Sep
14
Quote Of The Day
Filed Under Liberalism | Leave a Comment
From Warren Meyer’s Coyoteblog, regarding Van Jones:
Apparently, as one of Obama’s 129 czars, this guy whose job it is to redistribute billions of dollars from one group of individuals to another and issue diktats to be followed by private citizens and businesses, is *gasp* a communist. Well, no sh*t. All of these various czars have communist roles so why is it surprising Obama might have picked a communist to hold one of them. The only surprise was that Van Jones was dumb enough to admit it in print rather than hiding it in leftish double-speak like most of the rest of the administration.
Communism in the Obama administration (and the Democrat Party, for that matter) is not a question of presence, but degree.
Regarding Van Jones’ Truther Pledge issue, I think he was screwed no matter what the case actually was. Either he believed George W. Bush was directly responsible for killing thousands of Americans on September 11th, or he doesn’t read what he signs, content that the cause being pushed has something to do with criticizing Republicans. Both are unacceptable.
Jun
15
Waves of Freedom
Filed Under Libertarianism | 10 Comments
This article at Reason discussed the efforts of Patri Friedman (Dad: David, Grandad: Milton) to establish anarcho-capitalist/libertarian societies at sea. The idea is to finally establish a place where libertarians and/or anarchists can live without the constrains of big government, without the hassle of political revolution or armed confrontation with standing armies over land already under government jurisdiction. The societies would most likely be made on platforms installed in international waters, and possibly mobile so as to allow competition among sea states. Friedman argues for “I’m taking my ball and going home” solutions to traditional political activism:
Libertarians, he says, expend precious time and energy on truly and self-evidently impossible paths toward political change. “Like the Ron Paul movement,” he says. “Lots of libertarians’ effort and millions and millions directed in a way that’s hopeless! For real change [electoral politics is] totally hopeless. Think how much more likely to succeed [libertarians would be] if that amount of resources were put into something that could actually work.” By which he means seasteading. And you have to admit: When you compare it to the likelihood of creating a libertarian world through American politics, seasteading starts to look more and more sensible.
The article listed a few examples of “Seasteading” that have been tried in the past, but with one glaring omission: The Principality of Sealand. I came upon Sealand’s wikipedia entry a while ago, and the whole idea seemed like something I would do when I finally achieve my goal of being a wealthy and eccentric old man. While hardly a libertarian endeavour (Sealand had a hereditary monarch and all laws were by decree), it did manage to coin its own currency and print some stamps. From the article, the most interesting part of Sealand’s colorful history is the 1978 ‘forcible takeover’:
In 1978, while Bates was away, Alexander Achenbach, who describes himself as the Prime Minister of Sealand, and several German and Dutch citizens staged a forcible takeover of Roughs Tower,[9] holding Bates’ son Michael captive, before releasing him several days later in the Netherlands.[citation needed] Bates thereupon enlisted armed assistance and, in a helicopter assault, retook the fort. He then held the invaders captive, claiming them as prisoners of war.[10] Most participants in the invasion were repatriatedat the cessation of the “war”, but Achenbach, a German lawyer who held a Sealand passport, was charged with treasonagainst Sealand,[9] and was held unless he paid DM 75,000 (more than US$ 35,000).[11] The governments of the Netherlands and Germany petitioned the British government for his release, but the United Kingdom disavowed all responsibility, citing the 1968 court decision.[citation needed]Germany then sent a diplomat from its London embassy to Roughs Tower to negotiate for Achenbach’s release. Roy Bates relented after several weeks of negotiations and subsequently claimed that the diplomat’s visit constituted de factorecognition of Sealand by Germany.[9]Following his repatriation, Achenbach established a “government in exile” in Germany,[9]in opposition to Roy Bates, assuming the name “Chairman of the Privy Council”. He handed the position to Johannes Seiger in 1989 because of illness. Seiger continues to claim—via his website—that he is Sealand’s legitimate ruling authority.[12]
The whole thing is kind of a mess, but I would love to meet the people who participated in all of this. Here is the nation in all its glory:
While the entire concept of seasteading is an interesting one, there are a few things that I would want to point out. First, I did not like how libertarianism and anarchism are used interchangeably in the Reason article. They are not synonymous, and I am not an anarchist, and not even a true-blue libertarian (I think of myself more as libertarian-leaning, a fellow traveller if you will). I also think that if such a colony were to be established to the extent that Friedman wishes, some government somewhere would find a way to oppress it sooner or later.
However, I have no doubt that the unrestrained innovation a marine colony would allow could overcome many of the logistical problems posed by such a venture. Also, I like the idea of a mobile citizenry, effectively able to “shop” for the government that best suits their needs.
Most importantly, the fact that advocates of freedom would be willing and able to move elsewhere to establish their type of society, I think, shows the moral authority inherent in libertarianism and capitalism over statism and socialism. Folks like myself are simply advocating for an order where individualism, commerce, and private property are not forcibly infringed on by government. If such a society were to exist, there would not be any obstacles for people to live communally and share property and resources if they wish. I have no doubt such places would develop. All we want is the abolition of force. A libertarian country could easily tolerate a socialist community within its borders. However, there is no room for a libertarian sect within socialism and communism. The state has implemented collective practices, like the Social Security Administration, and I am not able to opt out if that is my choice. I am forced to contribute my property to it. There is no choice. Any time a system is threatened by the availability of choice, it is morally deficient.
