The sun dude. My blinds don’t block the light at all. lol.
But seriously, I used to vote Republican, then Ron Paul’s '07 campaign got me thinking about freedom. I started thinking, “we need to follow the constitution.” About a year or two later I started thinking Anarchy is the only way - f the constitution. Now I still think that, but realize that won’t happen for a few hundred years.
As Southern said, ‘Grant me the strength to change the things I can, the serenity to accept the things I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference.’
So I’m working on myself from now on and f-ing the rest like politics, etc. But I will keep an eye on it for fun.
While in high school I liked music by the band Rush (still do!). On one of their Album sleeves, 2112, was the line, “Dedicated to the genius of Ayn Rand” from there it was reading her work.
For years afterward I forgot about it, focusing on career, family, etc. Was re-awoken like many others during the last presidential election & listening to Ron Paul. That has lead me here. Now my morning routine, for the last couple years, is a hot cup of fresh coffee and mises.org.
That reminds me Rothbard. Everyone in his family was communist except his father. Here are some quotes from his article, Life in the Old Right.
“I grew up in a communist culture; the middle-class Jews in New York whom I lived among, whether family, friends, or neighbors, were either communists or fellow-travelers in the communist orbit. I had two sets of Communist Party uncles and aunts, on both sides of the family. But more important, the one great moral question in the lives of all these people was: Should I actually join the Communist Party and devote the whole of my life to the cause, or should I remain a fellow-traveler and “selfishly” devote only a fraction of my energy to communism? That was it; any species of liberalism, let alone conservatism, was nonexistent.”
“The one exception to this communist milieu was my father, David. My father emigrated to the United States from a Polish shetl in 1910, impoverished and knowing not a word of English. Like most immigrants of that era, he had resolved “to become an American” in every sense. And that meant, for him, not only learning English and making it his language, but also abandoning Yiddish papers and culture and purging himself of any foreign accent. It also meant devotion to the basic American Way: minimal government, belief in and respect for free enterprise and private property, and a determination to rise by one’s own merits and not via government privilege or handout.”
"That reminds me Rothbard. Everyone in his family was communist except his father. Here are some quotes from his article, Life in the Old Right.
“I grew up in a communist culture; the middle-class Jews in New York whom I lived among, whether family, friends, or neighbors, were either communists or fellow-travelers in the communist orbit. I had two sets of Communist Party uncles and aunts, on both sides of the family. But more important, the one great moral question in the lives of all these people was: Should I actually join the Communist Party and devote the whole of my life to the cause, or should I remain a fellow-traveler and “selfishly” devote only a fraction of my energy to communism? That was it; any species of liberalism, let alone conservatism, was nonexistent.”
“The one exception to this communist milieu was my father, David. My father emigrated to the United States from a Polish shetl in 1910, impoverished and knowing not a word of English. Like most immigrants of that era, he had resolved “to become an American” in every sense. And that meant, for him, not only learning English and making it his language, but also abandoning Yiddish papers and culture and purging himself of any foreign accent. It also meant devotion to the basic American Way: minimal government, belief in and respect for free enterprise and private property, and a determination to rise by one’s own merits and not via government privilege or handout.” "
Yeah, I’m sure a lot of Jews can relate growing up with a Communist influence. My grandfather HATED Communism ironically.
One thing that had a influence on my life was the hitory was the Zionist regime in Israel. Went to a private Hebrew School and learned how “God brought the Jews back to Israel in 1948” blah, blah, blah. Zionism this and Zionism that. Little that I know that Zionism actually perpetuated and exacerbated Anti-Semitism around the world, and that was their sole purpose. Israel is one of the most Socialist, war-fare states on the planet raping the citizens of their freedoms almost daily. Paranoia is going to destroy Israel.
I went from being a communist to an anarcho-communist well i guess b/c i finally opened my eyes to what authoritative communism would bring - hell. But then i pretty much gave up anarcho-communism after reading The Ego and His Own by Max Stirner. This made me more of a socialistic egoist. But i truly switched sides about 400 pages into Atlas Shrugged. Those 400 pages tore down all communist bastions in my mind well then i finished the book and found mises.org then rothbard and then Anarcho-capitalism.
Not all of them, therefore economic arguments are important. But these are also not the only problems.
Only government intervention is responsible for the exaggerated bubbles. Austrian economists are still responsible for exactly none of the problems we are talking about, no matter how you try to spin it.
Of course that’s exactly what Kinsella told us. And it made no sense. Possible or not, it must be at least relevant.
Nowhere does Kinsella concede to “impossibility”. In fact, this article is a devastating attack on your statist BS.
A 1982 article, The Impossibility of anarcho-capitalism, was recently called to my attention. In it, the author, one Tony Hollick, argues that the “components” of anarcho-capitalism are:
A belief that a fully-fledged free-market private property based social order can be realised and maintained without the existence of a single, finally arbitrary system of lawmaking and enforcement which asserts jurisdiction over non-consenting parties.
