Economist Milton Friedman, 1976's Nobel Prize Winner, is a legend in the field of liberty. His advocacy is studied in both political science, and economic courses. Two highlights are his seminal treatise Capitalism and Freedom, and the Free to Choose television series. I have seen most of the latter videos (along with others on youtube), and studied excerpts of Capitalism and Freedom in my undergraduate coursework. Friedman has abetted my intellectual growth. Friedman has helped free men (couldn't resist).
Economist Walter Block is less known, and maybe for the reasons listed in the debate I link to below. He is a prolific writer, and I give him due praise in my post Radical Road Reconstruction.
There is a debate, that I cover in a letter in my post, between those who advocate a limited State versus those who advocate the dissolution of the State.* There is also one between those who preach gradual change, versus those who preach forthright abolition. Rothbard had an opinion on the subject. Rothbard cared about radicals, whether they be minarchists or kritarchists. A radical would illustrate, through their prose, a fiendish itch to rid the world of State aberrations or crimes against humanity. The marrow of his bones exuded an entrenched hatred of the State. This passion allowed him to scribe his jeremiads against it. Wouldn't you, if you saw it as a clique of thieves, kidnappers, and murderers?
Block published an exchange on this topic, between himself and Friedman, here. Read it. Evaluate their arguments. Form an opinion.
Block's ideal society is more promising than Friedman's, but I think there is room for gradualism. I am not ready to toss it out baby and bath water. If I am wrong, then my advocacy is about to become more radical than before. If I am wrong, liberals should not ask for a reduction in troop numbers. They should say, "abolish the State monopoly on security production". It is consistent...
Post Scriptum:
* State here is inherently tied with coercion, Mises's government where individuals are able to opt out is not considered.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
Primal Perceptions
Robb Wolf's book The Paleo Solution: The Original Human Diet is an anthropological journey that traces the patterns of human consumption since the Paleolithic Age. He claims that the consumption of any foods introduced to humanity during the neolithic age, is detrimental to well being. Wolf chalks up neolithic food consumption as the root of a host of modern diseases. Calling for the end of their consumption makes him radical. I like that, and I believe him.
The Primal Blueprint runs along the same lines, and is written by Mark Sisson of Mark's Daily Apple. The crowd that reads these books, and adheres to them, refers to itself as either paleo or primal. I don't think the differences are substantive enough to merit a change in terminology. I use them interchangeably. I named this piece with the primal insignia, because of Mark's leniency on dairy and protein supplements.
All this is to preface a day wandering around for fast food primal options. I cook more oft than not. However, there are times when being, as Habeshas say, baleh-moya* do not coincide with the desire to prepare food. These are the times when the wonders of the market economy can be accessed. Tons of shopkeepers and restauranteurs bending over backwards to offer their services to the poor and parvenu alike.
I strolled into the bumbling bazaar located at the intersection of Broadway/ 7th in Downtown Los Angeles. Distracting as the gizmos and gadgets surrounding me were, my focus was single minded. FOOD. I spotted that trusty red-rimmed yellow star, with that immutable creepy grin. Carl's Jr. for the West Coasters. Hardy's for the East Coasters.**
My paleo delight was the low carb six dollar burger, and a side of sweet potato fries. No mayonnaise, nor ketchup. Southwest sauce and jalapenos were my cheat codes to get the best of both worlds. I wanted the lettuce wrapped burger, while still getting that equatorial flare that the depths of my being crave. Success.
Reading economic and religious texts have shaped my worldview. I now have a dialectical approach to situations that others may deem mundane and unworthy of note taking. From Carl's Jr. to homelessness I see the struggle from different vantage points. I digress. The low carb burger is assuredly a market response to the popularity of In-N-Out's protein style hamburger. In-N-Out makes bucks from tossing out buns and replacing them with lettuce wrapped beef. Carl's Jr. emulates the job. The economists with impotent reasoning, the 4th branch of the government, and the lay voter loosely speak of stealing ideas.*** As of yet, and unless Inception style technology is crafted, ideas cannot be stolen. As I illustrated before in my piece of bridge building between communism & liberalism
Food producers innovate, expand and survive based on their capability to serve the consumer. They live to serve us. That's a beautiful thing.
Post Scriptum:
If you want to eat paleo; eat meat, poultry, fish, eggs, vegetables, nuts, berries, and fruit. Refrain from; legumes, grains and complex-carbohydrates.
*the ability to cook, clean and accomplish other household duties
**the result of Carl's Jr. eating up a local franchise and deeming the name important enough to the local consumers to keep
*** Let me channel the late great Murray Rothbard on the ineptitude of the inteligentsia
The Primal Blueprint runs along the same lines, and is written by Mark Sisson of Mark's Daily Apple. The crowd that reads these books, and adheres to them, refers to itself as either paleo or primal. I don't think the differences are substantive enough to merit a change in terminology. I use them interchangeably. I named this piece with the primal insignia, because of Mark's leniency on dairy and protein supplements.
All this is to preface a day wandering around for fast food primal options. I cook more oft than not. However, there are times when being, as Habeshas say, baleh-moya* do not coincide with the desire to prepare food. These are the times when the wonders of the market economy can be accessed. Tons of shopkeepers and restauranteurs bending over backwards to offer their services to the poor and parvenu alike.
I strolled into the bumbling bazaar located at the intersection of Broadway/ 7th in Downtown Los Angeles. Distracting as the gizmos and gadgets surrounding me were, my focus was single minded. FOOD. I spotted that trusty red-rimmed yellow star, with that immutable creepy grin. Carl's Jr. for the West Coasters. Hardy's for the East Coasters.**
My paleo delight was the low carb six dollar burger, and a side of sweet potato fries. No mayonnaise, nor ketchup. Southwest sauce and jalapenos were my cheat codes to get the best of both worlds. I wanted the lettuce wrapped burger, while still getting that equatorial flare that the depths of my being crave. Success.
Reading economic and religious texts have shaped my worldview. I now have a dialectical approach to situations that others may deem mundane and unworthy of note taking. From Carl's Jr. to homelessness I see the struggle from different vantage points. I digress. The low carb burger is assuredly a market response to the popularity of In-N-Out's protein style hamburger. In-N-Out makes bucks from tossing out buns and replacing them with lettuce wrapped beef. Carl's Jr. emulates the job. The economists with impotent reasoning, the 4th branch of the government, and the lay voter loosely speak of stealing ideas.*** As of yet, and unless Inception style technology is crafted, ideas cannot be stolen. As I illustrated before in my piece of bridge building between communism & liberalism
Statists refer to emulated and shared ideas, on the digital plane, as "intellectual property". Stephan Kinsella crumbles this philosophy into a paper wad, shreds it, and tosses its remains into a viking funeral pyre here.A genius Chinese entrepreneur copied In-N-Out's model from the bottom up, and gets dough serving consumers in China with his "CaliBurger". I commend Carl's Jr. and CaliBurger. And yet, I am a fanatic of In-N-Out. Competition keeps producers on their feet, ever alert. They are subject to improve their quality or lower their prices. These are the mechanisms available to respond to intense competition. Whichever producer comes out on top, the consumer is victorious as well. Win win. Transactional interactions are positive when they are voluntary. The consumer's vicissitudes are constantly monitored by producers, to calculate the market mechanisms of quality and price. All of this just to engage in peaceful exchange.
Food producers innovate, expand and survive based on their capability to serve the consumer. They live to serve us. That's a beautiful thing.
Post Scriptum:
If you want to eat paleo; eat meat, poultry, fish, eggs, vegetables, nuts, berries, and fruit. Refrain from; legumes, grains and complex-carbohydrates.
*the ability to cook, clean and accomplish other household duties
**the result of Carl's Jr. eating up a local franchise and deeming the name important enough to the local consumers to keep
*** Let me channel the late great Murray Rothbard on the ineptitude of the inteligentsia
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science'. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Radical Road Reconstruction
Over the past couple of years I have had a nasty habit of an exponentially growing reading list. The nastiness is my inability to keep up with it. Walter "Moderate" Block's treatise on road production, The Privatization of the Roads &Highways, was a treat to check off. An initial glimpse at the title caused my heart to leap. Do I dare? Public private partnerships? Or the whole shebang? Gasp*
His arguments cover concerns of real-world application, and those reserved to the obscure theoretical analyses found in fortified ivory towers.What would private road production mean for the consumer? Answered. What if private road production leads to the U.S. being dissected by a tyrannical road owner? Answered.
The depth of scholarship found within this text is admirable, and to be expected of a top Austrian school economist. This relentlessness in exploring arguments is a legacy of Rothbard. Block illustrates, via direct quotation, the economic revelation of the inadequacies of State run food, steel, and other services provided by the U.S.S.R. Economics is supposed to be a valueless science, but the numbers speak for themselves. Block is a master of metaphor. He relates the economic analysis of State run enterprises in other industries to that of State run roads. The results are devastating. The advocate of State run roads turns out to be nothing more than a road socialist. An invader of private property. A coercive monopolist. A guilty murderer.
There is no shortage of scholarship on roads either. He sifts through the works of regular State proponents, and even finds libertarian opponents. The other arguments are made impotent in the face of Block's onslaught of criticisms. The Privatization of the Roads &Highways is an ode to voluntary exchange. Specifically, the peaceful provision of turnpikes, highways, and bridges. Block is by no means just an Austrian. He is a self-styled Austrolibertarian. Block explains the world through Austrian Economics, and advocates action via libertarianism (liberalism). Students of political science will recognize this distinction between descriptive, and normative claims. A descriptive claim he makes, 30,000 human lives a year are attributable to the State invasion of road production (paraphrased by moi). A normative claim he makes, this loss of human life is an atrocity that should be remedied by privatizing all roads & highways (paraphrased by moi).