Mar
9
A Not So Looney Toon
Filed Under Economics | Leave a Comment
LibertarianRepublican featured the following video from 1948 about a salesman peddling a little “Ism” to some American groups:
As the video shows, this “Ism” could be socialism, communism, or just collectivism in general. This is one of the better and more straightforward videos explaining the difference between individualism and collectivism, and the supreme dangers of the latter. The main points of the video were:
- It is very hard to define “American.” Whether it is a teenager, a senior citizen, mothers, fathers, blacks, whites, and everything in between, an “American” can best be described at an individual level instead of as a member of a group.
- Someone seeking power, like the hat-wearing politician or the snake oil salesman, will often employ a strategy of lumping people in groups (labor, management, farmers) and prescribing collectivist solutions rather than allowing individual decisions. Such practices are especially effective in a time of duress.
- Visions of “utopia” will come at the cost of freedom, and any attempts to slow or stop utopian programs will be met with charges from interest groups of slowing progress (much like what happened with the bailout and stimulus bills).
Regarding capitalism specifically:
- “Capitalists,” “investors,” and “speculators” are very often regular, hard working people who use their hard earned savings to fund further growth.
- This capitalist-fueled growth provides jobs and prosperity for many new generations of people.
- Like in the case of Doakes Motors in the video, entrepreneurs, capitalists, workers, and consumers are all better off by having the freedom to voluntarily cooperate with each other motivated by their own self-interest.
- Society is better off collectively by allowing individuals to experiment and take on risk to develop new products and services for a profit. Socialism may say they support the masses, but what system is built on the premise that everyone, even a lowly mechanic like Joe Doakes (or Henry Ford, or Michael Dell, or Eli Whitney, or Oprah Winfrey) may be the next innovator who changes the world?
Nowadays, we can see how prophetic a cartoon like this is. As “John Q. Public” warned:
“When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against the other, through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.”
See anything like that here?
It is true that from 250 up – from 250 – 300 or so, so for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39%, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason why we’re doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250. So what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut. And so what we’re doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250 that that marginal amount above 250 – they’re gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36% rate.
Step 1: Divide the public (business owners vs. workers like bus drivers, teachers, auto workers). Step 2: Make promises (”tax cuts,” healthcare, “green jobs). Step 3: Go after the villians (entrepreneurs, the wealthy).
Jan
28
The Washington Times saught to interview actor Benicio Del Toro about his newest film Che. When questioned about the facts of the rich kid who didn’t know a damn thing about the poor turned idiot murderer Che Guevara, he walked out.
“I’m getting uncomfortable,” Benicio del Toro says after fielding a question on his new movie’s portrayal of the Bolivian and Cuban revolutions. “I’m done. I’m done, I hope you write whatever you want. I don’t give a damn.”
With that the Oscar-winning actor walks away, abruptly terminating his interview with this paper to discuss “Che,” the controversial new biopic about the life and times of Cuban revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara directed by Steven Soderbergh.
Later, Del Toro tried to defend the movie:
For his part, Mr. del Toro doesn’t deny that there were some darker aspects to Guevara’s persona. “We have to omit a lot of stuff about his life,” he says, “but we’re not omitting the fact that he’s for capital punishment, which is the essence of that.”
In the movie, Guevara is shown executing a man, but for raping a child, not for being disloyal to the cause of revolution. Troops are offered a chance to desert, and get nothing more than a scolding for their cowardice.
I wonder if they included a scene of Guevara shooting a pregnant woman in the stomach.
To gain some truthful perspective, the article quoted Armando Valladares, who was imprisoned by Castro’s regime during the communist revolution. A strong critic of not only Guevara but the brutal Castro regime, he quotes Che in his own writings:
“Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine.”
That quote was also included in a Slate article from 2004 about another Che movie, The Motorcycle Diaries. The writer, Paul Berman, also brought in the perspective of a Cuban who dared defy the idolized Che Geuvara and what the man stood for. Raúl Rivero was a poet who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for writing about Castro. In response to the adoration from the liberal film community in regards to The Motorcycle Diaries, Berman writes:
I wonder if people who stand up to cheer a hagiography of Che Guevara, as the Sundance audience did, will ever give a damn about the oppressed people of Cuba—will ever lift a finger on behalf of the Cuban liberals and dissidents. It’s easy in the world of film to make a movie about Che, but who among that cheering audience is going to make a movie about Raúl Rivero?
But wait - I thought liberals were supposed to love artists who are oppressed by the evil capitalists. Well, as Berman offers, Che picked on a couple other groups that leftists claim to be fond of:
Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution’s first firing squads. He founded Cuba’s “labor camp” system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che’s imagination.
But cultish idolotry and the absolution of individual liberties are hardly unexpected from those who adhere to an ideology that detests private control and ownership and believes that there are only a select few who really know how to run our lives.
Times article found on the Drudge Report.