A preference for the imagined advantages of that social order however conceived.
A willingness to advocate attempts to instantiate it as an actual experiment in the more or less foreseeable future.
This type of argument is typical of those who want to argue for states and the aggression states commit, while still adopting the libertarian label. It is a way of changing to subject away from the aggression they favor, by insinuating the presumption that the anarchist is for something, and thus needs to prove it before we abandon the current (statist) order and “adopt” the system known as anarchy. This approach tries to color anarchy as just one of many prima facie equally valid competing possible systems. Anarchists have the burden of proving we should “adopt” it just like a socialist bears the burden of proving we should adopt socialism. Thus, it is not surprising Hollick concludes, “One can only be struck by the similarities between ’socialism’ and ‘anarchism’. Partisans of every kind rush to show that their vision is uniquely realisable; and the visions cover the entire range of mutually contradictory systems and practices.”
But, of course, anarchists don’t advocate a “substitute system”. We are not for something, other than respect for rights. Rather, we are an-archist, “without (belief in) (political) rulers.” We simply are not persuaded that political action is justified. This is because we see that states by their nature commit aggression–and as we are libertarians and against aggression (see my What Libertarianism Is), we are thus against states.In other words, to be an anarcho-libertarian is simply to be opposed to aggression, and to recognize that states are inherently aggressive. It does not mean, for example, as Hollick asserts, that we anarchists, qua-anarchist, maintain “A belief that a fully-fledged free-market private property based social order can be realised and maintained without [whatever].” The anarchist is not someone who has a belief about “what will work”. Rather, he is someone who opposes aggression in all its forms. As I explained in What It Means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist:
Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won’t “work” or is not “practical” is just confused. Anarchists don’t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved – I for one don’t think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.
Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and “should” not occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it.
Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone could voluntarily choose to respect others’ rights. Then there would be no crime. It’s easy to imagine. But given our experience with human nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere to reply, “but that’s an impractical view” or “but that won’t work,” “since there will always be crime.” The fact that there will always be crime – that not everyone will voluntarily respect others’ rights – does not mean that it’s “impractical” to oppose it; nor does it mean that crime is justified. It does not mean there is some “flaw” in the proposition that crime is wrong.
Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified, it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, “anarchy won’t work” or is “impractical” or “unlikely to ever occur.” The view that the state is unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not enough people are willing to respect their neighbors’ rights to allow anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously) support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean that the state, and its aggression, are justified.
In other words, it just won’t do for Hollick to attack anarcho-libertarianism by arguing we haven’t shown that “a fully-fledged free-market private property based social order can be realised and maintained without [whatever]“. In fact, since anarcho-libertarianism just means stringent opposition to aggression, to attack anti-aggressionism just is to defend aggression. And you can’t justify aggression by alleging that libertarians have not proved that a private property order can “work.” What kind of argument is that? “Sir, why are you robbing me? Why are you entitled to do this?” “Why, because you haven’t proved that a private property order can work, that’s why!”
From any given perspective at a given time, “partisan drivel” is relative, based on what you view to be true or not. When I was a non-voting Democrat (Hard to believe, but okay, technically I voted for who my avatar is twice while I was a democrat, but w/e), I fully believed everyone else were the ones spouting nonsense.
Obviously, I could’ve gone into more detail on my entire journey, but inherent skepticism & a fairly early (5 years old on up), intuitive grasp (although I hadn’t read any Nietzche until I was around 15-ish & didn’t know the term yet) on perspectivism, are probably what kept me in “Mulder Mode” until I arrived at somewhat calmer waters in the present (they still change slightly, though).
Unsurprinsgly (in hindsight), my major changes in thought came after taking a history class at community college.
The professor was one of the few who didn’t tow the liberal political correct outlook found on most campuses, & was far too “into” the subject matter (he reminded me of an older version of the War Nerd, but with a slight libertarian bent, so it was almost like having a much less radical, “American Hoppe” teaching our class).
The moment he started dissecting the French Revolution, keeping in line without glazzing over it with politically correct revisionism & inherently pro-democracy sentiments, I couldn’t look at things the same way again.
Kinsella says that even if Anarchism couldn’t work, he would still be an anarchist out of principle. You’re obviously not a very justice-oriented person, so this argument doesn’t fly with you. Fine. But you interpret this to mean that Kinsalla is an incorrigible idealogue who will never give up the libertarian religion no matter what you tell him. This is not true. Kinsalla leaves open that you can debate principles with him, but insists his ethics will remain unchanged in the face of bad consequences. He’s not doing anything novelle here. This has been the standard position of all deontologists.
Anyway, for the vast majority of ancaps, its feasibility is a major concern. For me, I think it is the only feasible system. My criterion for ‘feasible’ btw is eliminating mass-deaths from war/poverty.