With the breadth of works Block covers, he inserts essays from his past. This means there is quite a bit overlap, or rehashing of the same arguments. This is fine. The underlying thesis is that there is a root problem with the road system of the statist quo. Trimming around the edges of this system is not enough. Radical change is the right remedy. Liberate the roads, free the road consumers, and halt the soviet-style State invasion of road production. Choose liberalism.
Post Scriptum:
I have given a rave review of Block's work, but it is not without any reservations. Any economist worth their salt knows that Soviet dissolution resulted from the inability of commissars to determine prices with profits and losses. Writers I have read from Reason know this. They are worth their salt. Robert Poole receives most of Block's bludgeoning words for less radical libertarian alternatives. I have caught Poole, on record, as wanting to deregulate the airline system. This is pretty libertarian. Nevertheless, Block finds Poole's suggestions on increasing State efficiency in road provision as anathema to libertarianism. He does not parse words, nor will I in my response.
Dear Doctor Block,
You criticize Robert Poole for making State run roads more efficient. You grant that his measures may save a few lives, but deride his efforts as immoral nonetheless. There is an inconsistency in your argumentation. You promote efficiency in troop reduction here, efficiency of the State budget here and efficiency in dispute resolution production here. It is outside the bounds of reason (pun intended) to ask an austrolibertarian to refrain from giving advice on intermediary steps of change for the State to adhere to.
Austrolibertarians have, will, and should continue telling the State to reduce its military, cut foreign aid, and end the drug war. The same applies to road production, or any other field of production invaded by the State. To say otherwise means that austrolibertarians can only give advice to the effect of privatize everything. Should we have 30,000 surge troops in Afghanistan or pull them back? Privatize security production. Is it appropriate to cut foreign aid to countries that do not support our foreign adventures or to cut all foreign aid? Privatize charity production. Should we legalize marihuana alone or all drugs? Gasp* Privatize dispute resolution production. Privatize everything encompasses the final step of every advice austrolibertarians should give to the State. However, there are varying intermediary steps.
Your dogged assessment of Poole is a dog that bites you in the arse. Hey, they are descendants of wolves.
At the end of the day Reason's work is positive to illustrate the power of market forces. If their writers espouse a disgust for your solution, they should be rebuked. Full privatization of the roads & highways is the only complete remedy. Reason's work aids free enterprise. However, fiddling around with minutia, should as you say, be left to the entrepreneurs. Thank you for your consideration.
Thy humble intellectual disciple,
Henok Elias
Enoch Elijah
Peacemonger
His arguments cover concerns of real-world application, and those reserved to the obscure theoretical analyses found in fortified ivory towers.What would private road production mean for the consumer? Answered. What if private road production leads to the U.S. being dissected by a tyrannical road owner? Answered.
The depth of scholarship found within this text is admirable, and to be expected of a top Austrian school economist. This relentlessness in exploring arguments is a legacy of Rothbard. Block illustrates, via direct quotation, the economic revelation of the inadequacies of State run food, steel, and other services provided by the U.S.S.R. Economics is supposed to be a valueless science, but the numbers speak for themselves. Block is a master of metaphor. He relates the economic analysis of State run enterprises in other industries to that of State run roads. The results are devastating. The advocate of State run roads turns out to be nothing more than a road socialist. An invader of private property. A coercive monopolist. A guilty murderer.
There is no shortage of scholarship on roads either. He sifts through the works of regular State proponents, and even finds libertarian opponents. The other arguments are made impotent in the face of Block's onslaught of criticisms. The Privatization of the Roads &Highways is an ode to voluntary exchange. Specifically, the peaceful provision of turnpikes, highways, and bridges. Block is by no means just an Austrian. He is a self-styled Austrolibertarian. Block explains the world through Austrian Economics, and advocates action via libertarianism (liberalism). Students of political science will recognize this distinction between descriptive, and normative claims. A descriptive claim he makes, 30,000 human lives a year are attributable to the State invasion of road production (paraphrased by moi). A normative claim he makes, this loss of human life is an atrocity that should be remedied by privatizing all roads & highways (paraphrased by moi).
With the breadth of works Block covers, he inserts essays from his past. This means there is quite a bit overlap, or rehashing of the same arguments. This is fine. The underlying thesis is that there is a root problem with the road system of the statist quo. Trimming around the edges of this system is not enough. Radical change is the right remedy. Liberate the roads, free the road consumers, and halt the soviet-style State invasion of road production. Choose liberalism.
Post Scriptum:
I have given a rave review of Block's work, but it is not without any reservations. Any economist worth their salt knows that Soviet dissolution resulted from the inability of commissars to determine prices with profits and losses. Writers I have read from Reason know this. They are worth their salt. Robert Poole receives most of Block's bludgeoning words for less radical libertarian alternatives. I have caught Poole, on record, as wanting to deregulate the airline system. This is pretty libertarian. Nevertheless, Block finds Poole's suggestions on increasing State efficiency in road provision as anathema to libertarianism. He does not parse words, nor will I in my response.
Dear Doctor Block,
You criticize Robert Poole for making State run roads more efficient. You grant that his measures may save a few lives, but deride his efforts as immoral nonetheless. There is an inconsistency in your argumentation. You promote efficiency in troop reduction here, efficiency of the State budget here and efficiency in dispute resolution production here. It is outside the bounds of reason (pun intended) to ask an austrolibertarian to refrain from giving advice on intermediary steps of change for the State to adhere to.
Austrolibertarians have, will, and should continue telling the State to reduce its military, cut foreign aid, and end the drug war. The same applies to road production, or any other field of production invaded by the State. To say otherwise means that austrolibertarians can only give advice to the effect of privatize everything. Should we have 30,000 surge troops in Afghanistan or pull them back? Privatize security production. Is it appropriate to cut foreign aid to countries that do not support our foreign adventures or to cut all foreign aid? Privatize charity production. Should we legalize marihuana alone or all drugs? Gasp* Privatize dispute resolution production. Privatize everything encompasses the final step of every advice austrolibertarians should give to the State. However, there are varying intermediary steps.
Your dogged assessment of Poole is a dog that bites you in the arse. Hey, they are descendants of wolves.
Traffic DirectionThis makes you not a libertarian for wasting your time with redness or greenness in dispute resolution, charity, and security.
Poole has very strong opinions on the one way vs. two way street controversy, heavily favoring the former. His reasons are only peripheral to our present concerns, so I will not rehearse them here.
Suppose governments ran restaurants and there was a vociferous debate over whether the tablecloths should be red or green, made out of cloth or plastic, or should exist at all. Posit, further that a group, call it Treason, ardently favored one or the other of these alternatives, it matters not which. What could we deduce from this one fact? My claim is that we could infer that this group, whatever else it was, was not a libertarian one.
What would we say if a different group, call it Treason, was advising the USSR on its steel factory? This, too, could conceivably save a few lives. How about saving lives by urging softer whips on the slave plantation? Or fewer executions in the concentration camps? Are we being unduly harsh? I think not. In all these cases, some few lives are saved by supporting those responsible for the deaths in the first place.Here you are trying to be funny. I apologize, succeeding in being funny. Language is to be taken seriously, and you err in your usage of the word support. I would urge for softer whips, and fewer executions. This is advocacy of human lives, not of the oppressors of these human lives. Charitable work is the best metaphor I can posit. I have given my time and resources to charities that help human lives today. Against Malaria and City Year help kids today. Implementation of free markets, or giving money to Mises.org, is the radical remedy we need for systemic change tomorrow. Your thinking means that we should let struggling kids die to the Statist system today, so that we keep the State maximally inefficient. Our monies should be contributed to Mises.org, and only Mises.org, in order to save the world in the future.This is unacceptable. I will give my extra income and efforts to supporting both today and the future. Both current victims of the State, and potential victims of the State. Admit the inconsistency, and publish a response.
At the end of the day Reason's work is positive to illustrate the power of market forces. If their writers espouse a disgust for your solution, they should be rebuked. Full privatization of the roads & highways is the only complete remedy. Reason's work aids free enterprise. However, fiddling around with minutia, should as you say, be left to the entrepreneurs. Thank you for your consideration.
Thy humble intellectual disciple,
Henok Elias
Enoch Elijah
Peacemonger
Friday, December 21, 2012
A Liberal Lens on Education
It has been nigh eighteen years since Murray Rothbard has passed away. While I am saddened that I never got to see his liveliness in person, his vivacity is ever present in his writings. He does not simply dust off forgotten tomes, and regurgitate the thoughts found thereof. He combs the catacombs of political, economic and historical literature in order to craft an amalgamated gem of new scholarship. Education Free & Compulsory is a finely woven wonder, of this caliber.
If you care in any shape, way, or form about education, you will read this book. I assume anyone engaging in modeling literacy, reading my ramblings, will fall into the aforementioned category. There is a problem with education in the United States. It is not subtle, nor can it be gleaned by a cursory glance at the situation. The problem is systemic, fundamental, and at the root. Radical change is the answer. Should the production of education be a voluntary or compulsory enterprise?
Rothbard's detailed history of compulsory education, backed by the threat of kidnap or murder, is a devastating kritik. Any human with moral tendencies should find the history to be revolting, page after page. Rothbard is relentless. For those wary of having to spend months on end to finish a book, fret not. Rothbard is able to expose the crimes of coercive education within the boundaries of fifty pages. His concision in a work of this magnitude shames any dormant laziness in this aspiring writer. His tenacity is especially appreciated in light of his accomplishment being before the digital age. I have no excuses.
