Hey, Camille said it, not me: “After a lifetime of observation, I must regretfully conclude that men make everything hotter — whether in gay or straight porn.”

Hoppe is repeatedly accused by people who are either uncharitable or who have reading comprehension problems of being a “monarchist.” But as Lew Rockwell notes, Hoppe “contrasted [democracy] with monarchy, not because he favors monarchy but rather to help us understand.” Hoppe argues that the incentives faced by a monarch would tend to make him make better decisions to highlight the even worse problems of a democratic system. It is not a defense of monarchy.

And as Hoppe has explicitly stated, [continue reading…]

Sir Roderick of Long in a recent post asks us to consider the following proposition: “1. Big business and big government are (for the most part) natural allies.” As I noted there, “Do you mean big business as it exists in today’s world, or big business per se? If the former, you have a point (and from my quick read I don’t disagree with any of your other points). But to argue for the latter interpretation would imply that there could be no big business in a free society.”

It seems that the bigger a company is, in today’s world, the more they have to “play ball” to prosper. I’m not sure, though, why this observation is limited to big business, or even business in general. Even individuals drive on public roads, and are incentivized or coerced into using public schools, say. And what about Big Medicine, Big Education, Big Research, and so on? (And let’s not forget Big Labor!)

Come to think of it–most larger charities I’m aware of continually seek state partnerships and funding, and encourage state redistribution schemes. Down with charity!

Update: A reply to “Rad Geek“:

Charles, you conclude, “So, yeah, down with Big Charity. I agree. Where’s the problem?”

But in my post that you quoted, I ended it, “Down with charity!” not down with Big Charity. My point should be obvious. I am mocking the notion that just because you are against Big Business (understood to “mean big business as it exists in today’s world,” business that is in bed with the state), means you are against business itself—or even against “big” business per se. I am mocking it by showing how ridiculous it would be for you to be against charity (or even “big” charity), just because you are opposed to Big Charity. That’s why in my comment on Long, I largely agreed with his 6 points but demurred if and to the extent the opposition to “Big Business” was meant to include “big business” (that is, any private business that happens to be big). I was also objecting to the apparent singling out of Big Business, but I’m glad to see you agree that Big Labor, etc. are equally (?) criticizable. YOu say, “Let’s set aside Stephan’s mentions of individuals driving on government roads, or sending children to government schools. Sure they do; but this doesn’t strike me as even remotely compelling, if you pause for even a second to consider matters of degree, and it’s hard to see what purpose mentioning it really serves except as a way to just sort of scatter critique as broadly as possible. Last year, the Department of the Treasury sent me a $600 check, allegedly for the purpose of economic stimulus — just like how they also cut AIG a $170,000,000,000 check last year, also allegedly for the purpose of economic stimulus. But, well, so what? I’d say it’s still pretty accurate to see AIG as having a much closer relationship with bail-out statism than I do.”

Remotely compelling for what? Your criticism is inapt. I am not comparing the sins of individuals to the sins of Big Business (which would be disproportionate, sure). Rather, I am trying to illustrate a couple things. First, that it is indiscriminate to attack anyone for merely benefitting from or even cooperating with the state; I think you and I would agree that the ones who actively lobby it and influence it like the Defense Industry etc. are far more blameworthy than a social security recipient or road-user. But this is my point. If we recognize distinctions then this means not all business—even “big” business—should be castigated the same way Big Business is. And to the contrary, Big Labor, Big Education, etc. shoudl be attacked as Big Business is—and despite your laundry list of links showing your ilk has sometimes criticized Big Labor etc., I note that in Roderick’s list he didn’t. Rather he singled out Big Business. So which is it?

My post was one of agreement with Roderick, with the caveat that I thought it was unclear whether he was castigating “Big Business” or any “big” business. If the latter, I disagree—for some of the reasons I gave (namely that if you indict all “big business” then your threshold for sin has to be so low that you indict almost everyone, mom and pop stores, people who drive on roads, etc.). And I notice that neither Roderick in his comments, nor you here, have tried to clarify. Ratheer you seem to dodge the question by saying you against Big Charity—implying you are not against charity (or even big charity)—but without specifying whether likewise you are against Big Business but not against business (or “big” business). Well? What’s your position?

[LRC cross-post]

From Huffington Post: “Tea Party” Leader: Obama Is An “Indonesian Muslim”. Why these stupid rubes care is beyond me. His religion is not the problem. Rather the lack of. I wish he were a real Muslim. Or Christian. If he were a real anything he could not support the killing and taxes and plunder he does.

