiracy theorists use.
@Aristophanes: Be that as it may, it’s crucial to underscore that the actual purpose of government is to lie, cheat, kill and steal. The bureaucracy is itself just a thin veil around the official functions of government.
That Rothbard video makes some good points. I agree that “conspiracy” is a loaded term because of its negative connatation. However, conspiracies cease to deserve that negative connotation only once they’ve actually proved that they possess substance–otherwise, the reptilian truthers are only “analyzing what’s happening” and are spared the much simpler and fitting moniker of “retarded”. Either way, I think this point is one of semantics and of little importance.
I meant to focus more on 9/11 itself–the mother of all “analyzing what’s happening” theories to see what you guys think about this particular controversy. But since we’re here…
As much as I respect you, I’m not entirely sure that I agree with you here. Hear me out:
I do not believe that the state is collectively evil. I simply believe that the state is predisposed to act in its own interest–as immoral as we may deem these may be. I believe that the reason the state strays from its stated claims is because it is simply too far removed from liability and is perverted by individuals who are endowed with too much power. We all know man is greedy. This is not a bad thing. However, the state simply enables man to use his greed in ways that are unethical and harmful not possible in a free market.
I think that it is the fault of the people for falling for the state’s rhetoric over the past centuries and allowing it to become the leviathan that it is. I honestly do not think either Obama or Romney are evil. They are simply a product of a terribly off track system. Just like Penn, I do not believe that “evil” exists without equally “evil” cause. The American system, constantly devolving, is the enabler. The current leaders of our nation are simply filling in the spots that the political system has created.
how does all of that somehow not add up to “evil?” people who use positions of power to violate other people’s rights in pursuit of self-interest are evil.
which exempts them from responsibility for their actions?
We know from an a priori analysis that the government must act in order to attempt to fulfill its own self interest in a praxeological manner. We also know that regardless of the intentions of those in power that their actions are likely to have massively negative repercussions from the standpoint of prettymuch everyone. These problems are exacerbated, but not caused by man’s inherent greed and propensity to be corrupted
I’m not sure about this. The hypothesis of statism arising from the subjugation of agricultural societies by militarily more powerful groups makes sense to me. However, those military bullies which did subjugate agricultural communities, in doing so, often exterminated competing armies. The result of this was an establishment of some normalcy in present and foreseeable future. There can be no trade or improvement generally without the belief that one’s actions won’t be wiped out the moment they become attractive.
None of this is to say that decentralized co-existence is impossible, but before the enlightenment and the popularization of the concept of mutual benefit, conquest made a lot more sense to people. The rise of large polities meant a widespread subjugation but also the diminution of competitors in the field of rulership. This meant a degree of order and security in property, which is necessary for improvement to begin.
Is it plausible to you that the results of statism sought by statists are those which you claim they are, but there are also peripheral effects brought about by the consolidation of rule which outweigh those original negatives?
Medieval Europe was relatively decentralised and was a period of enormous economic and population growth. We can say very little about the conditions in the era before the emergence of states. In my view the state contributed nothing to the spread of commerce, and that the latter certainly existed across significant distances before states had any sway over large geographic areas (and in most parts of the world, large states appear well after the emergence of historical record in those areas). But whichever one of is right, such an inquiry is based almost purely on conjecture. On the other hand, we can clearly point to the European Middle Ages for an example of long-range commerce operating in an environment of decentralized states (see in particular the Lex Mercatoria), and this alone proves that not only are such undertakings possible under that environment, but that they can flourish (take the Mediterranean peoples during the era of Archaic and Classical Greece as another example).
No problem. It’s not directly on the economy, but in general on the transitions and changes across Europe in the Middle Ages, much of which is demographic and economic (which is what I mentioned). It has a very good bibliography for further resarch into the Medieval economy.
Conspiracy theories actually have utility for the intellectual opinion crafters and journalists.
If you can be successfully labeled a conspiracy nut, then they don’t have to take your other opinions seriously. Indulging in conspiracy theory therefore has the effect of draining you of all credibility. Because it marks you as one easily taken in by things for which there are little to no evidence.
Why should anyone take your opinion seriously on anything if you’re a conspiracy nut.
Libertarians should be cultivating intellectual credibility, not indulging in conspiracy theory.