If I have as yet left the reader unconvinced, allow me to humbly present the utmost blow to forced education that I have ever witnessed. An analogy that grabs the sun with its bare hands and smashes the ant of involuntary education.
"Read nigga, read". - Immortal Technique
If you care in any shape, way, or form about education, you will read this book. I assume anyone engaging in modeling literacy, reading my ramblings, will fall into the aforementioned category. There is a problem with education in the United States. It is not subtle, nor can it be gleaned by a cursory glance at the situation. The problem is systemic, fundamental, and at the root. Radical change is the answer. Should the production of education be a voluntary or compulsory enterprise?
Rothbard's detailed history of compulsory education, backed by the threat of kidnap or murder, is a devastating kritik. Any human with moral tendencies should find the history to be revolting, page after page. Rothbard is relentless. For those wary of having to spend months on end to finish a book, fret not. Rothbard is able to expose the crimes of coercive education within the boundaries of fifty pages. His concision in a work of this magnitude shames any dormant laziness in this aspiring writer. His tenacity is especially appreciated in light of his accomplishment being before the digital age. I have no excuses.
If I have as yet left the reader unconvinced, allow me to humbly present the utmost blow to forced education that I have ever witnessed. An analogy that grabs the sun with its bare hands and smashes the ant of involuntary education.
One of the best ways of regarding compulsory education is to think of the almost exact analogy in the area of that other great educational medium- the newspaper. What would we think of a proposal for the government, Federal or State, to use the taxpayers' money to set up a nationwide chain of public newspapers, and compel all people, or all children to read them? What would we think furthermore of the government's outlawing all other newspapers, or indeed outlawing all newspapers that do not come up to the "standards" of what a government commission thinks children ought to read? Such a proposal would be generally regarded with horror in America, and yet this is exactly the sort of regime that the government has established in the sphere of scholastic instruction.If one knows the mayhem brought about by red terrors in varying communist countries, this notation will send a shiver down one's spine.
"Read nigga, read". - Immortal Technique
Monday, December 17, 2012
Costs of Invasionism: Seen & Unseen
David Vine , anthropologist and writer at Tomdispatch.com, illustrates the cost of the military industrial complex. Readers of Bastiat's The Law, will recognize that these costs are that which is seen. Disturbing as they may be, they are only one parsel of the picture. The other side of the coin, is the damage done to producers. In order to fund the empire, the Warfare State, wealth must be forcibly expropriated from the hands of those attempting to service the ever changing demands of the consumers. The precise detriment done to society at large is incalculable in an age of inexorable advancement in the field of technology. I know that consumers would be more satisfied without the theft and taxation, that facilitates Tom's list of military expenditures. This unfulfilled potential is that which is unseen.
Liberalization of the economy would reap unimaginable benefits. Choose liberalism.
Liberalization of the economy would reap unimaginable benefits. Choose liberalism.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Violence & Heroism
hero: a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities (dictionary.comThe first addendum to be made, is to clarify that this title can be attributed to both males and females. The proximity of the words heroine and heroin, make it awkward to refer to female champions as heroines. The word actress has been nixed for actor, the same can and should be done for this category of human action.
Anytime an armed human initiates violence, or aggresses, against a group of humans it is despicable, deplorable and downright dirty. When the aggressor does this indiscriminately, it is even more so. When the aggressor is an adult, and the victims are elementary school children, it sets a brush fire of emotion in the minds of men. So that you stick your head out of your window and yell "I'm AS MAD AS HELL, AND I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"
We sympathize with the scariness of the loss of life. I and I empathize with the family members of the victims. This is oneness. This is unity. This is humanity.
The anger is not useful if maintained, and used to respond to this aggression with more aggression. To end cyclical aggression, it is essential to seek the root of the problem. To seek this systemic change is radical. The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is not the end all be all of morality, but it is the radical first step. A calm, cool, and collected deliberation of human action, after rage can make this subject clear. The NAP states that aggression, alternatively expressed as the initiation of violence, is morally reprehensible always and everywhere.
Armed gunmen who blithely murder children are wrong. Soldiers of invading forces are wrong. Criminal cohorts that plan and attempt to commit theft of jewelry are wrong. Savings stealers, Orwellianly referred to as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), are wrong. Kidnappers, whether or not they seek ransom, are wrong. Supporters of the prison industrial complex, a gang of kidnappers writ large, are wrong.
The beginning of positive change is the usage of language. If we are not able to identify and distinguish the morally reprehensible categories of human action from those that are not, we have no chance at stopping them. The prescient issue of the day is gun control. The economic debate on this is important, but I will not delve deep into it. One side wants to abolish the ownership of guns, and the other wants no restrictions. The liberal position should be evident. If one could succeed in asking for the peaceful forfeiture of all weapons, then I would advocate this position. We are not in this fantastical world. We are in the real world. Aggressors exist and they are best combated when there is uncertainty of the armed status of their victims.
Why do a large number of individuals valorize the initiation of violence? Why do these individuals give their consent to an organization, the State, that cannot exist without being an aggressor? What can fanatics of loving, peaceful, and voluntary exchange do to convince others that aggression is wrong?
James Poulos writes, at Forbes, that
our soldiers are often so much more heroic than the rest of us.
Earlier in his piece Poulos notes that Chris Hayes's discussion of soldiers and heroism is not as antiwar as Catch 22 or All Quiet on the Western Front. Hayes feels a slight discomfort with referring to all individuals of invading forces as heroes. Perhaps, he would feel comfortable valorizing a limited number of invaders here and there. I am not so restrained in my diction. A duck is a duck, an invader is a murderer, and a taxer is a thief. The valorization of aggression can be pinned to misunderstanding. When the truth of moral absolutes is properly understood, the vagaries and purposefully confounding political euphemisms desist.
Please read Anatomy of the State, also here, to understand what exactly the State is. If Murray Rothbard is wrong, refute his arguments. If not, then it stands that
Armed gunmen who blithely murder children are wrong. Soldiers of invading forces are wrong. Criminal cohorts that plan and attempt to commit theft of jewelry are wrong. Savings stealers, Orwellianly referred to as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), are wrong. Kidnappers, whether or not they seek ransom, are wrong. Supporters of the prison industrial complex, a gang of kidnappers writ large, are wrong.
The beginning of positive change is the usage of language. If we are not able to identify and distinguish the morally reprehensible categories of human action from those that are not, we have no chance at stopping them. The prescient issue of the day is gun control. The economic debate on this is important, but I will not delve deep into it. One side wants to abolish the ownership of guns, and the other wants no restrictions. The liberal position should be evident. If one could succeed in asking for the peaceful forfeiture of all weapons, then I would advocate this position. We are not in this fantastical world. We are in the real world. Aggressors exist and they are best combated when there is uncertainty of the armed status of their victims.
Why do a large number of individuals valorize the initiation of violence? Why do these individuals give their consent to an organization, the State, that cannot exist without being an aggressor? What can fanatics of loving, peaceful, and voluntary exchange do to convince others that aggression is wrong?
James Poulos writes, at Forbes, that
our soldiers are often so much more heroic than the rest of us.
Earlier in his piece Poulos notes that Chris Hayes's discussion of soldiers and heroism is not as antiwar as Catch 22 or All Quiet on the Western Front. Hayes feels a slight discomfort with referring to all individuals of invading forces as heroes. Perhaps, he would feel comfortable valorizing a limited number of invaders here and there. I am not so restrained in my diction. A duck is a duck, an invader is a murderer, and a taxer is a thief. The valorization of aggression can be pinned to misunderstanding. When the truth of moral absolutes is properly understood, the vagaries and purposefully confounding political euphemisms desist.
Please read Anatomy of the State, also here, to understand what exactly the State is. If Murray Rothbard is wrong, refute his arguments. If not, then it stands that
the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.The State is antisocial. The moniker socialism makes no sense, for this reason. If anything, antisocialism is a more definitional portrayal of Mao's, Lenin's and Stalin's regimes. Rothbard accurately portrays the State as aggression incarnate. Once this is understood, anyone against aggression will become against the State. They will become An Enemy of the State.
If fanatics of peace, peaceniks or peacemongers, were to host persuasive conversations with Statists as often as they can, the battle for love would be won. I do so throughout my blog and in my personal interactions in the world of scarcity. Do likewise, and watch peace ensue. May God bless all of creation.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Voluntaryism: Communism's Best Shot
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels started a movement, communism, that has taken tons of twists and turns since. Socialism is often called communism, by those who are confused. Socialism is when the State forcibly controls all means of production. While the OGs of communism claimed the historical necessity of this stage, this was not their ideal. Their ideal, communism, occurs when people own the means of production and the State is abolished or withers away. Whatever moniker you prefer for the ideology of freedom (libertarian anarchy, liberalism, kritarchy, or voluntaryism), communist ends are best met by the defense of individual freedom.
The number one plank of the Communist Manifesto regards the abolition of property. The priority given shows its level of import to Marx and Engels. Liberalism is summed up by Mises as the protection of property. Counterintuitive as it may seem I believe that the abolition of property will come about by protecting property.
Abolition in this sense, is not to be taken as total coercive seizure of individuals' property by the State (coterie of collusion). The protection of property rights will lead to the withering away of property. Statists refer to emulated and shared ideas, on the digital plane, as "intellectual property". Stephan Kinsella crumbles this philosophy into a paper wad, shreds it, and tosses its remains into a viking funeral pyre here.