FYLR!

see Lew Rockwell, King of Libertarianism

Tom, this is also why the state allows–encourages, even–various “reform” talk, like income tax “reform,” because they really don’t care how they loot us. Notice there is never talk of simply lowering the rates. And funny how the DC sellouts sniff at–indeed, belittle and slander–the only real threat to state power–as you say, secession and devolution.

See: re: Lew Rockwell, King of Libertarianism

The wonderful and prolific Gary North (see his excellent speeches and articles on career versus calling, and his great M.I.T. Calls Academia’s Bluff, for example) has a great piece: How Lew Rockwell Copied Leonard E. Read and Took Over the Libertarian Movement. North explains how Rockwell built up the Mises Institute, then, with Jeff Tucker, Mises.org, the most amazing resource for liberty and sound economics in the world. (See also Tucker’s speech Dissident Publishing: Then and Now, which is appended below.)

Rockwell’s dominance of principled, economically-literate libertarianism is obvious. He runs the incredibly popular and influential LewRockwell.com, not to mention being the founder of the Mises Institute. He has been anti-war on principle, from the beginning, and has never wavered, unlike various DC sellouts and unprincipled, flighty utilitarian types. His speaking appearances yield standing room only crowds, thousands of people cheering, and ovations. His books sell well, as do those of the Mises Institute (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of books downloaded for free from Mises.org) and affiliates like Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano. [continue reading…]

I’m humbled and honored that the Ludwig von Mises Institute has invited me to join its Senior Faculty. This is almost better than making partner at a law firm. Except for the money part.

As Gary North noted in M.I.T. Calls Academia’s Bluff,

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has begun the most revolutionary experiment in the history of education, stretching all the way back to the pharaohs. It now gives away its curriculum to anyone smart enough to learn it. It has posted its curriculum on-line for free. These days, this means a staggering 1900 courses. This number will grow.

It’s now available on iTunes U. This is so amazingly incredible.
[LRC cross-post]

Very nice list by Techdirt’s Mike Masnick:

Techdirt Book Reading List 2009

from the food-for-thought dept

A couple years ago, after completing my series of posts on the economics of ideas and infinite goods, I wrote up a reading list of books that were useful in thinking about all of this. With our recent launch of a book version of that series, called Approaching Infinity, I updated that list with a bunch of more recent books (basically, the books sitting on my desk again…), and wanted to share them here. For this post, I’m only writing up short reviews, but plan to revisit some of these books with much more detailed reviews, in the future. Not surprisingly, we’ll kick it off with four of the books that I feel are the most important for anyone to read if they’re interested in these things. Together, they make up the four books that you can get together (all signed by their authors!) in the Techdirt Book Club package. [continue reading…]

Interesting post from The Voluntary Exchange

The Conscience of a Libertarian: Respect Others’ Choices

By voluntaryexchange

I’d like to share an observation I made this week: libertarians spend so much time defending their rights and the rights of others that they rarely engage in discussions about what they find truly valuable.

Consistent libertarians (i.e. anarcho-capitalists) are particularly adept at identifying weaknesses in policy proposals which rely on the threat or application of force. All that needs to be done is reduce any ostensibly complex problem to one of property rights, show that coercion necessarily infringes upon somebody’s right to their bodies or property and what generally remains is either enslavement, expropriation of property, or both. (Of course, inexplicably, most people are rarely convinced by a logically consistent counter-argument, but I’ll leave that discussion for another day!) [continue reading…]

Incisive comment made by one Charles Anderson on a Facebook page: “The U.S. troops in Iraq & Afghanistan must be home now. How else to explain the silence of Miss Garafalo, Mr. Springsteen, and Mr. Penn?”

Update: Jonathan Shusta writes:

Also in the same vein as Garafalo et al. is the lesser known internet comic “get your war on” by David Rees. It began on october 9, 2001; guess what day it went silent? January 20, 2009.

Spencer Hahn writes:

Although I am not shocked by the silence of the celebrities and politicians who vociferously opposed the war when it was headed by Bush, I am pleased to see that the World Can’t Wait — which has protested against the Afghan and Iraq wars since the beginning — continues to oppose what are now Obama’s wars.

Please give them the publicity that they deserve, and be on the lookout for them on October 5th, when they will hold a “Protest at the White House against Obama’s Wars.”

P.S. I’m proud to say that I had the honor of successfully defending (pro bono) one of the WCW’s protesters in Portland, Oregon, after a trumped up series of arrests a few years ago at the October 5th protest.  The nearly dozen co-defendants all won their cases after nearly 18 months of waiting for their day in court.

[LRC cross-post]