Communist utopia is supposed to begin with a world in which no property exists. In the mid 1800's this did not exist. The blessings of property and liberalism, private control of the means of production, include the actualization of the mythical "Land of Cockaigne". I can have a song, and give it to my friends without being deprived of it myself. The same goes for; movies, books, software, photographs et cetera... The internet is the facilitator of this peaceful trade. The beauty of human life is the result of physical intercourse. The wonder that is the availability of ideas, is the result of intellectual intercourse.
The digital plane could not have come about with Socialism. The complete social and economic invasion upon voluntary trade, by the State, leaves man in an atavistic state of war. Socialism is governed by involuntary trade. Thus, socialism necessarily batters the specialization that comes about with the division of labor. When you point guns at peoples' heads and tell them how to produce, the great leap to starvation is the result.
If there are communists who genuinely care about the ideal of ridding the world of the need of property, then they will promulgate total market anarchy. Market anarchists do not advocate using the State to oppress sharing ideas on the internet. The physical plane has scarcity of goods and services. The digital plane has room for the indefinite sharing of goods and services. In a world of scarcity, property is needed for individuals to be able to sustain themselves without the initiation of violence. In a world of fully freed markets, humans are able to add previously tangible and scarce goods to the digital plane. Every good and every service added to the digital plane, is an increase of the catalogue of nonproprietary goods and services. It is foreseeable, that all goods and services enter the digital plane.
If all goods and services were to enter the digital plane, there would be no need for property. No, not strong enough. There would be no natural right to property if scarcity no longer existed. The ideal of a propertyless world would be achieved.
If you are a commie, seek the protection of property rights. If you are commie, understand that "IP" is illusory. If you are a commie, seek liberalism.
Laissez Faire, Holus Bolus. Let it be, all at once.
The number one plank of the Communist Manifesto regards the abolition of property. The priority given shows its level of import to Marx and Engels. Liberalism is summed up by Mises as the protection of property. Counterintuitive as it may seem I believe that the abolition of property will come about by protecting property.
Abolition in this sense, is not to be taken as total coercive seizure of individuals' property by the State (coterie of collusion). The protection of property rights will lead to the withering away of property. Statists refer to emulated and shared ideas, on the digital plane, as "intellectual property". Stephan Kinsella crumbles this philosophy into a paper wad, shreds it, and tosses its remains into a viking funeral pyre here.
Communist utopia is supposed to begin with a world in which no property exists. In the mid 1800's this did not exist. The blessings of property and liberalism, private control of the means of production, include the actualization of the mythical "Land of Cockaigne". I can have a song, and give it to my friends without being deprived of it myself. The same goes for; movies, books, software, photographs et cetera... The internet is the facilitator of this peaceful trade. The beauty of human life is the result of physical intercourse. The wonder that is the availability of ideas, is the result of intellectual intercourse.
The digital plane could not have come about with Socialism. The complete social and economic invasion upon voluntary trade, by the State, leaves man in an atavistic state of war. Socialism is governed by involuntary trade. Thus, socialism necessarily batters the specialization that comes about with the division of labor. When you point guns at peoples' heads and tell them how to produce, the great leap to starvation is the result.
If there are communists who genuinely care about the ideal of ridding the world of the need of property, then they will promulgate total market anarchy. Market anarchists do not advocate using the State to oppress sharing ideas on the internet. The physical plane has scarcity of goods and services. The digital plane has room for the indefinite sharing of goods and services. In a world of scarcity, property is needed for individuals to be able to sustain themselves without the initiation of violence. In a world of fully freed markets, humans are able to add previously tangible and scarce goods to the digital plane. Every good and every service added to the digital plane, is an increase of the catalogue of nonproprietary goods and services. It is foreseeable, that all goods and services enter the digital plane.
If all goods and services were to enter the digital plane, there would be no need for property. No, not strong enough. There would be no natural right to property if scarcity no longer existed. The ideal of a propertyless world would be achieved.
If you are a commie, seek the protection of property rights. If you are commie, understand that "IP" is illusory. If you are a commie, seek liberalism.
Laissez Faire, Holus Bolus. Let it be, all at once.
Appreciation of Innovation
I finally went to observe, and use the recently established Figat7th center in downtown Los Angeles. Before my ideas are confused with that of so-called vulgar libertarians, let me announce that the market structure of the U.S.A. is not free. The status of voluntary exchange is inhibited, incurred upon, invaded, hampered, adulterated, violated et cetera... Nevertheless there are aspects of the market economy that can be appropriately appreciated through the liberal lens.
Postulates regarding roads in a freed market are aided by examples garnered from market forces in today's mixed economy. Driving through the expansive parking lot of Figat7th, I could see and feel the smoothness of the roads. Present amongst the levels of human constructed beauty, were parking spaces for standard oil run vehicles as well as electric vehicle docking stations. This made me feel as if we were in a "Jetson's World". See, this was my first encounter with electric vehicle docking stations in a city mall. This occurs in an invaded market. What wonders would we be privy to if we privatized everything?
The caveat here, is that this mall is new. With time its walls can deteriorate, its roads can crumble, and its employees can all quit. All in all, it can fail if humans do not decide to voluntarily patronize it with there accumulated currency. If it fails, taxes are not levied to support it (we are not involuntarily expropriated of our wealth). If it fails, room is left for other competitors to supply the demand for the goods and services that Figat7th currently provides. This is the beauty of the marketplace. The marketplace is an arena of service. In order to satisfy our whims, we acquire resources to peacefully trade with one another. In order to voluntarily persuade a human into a purchase, thee must serve.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
A Liberal Lens on "Libertarian Anarchy"
I have been a libertarian for the past 5 years. My intellectual growth is detailed here. During my college years I thought myself to be in firm opposition to Statism, but I still supported the most basic tenet of Statism. A lie so subtly promulgated, and firmly rooted that I did not comprehend its implications. I held the belief that the State is moral.
Over the past year I was introduced to voluntaryism by youtube animation, Stephan Molyneux, and mises.org writers. Voluntaryism is the belief that government should be voluntary. It opposes coercively monopolized governments, States, in favor of competing governments that would occur in the non-invaded free market. Four positions, wrapped in the myth of the State, held me back from voluntaryism during college; intellectual property, the roads, security and law. Stephan Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" evaporates all arguments that promote initiating violence against the emulation of ideas. Walter "the moderate" Block's "The Privatization of Roads & Highways" elucidates the sheer number of human lives lost as a result of the road socialism in the U.S.A. (eerily reminiscent of Mao's experiment with 30 million lives) The most contentious of issues, imo, were that of security production, and of law production. Gerard Casey's "Libertarian Anarchy: against the State" leaves no room for confusion.
Casey illustrates libertarianism, properly understood, to be anarchism. This is not the fantastical anarchism where no one needs to work, and everyone is automatically fed. His view is better understood as kritarchy, a term he introduces and would have been better off in titling his book with. Kritarchy is beautiful in that it does not come along with the violent molotov cocktail launching imagery that anarchism does. Kritarchy is rule by judges. Not State employees, but law producers that seek both parties' consent with every dispute resolution service offered. These law producers would work in concert with security producers, and compete with rivals for the vote of the people in the ultimate democracy. Dollar Democracy: the non-invaded free market's mechanism of support for producers of goods and services. Every dollar you give to a producer is a vote.
Casey distinguishes between libertarianism and libertinism. He shows that you can advocate for the right to act in a way that you do not approve of. One can consistently protect the free speech of a Nazi, the economic freedom of a pusher, and the self-ownership of an escort while rebuking all of these human actions. Casey defies the "Stateless societies are restricted to abstract theory" crowd with concrete examples of societies that approached his ideal of formal kritarchy. Eskimo society, pre-invasion Irish society, Somali society and "the anarchy of international relations between states". These are his highlights, but history is replete with instantiations of Stateless governing. Casey plunges a dagger in the heart of Statist dogma, by balking democracy. He illustrates the contradiction of terms one takes part in by referring to a State as a representative democracy, when consent is outlawed. Casey shreds the doctrine of constitutional legitimacy by tossing the implicit contract, explicit contract and binding components of constitutions out of the window. What remains of the States legitimacy? Nothing.
Why should firm believers in the State read this book? This is a succinct presentation of ideas contrary to the State, packed into 149 pages. If it does not completely uproot your Statism, it will cause an intellectual earthquake with aftershocks that will affect you for years to come.
Why should the libertarian non-anarchist read this book? You probably did not think of yourself as a security production socialist and a law production socialist. After reading this book your views will enjoy the splendor of axiomatic consistency. If you can prove that the free market can provide law and security production, other arguments become superflous.
Why should the voluntaryist read this book? Reading Casey's work will strengthen your philosophical foundation.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Animal Rights: Fact or Fiction?
I was a parliamentary debater at Pepperdine University. Unfortunately, this was only for three semesters. I joined late in my career, due to my dabbling in too many other trades. I was scatterbrained, and this leads to starting a lot of projects without seeing their completion. Fortunately, I am a changed man. Here I will finish, via incineration, illusory talk of animal rights. Rights are obligations not to trespass against the order of voluntary exchange. Rights are duties to uphold social cooperation, and anathematize social disintegration. Peaceful exchange is society. The planet we live on has only one race that can uphold these rights, the human race. Thus, any violator of rights is a racist. Since no other member of Earth's animal kingdom can participate in upholding social cooperation, no other member of Earth's animal kingdom has rights.
My arguments can come from scripture or from a secular property rights perspective. I doubt the former would have sway in discussions with vegetarians/vegans who abstain from the flesh for moral reasons. However, I would be remiss in not quoting the word.
Do not fret, I did not forget my secular, or other religious affiliates in my audience. The dark illusion of animal rights is exposed by the spotlight of property. The last knight of liberalism, Ludwig von Mises, claims
Let us propose that I am a sophist who utilizes rhetorical flourish to distract the lay reader. Let us pretend that my arguments are a wash, and my goal is to hornswoggle. Let us pretend that beasts have rights. If beasts have the right not to be eaten, it is because their status as "sentient" beings morally bars them from being items of consumption. If they are worthy of rights, they cannot be morally owned. This morality dictates the closing of all public and private zoos. What happens when dangerous beasts are not allowed to be owned by humans? What happens when lions, bears, rhinoceroses, tigers, ligers, hippopotamuses and elephants roam free, and encounter humans? The law of self-defense, and Darwinian analysis enter the scene. Beasts cannot be reasoned with. Beasts will not restrict their movements to arbitrary borders drawn by States, or to not invading the property of humans. If you want to exterminate beasts, abolish the right to dominion over them. Abolish the right to consume, hunt for sport or preserve that which humans have dominion over. If you want beasts to thrive, develop a robust natural rights theory of human rights grounded in property rights. The survival of beasts is contingent upon human dominion of beasts.
Choose Liberalism, save the beasts.
Post Scriptum: Here is a 60 minutes case of Texas hunters preserving species that are now extinct in Africa. Butler Shaffer's full post. Blame or praise for this tirade should be directed at one Professor Leeson-Schatz and his post at CEDA. He is not the progenitor of my arguments, but the embodiment of my arguments' antithesis. I appreciate his adjudication philosophy for the debate community, along with his frankness on the subject. It is a fun read, join me on this journey.
My arguments can come from scripture or from a secular property rights perspective. I doubt the former would have sway in discussions with vegetarians/vegans who abstain from the flesh for moral reasons. However, I would be remiss in not quoting the word.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Genesis 1:26If you are a Jew or a Christian, this is the end of the debate. People were bestowed with dominion over nature, as nature's God has dominion over people and nature. When one has dominion, others have no claim to invade upon their affairs.
Do not fret, I did not forget my secular, or other religious affiliates in my audience. The dark illusion of animal rights is exposed by the spotlight of property. The last knight of liberalism, Ludwig von Mises, claims
The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from this fundamental demand.The idea that animals other than humans, henceforth beasts, have rights numbs the cerebellum. If humans were not able to homestead unused scarce resources, there would be no property. Property rights are there to stave off the social disintegration that would occur in a propertyless world. Without designations of dominion over scarce resources, those resources are subject to the tragedy of the commons. Property allows people to preserve scarce resources, if they so choose. Butler Shaffer, of lewrockwell.com, once inundated a Greenpeace worker with examples of peaceful environmentalism
I went on to point out the many privately owned forests that operate as preserves, which members of the public can voluntarily support and visit. Private groups have purchased 'conservation easements' from landowners, for the purpose of preserving wetlands. I told them of the late actor, William Holden, who devoted most of his wealth to creating and maintaing a preserve in Africa wherein wild elephants could live. I also know of a man with no family who plans to leave his entire estate to the care of wild gorillas in Africa. If individuals and private groups can do such things- without putting themselves in conflict with others- do you think you- or Greenpeace- could figure out non-political, non-violent ways of accomplishing ends that you value?The world without property rights is doomed, what is next? The world of property rights can only exist where there is the possibility of voluntary exchange, or as Mises puts it, social cooperation. Humans do not have to exchange with one another, but they do. Ricardo's Law is apodeictic. The division of labor benefits even those producers who are more effective than others. Even the most talented of humans gains from voluntarily exchanging goods and services. Beasts cannot partake in voluntary exchange. Human action is guided by time preferences of wants that humans attempt to satisfy. Beasts are guided by instinct alone, and cannot peacefully trade with humans. Beasts have no possible addition to social cooperation. Beasts can only engage in involuntary exchange, or social disintegration. This disability bars them rights.
Let us propose that I am a sophist who utilizes rhetorical flourish to distract the lay reader. Let us pretend that my arguments are a wash, and my goal is to hornswoggle. Let us pretend that beasts have rights. If beasts have the right not to be eaten, it is because their status as "sentient" beings morally bars them from being items of consumption. If they are worthy of rights, they cannot be morally owned. This morality dictates the closing of all public and private zoos. What happens when dangerous beasts are not allowed to be owned by humans? What happens when lions, bears, rhinoceroses, tigers, ligers, hippopotamuses and elephants roam free, and encounter humans? The law of self-defense, and Darwinian analysis enter the scene. Beasts cannot be reasoned with. Beasts will not restrict their movements to arbitrary borders drawn by States, or to not invading the property of humans. If you want to exterminate beasts, abolish the right to dominion over them. Abolish the right to consume, hunt for sport or preserve that which humans have dominion over. If you want beasts to thrive, develop a robust natural rights theory of human rights grounded in property rights. The survival of beasts is contingent upon human dominion of beasts.
Choose Liberalism, save the beasts.
Post Scriptum: Here is a 60 minutes case of Texas hunters preserving species that are now extinct in Africa. Butler Shaffer's full post. Blame or praise for this tirade should be directed at one Professor Leeson-Schatz and his post at CEDA. He is not the progenitor of my arguments, but the embodiment of my arguments' antithesis. I appreciate his adjudication philosophy for the debate community, along with his frankness on the subject. It is a fun read, join me on this journey.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Lincoln & Social Disintegration
Jeffrey Tucker, blogger ar lfb, is a master of his craft. When it comes to book reviewing, there is no equal. Whether it be in video or written format, his prose and emotion lead to the lengthening of my reading list. Here he strikes again.
The subject is Abraham Lincoln. Was he so great a president that we needed his image engraved in the stone idol of South Dakota? Or, is he the epitome of salivating centralized power cravers that feed in the trough alternatively known as the State? Here is a taste of Tucker's insight
Leading an invasion that vanquishes 700,000 humans does not lead to social cooperation. Such antisocial behavior leads to social disintegration. Promulgation of history through the lens of Liberalism is a must in cases where a man's reputation is far from accurately portraying him. Revisionism is the right remedy to State propagandizing via the public school system, and public sector hiring.
The subject is Abraham Lincoln. Was he so great a president that we needed his image engraved in the stone idol of South Dakota? Or, is he the epitome of salivating centralized power cravers that feed in the trough alternatively known as the State? Here is a taste of Tucker's insight
Reading Fallon, two great problems with Abraham Lincoln emerge: his means and his ends. The means were themselves horrifying, and the new Lincoln movie provides only a hint of it with the piles of limbs and bodies that variously appear in battlefield and hospice scenes. This war was ghastly and unnecessary (Britain ended slavery peacefully just 30 years earlier, as Thomas DiLorenzo frequently points out). He ordered mass executions. He made the Bill of Rights a dead letter.
Leading an invasion that vanquishes 700,000 humans does not lead to social cooperation. Such antisocial behavior leads to social disintegration. Promulgation of history through the lens of Liberalism is a must in cases where a man's reputation is far from accurately portraying him. Revisionism is the right remedy to State propagandizing via the public school system, and public sector hiring.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
What's a Palestine?
After a host of recent conversations with my comrades, I have come to the conclusion that there needs to be some light shed on the darkness in the Middle East. Yeah there is a truce for now, but I bet your still curious. Two questions arise that I am confident will be answered in contrarily varying ways elsewhere. What is Palestine? What is Israel? Here I will attempt to answer these questions i an introductory fashion, and equip the public with the means to do research on their own.
If you think one article can bring you up to speed with the events over yonder, I humbly suggest the work of one Noam Chomsky. I do not believe that it will be enough, but if you only have patience for one article, please let this be the one. If a cartoonish representation of the atavistic violence backed by an awesome soundtrack can attract your curiosity to the calamity watch "This Land is Mine", and read the information beneath the video. If you have the will to read through decades of antiwar articles on the subject, click here. Cato's sobering look at the Two State Solution. The Just view of the re-elected Noble Peace Prize Winner's hypocritical view of human life in the region, here. To reiterate, the above is an intellectual sports drink to get you in the game of war. How long you play, and when you substitute out are up to you coach.
The farce called the One State Solution, is proposed by those seeking peace in the region as a response to the plethora of problems that arise in establishing two sovereign States. George Bisharat, professor of Law at UC Hastings, rightly calls it the "two state mirage". His reasons are legion
Let the solution for peace in the Levant be known. The No State Solution is the path to preventing as much murder as possible. Hamas is the Palestinian democratically elected State that ensures war in the region by monopolizing the initiation of force. The Israeli State also has a monopoly on the use of force, democratically elected of course. If both States, and the Palestinian State in the West Bank, are abolished there will be no monopoly on the initiation of violence in the region. Those who will increase social cooperation through voluntary trade will do so. These are the peacemongers. Those who will insist on dominating other humans through initiating violence will be dealt with by security producers aligned with dispute resolution producers.
The key to peace is to allow peaceful association of people. Israelis and Palestinians are people. Profound, I know. There may be Israeli neighborhoods, Palestinian neighborhoods, or the more likely mixed neighborhoods when peaceful association is allowed. The anatomy of the State is inherently an association of war. It cannot be constructed without the threat of kidnapping and murder. Therefore its construction cannot lead to peace in the Middle East. Disintegrate the State to allow peace to ensue and endure.
Post Scriptum:
But, but, but who will build the courts? Kritarchy is the answer.
If you think one article can bring you up to speed with the events over yonder, I humbly suggest the work of one Noam Chomsky. I do not believe that it will be enough, but if you only have patience for one article, please let this be the one. If a cartoonish representation of the atavistic violence backed by an awesome soundtrack can attract your curiosity to the calamity watch "This Land is Mine", and read the information beneath the video. If you have the will to read through decades of antiwar articles on the subject, click here. Cato's sobering look at the Two State Solution. The Just view of the re-elected Noble Peace Prize Winner's hypocritical view of human life in the region, here. To reiterate, the above is an intellectual sports drink to get you in the game of war. How long you play, and when you substitute out are up to you coach.
The farce called the One State Solution, is proposed by those seeking peace in the region as a response to the plethora of problems that arise in establishing two sovereign States. George Bisharat, professor of Law at UC Hastings, rightly calls it the "two state mirage". His reasons are legion
The obstacles to meaningful Palestinian statehood are constantly mounting, most tangibly in the form of Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Some 600,000 Jewish settlers now reside there-- three times as many as at the beginning of the Oslo peace process in 1993, and their numbers are growing rapidly.His analysis on the subject is accurate to a tee, but the solution he proposes has problems of its own. These failings come from the worship of the State, statolatry. The One State idea is supposed to be more democratic, egalitarian and realistic in light of Israeli disapproval of a fully sovereign and armored Palestinian State. Bisharat's supplication to the State blinds him to the Israeli desire to praise Eloheim. The Israelis may not all believe in God, but they surely want a State that affirms their cultural view of the deity. Palestinians are not as jewish as the Israelis. Some Palestinians are Christians and most of the others are Muslims. Having One State means resolving these incompatible religions. If Palestinians are forced to be in a State that selects Judaism as its religion, then talk of equality is for nothing. If the One State is not a religious State, have fun getting Israel to agree to such accords. Voting in One State would somehow achieve more favorable results, by making people come together and agree. If the U.S. Congress is any indication of democracy, then they Israelis and Palestinians should stray as far as they can from it. The Congress has succeeded in agreeing to increase the scopes of both domestic and foreign State invasion. This has wrought the initiation of violence in the past, and would only lead to more initiation of violence in the future. Additionally, Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as referring to democracy as two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner plans. I'll let your mind substitute the parties we are talking about into this metaphor. Voluntary exchange is the most critical issue in the area. Sure, the original Israeli invaders of Palestine were wrong. Sure, the 600,000 current settling invaders are even more wrong. However, the most deplorable action by the Israeli State is its blockade of Gaza. The Israeli State dehumanizes Palestinians by calculating the amount of calories needed for bare subsistence. The Israeli State achieves this by invading the voluntary exchange between Palestinians and peace seeking traders abroad. War is brought about not by having one, two or thirty States. War, and by that I mean murder, is the essence of the State.
Let the solution for peace in the Levant be known. The No State Solution is the path to preventing as much murder as possible. Hamas is the Palestinian democratically elected State that ensures war in the region by monopolizing the initiation of force. The Israeli State also has a monopoly on the use of force, democratically elected of course. If both States, and the Palestinian State in the West Bank, are abolished there will be no monopoly on the initiation of violence in the region. Those who will increase social cooperation through voluntary trade will do so. These are the peacemongers. Those who will insist on dominating other humans through initiating violence will be dealt with by security producers aligned with dispute resolution producers.
The key to peace is to allow peaceful association of people. Israelis and Palestinians are people. Profound, I know. There may be Israeli neighborhoods, Palestinian neighborhoods, or the more likely mixed neighborhoods when peaceful association is allowed. The anatomy of the State is inherently an association of war. It cannot be constructed without the threat of kidnapping and murder. Therefore its construction cannot lead to peace in the Middle East. Disintegrate the State to allow peace to ensue and endure.
Post Scriptum:
But, but, but who will build the courts? Kritarchy is the answer.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Welcome to the Plastic Bags
Josh Friedman, of freeslo, strikes again. This is civil disobedience done right. Anarchists do not have to be tie-dye mohawk having, molotov cocktail tossing deviants. Baby steps towards libertarian anarchy are taken with every protest. It is a game of education. The masses have been indoctrinated and inculcated by the religion of Statism. Who will build the roads and bridges? Who will protect our property from terrorists? Who will write the laws? And the ever so quintessential and existentially significant, who will save us from the danger of plastic bags?
Josh the exemplar doing what activists do. Peaceful and non-violent resistance to a ban on plastic bags.
Post Scriptum: Forthcoming will be a more in depth look at civil disobedience.
Josh the exemplar doing what activists do. Peaceful and non-violent resistance to a ban on plastic bags.
Post Scriptum: Forthcoming will be a more in depth look at civil disobedience.
Is Voting Wrong?
The State wants thee to vote, in order to acquire thine approval. This is the essence of Voluntaryist argumentation against strolling into the voting booth and fulfilling your "civic" duty. The duty I and I,we, have is to end the system of endemic aggression perpetrated by the State. If this can be done by voting, then that is the moral imperative. If it can only be done by abstaining, then that is the moral imperative. It can be done by voting for measures or candidates that will put chinks in the armor of the State.
To vote between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is unconscionable. To vote between a "citizens' approved" territorial submission to the State over a forcefully monopolized law producer's decision to designate territorial submission to the State is unconscionable (see 40 here). To vote between Howard Berman and Brad Sherman is unconscionable. However, voting can be conscionable.
Gary Johnson was the Libertarian, capital L, candidate for president. His positions on FEMA, the FCC and the State are questionable at best and morally destitute at worst. I say this after having voted for Gary Johnson, and not regretting it. He garnered roughly 1% of the total vote, but if he had reached 5% then federal funds would have to have been divided between three parties instead of two. In reality there is only one party, The War Party, but this division of federal funds would reduce their power to propagandize. It would startle the average voter that thought the libertarians were to be ignored in their obscurity. It would cause the 4th branch of the State, the media, to discuss libertarianism and its dissemination would be aided. Is this enough reason to punch a hole in a ballot?
In regards to measures offered up to the direct democracies of some states within the United States of America, voting can be an imperative. In cases where there is no chance of gouging the eyes of or slashing at the tentacles of Leviathan, the moral imperative is to abstain from voting or to uphold the purposive act of non-voting. If the passing of a measure will help to dismantle the State, then voting is the moral imperative. Abolishing State execution, legalizing marihuana, reducing invasions into insurance production and lessening sanctions of State violence against voluntary exchange all appeared on ballots this November. Any abstention of voting on these issues is morally reprehensible.
Vote!
Post Scriptum: The inspiration for this detailed look at voting, and for transparency on voting is Reason Magazine's Tim Cavanaugh. Earlier this year I voted in the primary, and his online proclamation of his votes was illuminating. Here it is.
Daniel Sanchez disagrees. He is wrong, but puts forth the most lucid antiwar argument I have ever witnessed
Foreign policy is an economic matter in another way as well. Foreign interventionists are essentiallysecurity-production socialists. For far too many conservatives, the same federal government that is too inept and corrupt to run a television station is somehow miraculously competent and virtuous enough to make the whole world a safer place through centrally planned invasions, occupations, sanctions, regime changes, and CIA ops.PeaceRequiresAnarchy's argument is here. Mark's, my twitter ally, argument can be found here. Ifeminist Wendy McElroy's argument is here. George Smith's argument is here. Compelling as they may be, I voted on Novemeber 6, 2012 Ano Domini.
To vote between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is unconscionable. To vote between a "citizens' approved" territorial submission to the State over a forcefully monopolized law producer's decision to designate territorial submission to the State is unconscionable (see 40 here). To vote between Howard Berman and Brad Sherman is unconscionable. However, voting can be conscionable.
Gary Johnson was the Libertarian, capital L, candidate for president. His positions on FEMA, the FCC and the State are questionable at best and morally destitute at worst. I say this after having voted for Gary Johnson, and not regretting it. He garnered roughly 1% of the total vote, but if he had reached 5% then federal funds would have to have been divided between three parties instead of two. In reality there is only one party, The War Party, but this division of federal funds would reduce their power to propagandize. It would startle the average voter that thought the libertarians were to be ignored in their obscurity. It would cause the 4th branch of the State, the media, to discuss libertarianism and its dissemination would be aided. Is this enough reason to punch a hole in a ballot?
In regards to measures offered up to the direct democracies of some states within the United States of America, voting can be an imperative. In cases where there is no chance of gouging the eyes of or slashing at the tentacles of Leviathan, the moral imperative is to abstain from voting or to uphold the purposive act of non-voting. If the passing of a measure will help to dismantle the State, then voting is the moral imperative. Abolishing State execution, legalizing marihuana, reducing invasions into insurance production and lessening sanctions of State violence against voluntary exchange all appeared on ballots this November. Any abstention of voting on these issues is morally reprehensible.
Vote!
Post Scriptum: The inspiration for this detailed look at voting, and for transparency on voting is Reason Magazine's Tim Cavanaugh. Earlier this year I voted in the primary, and his online proclamation of his votes was illuminating. Here it is.
Monday, November 5, 2012
V for Voluntary
Today is November fifth, two thousand and twelve Ano Domini. Happy fifth! V for Vendetta came out in 2005, and I have remembered the gun powder, the treason and plot ever since. The film is full to the brim with scenes that are memorable, but my favorite was the audience's introduction to V. He saves the distressed damsel and delves into a deepening chasm of poetry. Alternating rhythm, unforgivingly elitist verbosity abetted by a British accent and an assiduous alliteration schema make this my favorite scene of any movie. Here it is.
"V for Vendetta's" theme is so manifestly antiauthoritarian, and popular, that I deem it unfruitful to do a line by line analysis on the subject. The fifth of November draws my attention, every year, to the largess of Leviathan, and my tolerance thereof. This is my way of tracking my intellectual development. This year marks a change not only in degree, but in kind.
I grew up in a Bill Clinton supporting centrist household. In fifth grade we had a timely mock presidential election. I voted for Al Gore and he won. History turned out a little differently. Fast forward to high school where I knew that those in authority were doing something wrong. I had been listening to Immortal Technique and reading through the propaganda of the 4th branch. I was antiwar and pro-civil liberties. At the time I identified as a Democrat, because of the monstrous bigotry and warmongering that I saw in the Republican Party. During the 2007 presidential debates I was exposed to the hushing of antiwar voices. Rep. Dennis Kucinich was the only Democrat that was antiwar, the others merely payed lip service to peace.
My cerebellum received a shock when I listened to the arguments of one Dr. Ronald Paul. It was the first time in my life I found myself agreeing with the political arguments of an elderly white man. It was what I needed to shake stereotypes out of me. Dr. Paul espoused antiwar and pro-civil liberties positions. The other Republicans were atrocious in comparison, but what surprised me was that I liked what Dr. Paul had to say more than any party's proposed candidates. Another confusion arose in me when I realized that my friends and family did not feel the same. They had attachments to the welfare state, the regulatory state, the military industrial complex and the pharmaceutical industrial complex. I was indifferent to welfare and regulations, because their proponents did not ground their arguments in natural rights. The potency of natural rights is what had drawn me to antiwar ideas and the body politick itself.
My college years involved following Dr. Paul's career and flipping through suggested readings from him. I became active in the college libertarian group and joined the university's debate team. The exchange of ideas I participated in drove me farther and farther from the State. The impotency of Statist arguments did not satisfy my desire for a consistent philosophy.
Over the past year I have been dangling on the thin line between minarchy and anarchy. Now I am resolutely a voluntarist/voluntaryist. No governing structure is just unless one can opt in or out voluntarily, without the threat or instantiation of aggression.
But I digress. Here is my ode to the movie.
View "V for Vendetta" through this vent that vividly venerates voluntary association, victimizes villains & Leviathan's ventriloquists and vociferously portrays sublime scenes of vengeance as vivaciously as a venomous volcano erupting on Venetian villages. Here
"V for Vendetta's" theme is so manifestly antiauthoritarian, and popular, that I deem it unfruitful to do a line by line analysis on the subject. The fifth of November draws my attention, every year, to the largess of Leviathan, and my tolerance thereof. This is my way of tracking my intellectual development. This year marks a change not only in degree, but in kind.
I grew up in a Bill Clinton supporting centrist household. In fifth grade we had a timely mock presidential election. I voted for Al Gore and he won. History turned out a little differently. Fast forward to high school where I knew that those in authority were doing something wrong. I had been listening to Immortal Technique and reading through the propaganda of the 4th branch. I was antiwar and pro-civil liberties. At the time I identified as a Democrat, because of the monstrous bigotry and warmongering that I saw in the Republican Party. During the 2007 presidential debates I was exposed to the hushing of antiwar voices. Rep. Dennis Kucinich was the only Democrat that was antiwar, the others merely payed lip service to peace.
My cerebellum received a shock when I listened to the arguments of one Dr. Ronald Paul. It was the first time in my life I found myself agreeing with the political arguments of an elderly white man. It was what I needed to shake stereotypes out of me. Dr. Paul espoused antiwar and pro-civil liberties positions. The other Republicans were atrocious in comparison, but what surprised me was that I liked what Dr. Paul had to say more than any party's proposed candidates. Another confusion arose in me when I realized that my friends and family did not feel the same. They had attachments to the welfare state, the regulatory state, the military industrial complex and the pharmaceutical industrial complex. I was indifferent to welfare and regulations, because their proponents did not ground their arguments in natural rights. The potency of natural rights is what had drawn me to antiwar ideas and the body politick itself.
My college years involved following Dr. Paul's career and flipping through suggested readings from him. I became active in the college libertarian group and joined the university's debate team. The exchange of ideas I participated in drove me farther and farther from the State. The impotency of Statist arguments did not satisfy my desire for a consistent philosophy.
Over the past year I have been dangling on the thin line between minarchy and anarchy. Now I am resolutely a voluntarist/voluntaryist. No governing structure is just unless one can opt in or out voluntarily, without the threat or instantiation of aggression.
But I digress. Here is my ode to the movie.
View "V for Vendetta" through this vent that vividly venerates voluntary association, victimizes villains & Leviathan's ventriloquists and vociferously portrays sublime scenes of vengeance as vivaciously as a venomous volcano erupting on Venetian villages. Here
Sunday, November 4, 2012
the Votes of a Liberal
There are those that say voting is an act of giving consent to the state. Here, here and here. When it comes to picking between the so-called lesser of two evils, I agree. Voting for lesser evil is not acceptable. In this regard I shall refrain from voting for the US Senator, US Representative, State Senator, Member of the State Assembly and DA positions. If I am allowed to write in a candidate I will most likely write Ronald Paul, in the hopes that there are others that will do the same. However, I do have a chance at rocking the vote on ballot initiatives, and the presidential election. There are enough people sick of the two party system to send a message to the Republicrats. Below I will discuss who my messenger is and a brief description on why I am voting for or against each initiative. I shall not be writing a complete tractus here, but regular readers will know why I oppose what I do. If you are a visual/auditory learner please watch and listen to my friend Josh Friedman breakdown his votes.
County Measures of el Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles:
POTUS:
Gary Johnson gets my vote. He is a cost-effective/consequentialist libertarian, while I am a moral/natural rights libertarian. This leads to him siding with the State too often for my tastes, but he is good enough for me to use as a message bearer against the two party system. Obama is marginally less aggressive on foreign policy than Romney, but I cannot vote for either in good conscious.
State Measures
30: Taxation is a euphemism for theft, and theft is wrong. 30 increases theft. Ipso facto, I shall vote no.
31: Gives more leeway for local governments to abuse funds. The status quo surprisingly increases the State less than this measure's approval would. I shall vote no. (Special note: I felt I needed a lawyer to translate the wording of this measure, and I am no stranger to the law or shifty bureaucrats)
32: I abhor public sector unions, but this measure restricts their speech. I have read that this is not an accurate quote from Voltaire, but it rings true nonetheless. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I shall vote no.
33: A yes vote here reduces the State's incursions in the auto insurance industry. I shall vote yes.
34: The State does not have the right to execute humans. I shall vote yes to end the death penalty. Oh yeah schools get $100 million of the savings, for you consequentialists out there.
35: Increases the power of the State to act as a monopoly arbiter. I shall vote no.
36: Reduces 3 strikes to only violent crimes. There are no crimes that are not violent. I shall vote yes. This stands out as my sole disagreement with Josh Friedman, and our end goal remains the same.
37: Gives more power for the State to invade food production. I shall vote no.
38: See 30. I shall vote no.
39: See 30 & 38. I shall vote no.
40: If I were a consequentialist or pragmatist I would vote yes (if you are inclined to enjoy subjunctives read my friends Edgar & Nathan). More commissions on how to decide districts are both daunting and irrelevant to the real question. Does an agency that monopolizes the initiation of force, the State, have dominion over me, my property and you? The answer is no, and thus I shall not vote yes, because a yes vote would approve the district drawn by citizens. A no vote leads to more committees. I shall leave this measure as blank as my consent of the State's dominion.
A: Whether appointed or directly elected the State is, as Bastiat says, "the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else". I shall not vote on this.
B: An incursion on adult film production. I shall vote no.
J: See 30, 38, & 39. I shall vote no.
District:
MM: See 30, 38, 39, & J. I shall vote no.
The underlying theme is Liberalism, the advocacy of liberty. I want to disintegrate the State, but I am content to compromise. I shall support any reduction of the State and anathematize any increase of the State. I purchased a t-shirt from the Ludwig von Mises Institute that sums up Liberalism in two words.
Privatize Everything.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Morals are Consistent
The man who gave me an arena to spew my antiwar/antileviathan propaganda and develop my ethical backbone in my collegiate studies, is Dr. Robert Williams. He is an associate professor of political science at Pepperdine University. His blog's most recent post covers Malala Yousafzai's recovery from a Taliban member's brutal attempt on her life. The Taliban member is morally wrong for initiating violence against Malala. This situation raises a question of consistency. If media outlets are outraged by the Taliban's initiation of the use of force, why not apply this sentiment to other such situations?
The Taliban formerly had control of the State in Afghanistan. Since its ousting the U.S. have listed it as a terrorist organization. Pejoratives aside, morals are that which we should have regardless of where we are from. A normative guide to human action. They apply to individuals as well as groups of individuals. I find the decalogue to be a convincing moral compass for everyday living, but in political philosophy my go to is the non-aggression principle. It illustrates that whether a group of individuals is referred to as a State, government, terrorist cell, gang, mob or choir the same morality is expected of them. This moral obligation is to not encroach upon the self-ownership of other individuals by commencing the use of violence.
Yes! Hear hear, to those who care about other individuals enough to oppose the morally reprehensible actions of the Taliban. I believe they should be commended for their boldness in a time of commonplace immorality. I will embrace them as a sister or brother, for their support against aggression. However, anyone who does not also detest the same actions on the part of the U.S. foreign policy is anathema to morality. An advocate of the U.S.' domestic policy is anathema to morality. Anyone who was against the Bush administration's pre-emptive strike policy in Iraq, but supported Obama's in Libya is anathema to morality. Anyone who says that they support both the 4th amendment and the Orwellianly named Patriot Act is anathema to morality. Anyone claims to support due process and the indefinite detention of humans in Guantanamo Bay (yup it's still open) is anathema to morality. Anyone who proudly waves the moniker of pro-life and supports the death penalty is anathema to morality. Anyone who would cry wolf at the sight of a street mugging, yet remains docile and complacent in the highway robbery that it takes to construct highways is anathema to morality. Anyone who stands up to declare that sexual harassment in the workplace is deplorable, and remains indifferent to the daily sexual assaults of the T.S.A. is anathema to morality. Anyone who wants to censor the speech rights of someone they disagree with, whilst protecting the speech rights of someone they agree with is anathema to morality. Anyone who thinks they champion women's rights and yet seeks compulsory dominion over the services women can provide with their own bodies is anathema to morality. Anyone who boasts that they are on the side of human dignity, whilst revoking Dwarven self-ownership is anathema to morality. Here is the red pill, the rabbit hole entrance and the point of no return. Anyone who promotes an institution established to protect private property that can only be funded by the involuntary expropriation of private property is anathema to morality.
Disintegrate the State. Voluntarism/voluntaryism, noninterventionism, libertarian anarchy or put more poetically Laissez Faire, Holus Bolus.
Post Scriptum: For those seeking a more serious and rigorous examination of the non-aggression principle. The inspiration for my anathemas is Saint Cyril of Alexandria, and his work on what he anathematizes can be found here. A nice take on free speech consistency. An instance of involuntary, and thus immoral, dwarf tossing. Wendy McElroy's interview on Scott Horton's radio that sparked this post.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Protesting Pagans
Today is October thirty-first two thousand and twelve Ano Domini (A.D./year of he whom has dominion over us). The reactionary efforts of secular political correctness police have been successful in wounding the meaning of Easter and Christmas breaks. Our system of dating has also been infected by the same line of reasoning.
Before Christ(B.C.) and Ano Domini have been replaced with Before Common Era(BCE) and Common Era(CE). If they want a different schema, then they should pick a different point in time to base our system of dating on. Instead of that aggressive aggressive approach, which would be the honest route, they seek the covert art of shrouding terms with euphemisms. This helps to serve the passive aggressive agenda of those whom detest the truth and reason. Vagueness is their ally. Sunshine and precise language would expose the falsehood of their way of life. The claim of Christianity is knowledge of the truth, while the BCE crowd is composed of; polylogists, postmodernists, deconstructionists, perspectivalists, positivists and the litany of foes I felled in my Logic and Language post. Gerard Casey, in his new primer Libertarian Anarchy: against the state, illuminates
Ceding to caprices is the essence of hedonism. The idolatrous worship and supplication of earthly pleasures. Today is Halloween, a supposed holiday. It is in fact a day, but there is nothing holy(set apart) about it. Halloween is a remnant of Celtic pagan heritage and ceding to earthly pleasures remains a central tenet thereof. Thankfully I do not know anyone today who still wears demonic clothing in order to repel unwanted spirits that have seeped into our world. That aspect of the pagan celebration is antithetical to self-stultifiers and Christians alike. For the self-stultifiers are just complicated atheists, and atheists oppose paganism too. The piece of paganism that has stayed with us, besides the mixed heritage of jack-o-lanterns, is overindulging, binging and impersonating evil. Candy overdose should not be celebrated, let alone candy overdose on the day of a pagan holiday. While festive dressing up might not be problematic, impersonating evil figures is. Even if you are not doing so to ward off other malevolent beings. I have sinned in this regard for more than two decades. Henceforth, I shall not. Christians heed my words.
Glory be to the father, glory be to the son and glory be to the holy spirit, one God
Oh arbiter of arbiters, purity incarnate, light of light,
forgive me my past transgressions,
rid me of as many imperfections as thy will allow,
through supplication, I humbly attempt to follow thine inerrant guidance,
by loving my sisters and brothers of humanity,
thy word will be kept forever and ever.
In the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit, one God AMAYN.
Post Scriptum: Halloween is especially suspect to Orthodox Christians this year. This year Halloween falls on a Wednesday. In the orthodoxy Wednesday is a fasting day, in remembrance of Judas' betrayal of Kristos. The irony of binge eating on a day of fasting is poignant.
Before Christ(B.C.) and Ano Domini have been replaced with Before Common Era(BCE) and Common Era(CE). If they want a different schema, then they should pick a different point in time to base our system of dating on. Instead of that aggressive aggressive approach, which would be the honest route, they seek the covert art of shrouding terms with euphemisms. This helps to serve the passive aggressive agenda of those whom detest the truth and reason. Vagueness is their ally. Sunshine and precise language would expose the falsehood of their way of life. The claim of Christianity is knowledge of the truth, while the BCE crowd is composed of; polylogists, postmodernists, deconstructionists, perspectivalists, positivists and the litany of foes I felled in my Logic and Language post. Gerard Casey, in his new primer Libertarian Anarchy: against the state, illuminates
there is also a self-referential constraint on theories, namely that theories must not render impossible the conditions of their own statement or the conditions of their being maintained. If they do so, they are theoretically self-stultifying.These self-stultifiers have given us Spring and Winter break. As if the holy days of the Anointed One's(Kristos) birth and of his resurrection are not the underlying cause of vacation during those periods of the year. They desire a world in which we all gather around a warm campfire and sing kumbaya my lords, instead of kumbaya my lord. The lords being themselves. When they discredit the one true God they do not free themselves of masters. Human beings are always subject to a master. Whether that master be the flesh and earthly desires or God and an eternal plan. The detesting of truth empowers the self-stultifiers. It gives them reign, sovereignty, ownership and dominion. By saying no one is right and there should be acceptance of all ideas, people can get away with whatever subjective whims pop into their conscience.
Ceding to caprices is the essence of hedonism. The idolatrous worship and supplication of earthly pleasures. Today is Halloween, a supposed holiday. It is in fact a day, but there is nothing holy(set apart) about it. Halloween is a remnant of Celtic pagan heritage and ceding to earthly pleasures remains a central tenet thereof. Thankfully I do not know anyone today who still wears demonic clothing in order to repel unwanted spirits that have seeped into our world. That aspect of the pagan celebration is antithetical to self-stultifiers and Christians alike. For the self-stultifiers are just complicated atheists, and atheists oppose paganism too. The piece of paganism that has stayed with us, besides the mixed heritage of jack-o-lanterns, is overindulging, binging and impersonating evil. Candy overdose should not be celebrated, let alone candy overdose on the day of a pagan holiday. While festive dressing up might not be problematic, impersonating evil figures is. Even if you are not doing so to ward off other malevolent beings. I have sinned in this regard for more than two decades. Henceforth, I shall not. Christians heed my words.
Glory be to the father, glory be to the son and glory be to the holy spirit, one God
Oh arbiter of arbiters, purity incarnate, light of light,
forgive me my past transgressions,
rid me of as many imperfections as thy will allow,
through supplication, I humbly attempt to follow thine inerrant guidance,
by loving my sisters and brothers of humanity,
thy word will be kept forever and ever.
In the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit, one God AMAYN.
Post Scriptum: Halloween is especially suspect to Orthodox Christians this year. This year Halloween falls on a Wednesday. In the orthodoxy Wednesday is a fasting day, in remembrance of Judas' betrayal of Kristos. The irony of binge eating on a day of fasting is poignant.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Henotheism
Terms are
useful, because they help categorize ideas in our head. Post-modernists detest
labels because they do not appreciate being bound or trapped within these
labels. I have heard these arguments extended to abolish labels. This is going
too far. However, the kritik is well taken. Labels are restrictive at times,
and so I will refrain from lending them as much trust as I put in axioms.
I am an orthodox christian. I believe in the one true God. He is the father, the son and the holy spirit. The son is both fully human and fully divine without confusion, without separation and without alteration. Some sects of what is called "liberal" christianity deny some or part of these propositions. Liberal in this sense denotes a loose interpretation of the bible. Loose being a more lucid term, I will use it more as a referent.
Some loose christians positively affirm their belief in Kristos, but do not deny the existence of other gods. I used to think that this was a passive form of atheism via pluralism. Introduction to new terms has helped me to understand that this not some fresh development in thought. It is as an idea as old as the pentateuch. It is idolatry, it is wagering and it is false doctrine.
I am an orthodox christian. I believe in the one true God. He is the father, the son and the holy spirit. The son is both fully human and fully divine without confusion, without separation and without alteration. Some sects of what is called "liberal" christianity deny some or part of these propositions. Liberal in this sense denotes a loose interpretation of the bible. Loose being a more lucid term, I will use it more as a referent.
Some loose christians positively affirm their belief in Kristos, but do not deny the existence of other gods. I used to think that this was a passive form of atheism via pluralism. Introduction to new terms has helped me to understand that this not some fresh development in thought. It is as an idea as old as the pentateuch. It is idolatry, it is wagering and it is false doctrine.
Monotheists say there is one
God and only one God. Henotheists kneel and pray to one God, but do not rebuke others'
deities. This comes from a polytheistic era where pagans prayed to their local
deities , thinking that different jurisdictions were the dominion of different deities. These humans sought a higher power for guidance, but did not believe that their higher power was alone able to aid them. The concept of one being with jurisdiction over all of creation is a radical idea. It is Christianity. Submit wisely.
Post Scriptum: Special thanks to the orthodox wiki.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)