by Stephan Kinsella
on June 29, 2009
Here:
June 29, 2009 at 05:05
Neverfox, Gary: I am not for closed borders. I am not for the INS. I am for its abolition. My article was “an argument for”–I was trying to present the best argument I could think of for some mild limitation on immigration by the state controlling roads for the benefit of its real owners (to simplify: current US residents and taxpayers). Gary, the “authority” (arguendo) would come from the owners (the US taxpayers) who have a natural ownership claim to the road. But in the end, I am not in favor of the power of the state being used to limit immigration.
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 28, 2009
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 28, 2009
Many libertarians tend to be fans of science fiction. But given that left-libertarians are averse to modern capitalism, industrialism, mass production, the division of labor, and so forth, instead preferring self-sufficient “co-ops” to avoid the “problem” of labor, general purpose machinery, “localism,” and so on, one wonders how an advanced technical society would be possible in left-libertopia. Imagine reaching a level of technological and industrial sophistication needed to build a starship in a society that favors localism and shuns mass production, industrialism, 
and the division of labor. 
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 27, 2009
In one of L. Neil Smith’s libertarian-ish sci-fi novels, I recall in he made a comment that to understand human action, it’s not either nature (genes), or nurture (environment), but rather it’s more like one-third nature, one-third nurture, and one-third free will (choice, volition). I loved it and have long remembered it, but now I can’t find it. If anyone knows where I can find this, please leave a comment below or email me.
***
Found it. From The Probability Broach:
“Philosophers have debated the causes of human behavior: heredity or environment? Are heroes and villains made or born? Confederate school children know that nature and nurture are only part of the answer, two-thirds, to be exact. The remaining third, taken as axiomatic here, is individual free will. They don’t dismiss it as an illusion, or a whimsical choice between trivial alternatives.”
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 26, 2009
Great post by Sheldon Richman:
The crux of the economic difference between market anarchists and market minarchists is that the minarchists —
a priori — find a market failure in the provision of law and security. Market anarchists do not. Considering that the minarchists embrace market theory in every other area, it seems they have the burden of showing why their own principles don’t apply in those excepted areas. (It is significant that the first market anarchist we know of was an economist,
Gustave de Molinari.)
Market anarchists have the theory, the history, and the moral philosophy. What’s left?
***
See also Manuel Lora’s comments on another post here: “I think it’s awesome that minarchsits are being challenged. They hate to be called statists. They either think that the state is not an aggressor or that it’s necessary to have (lest we have chaos!) or something equally flaky. They are principled (more or less) but not at the core.”
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 26, 2009
My list is here.
Mentioned on:
From Althouse:
Annoying and pretentious terms
Collected by N. Stephan Kinsella (via Metafilter). The list is excellent — reminds me of one of my all-time favorite books: Flaubert’s “Dictionary of Accepted Ideas.” The list is also pretty long, so let me select a few that especially annoy me …
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 25, 2009
You would think libertarians would be unambiguously for freedom of speech. In Intellectual Property vs. Creative Freedom, Cathy Young discusses a literal book banning by a federal judge: he has temporarily enjoined “publication of a novel called 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,” based on copyright claims by “J. D. Salinger, author of the 1951 classic Catcher in the Rye.” The judge is expected to decide soon whether to make the ban permanent. Yes, this is all because of copyright.
Copyright now lasts well over 100 years, due to continual copyright extension over the years–as Young notes, “When copyright legislation was first passed in the United States in 1790, the term of copyright lasted for 14 years, with the option of renewal for another 14.”
Does Ms. Young want to abolish copyright, this obvious threat to freedom of press? Or at least return to the 14 + 14 year system? Why, no. She has figured out the optimal way to handle this: “Personally, I would support a term of 50 years, with a portion of revenues from any derivative work published thereafter going to the original author.” Fifty years. Where she gets this number is anybody’s guess.
This is libertarianism?
[Cross-posted at LRC and AgainstMonopoly.com]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 25, 2009
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 24, 2009
Cato’s David Boaz, last August, in comparing South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (now embroiled in sex scandal) to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, noted that while Palin had more buzz, Sanford had far more Serious Experience. “Like Palin, Sanford is a social and economic conservative. … He has four children and a modern political wife who worked on Wall Street for six years and has managed his campaigns.”
Palin’s only advantage over Sanford for the McCain campaign?–“she’s a woman.”
Boaz concludes:
Mark Sanford would have been an experienced executive who has already dealt with national and international issues and a great next leader of the Republican party. Sarah Palin? We’ll see.
Boaz is probably right that Sanford would have been the better choice–it would be great for him to be VP right now.
[Hat tip Skip Oliva]
[cross-posted at LRC]
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 24, 2009
In Comments on Scott McPherson’s “Stephan Kinsella Needs to Take A Nap”, I noted that “The libertarian supporters of the state sure seem to get annoyed when you point this out.”
And now Scott McPherson petulantly demands, in Is Albert Jay Nock a Statist Too?
Anarchists claim that anyone who advocates “aggression” is a statist. I have written a number of commentaries over the last decade, so perhaps I’ve overlooked something, but could someone please refer me to where in any of them I have advocated aggression?
You’re the one saying you oppose anarchy, which means you support the state. If you do, you support the aggression the state necessarily employs. The state taxes and monopolizes the institutions of justice–it uses force (violence, aggression) against innocent people (taxpayers; customers; competitors). Please explain why this is not aggression. Don’t say “but how would anarchy work?” That does not mean what you advocate is not aggression–it just means that you favor aggression for some reason (as all advocates of criminality do). (See What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist.)
If you are not for the power of a state to outlaw competition, compel membership, or tax, then fine, but you are an anarcho-libertarian like us, in this case. Which is it?
“I’m with Nock, that noted anarchist, when I say that I want a government, and that a government limited to the protection of my rights is possible. That may make me naïve, or foolish – but it doesn’t make me a statist.”
Yes, it does–if you advocate a state. If you merely are mistaken and are really advocating a stateless government that does not commit aggression, then you are not a statist, and are instead an anarchist. You’ll have to tell me which you are.
Update: see also The State is not the government; we don’t own property; scarcity doesn’t mean rare; coercion is not aggression.
{ }
by Stephan Kinsella
on June 24, 2009
Heh. An oldie from a goodie on LRC in 2004, which spawned this Not-reason attack, Kinsella Wants to License Breeding and a thread on anti-state.com.
License to Breed
Posted by Stephan Kinsella on September 29, 2004 01:09 PM
Court: Deadbeat Dad Can Have More Kids — The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned a judge’s order that a man avoid having more children while on probation for failing to pay child support.
The court ruled 5-2 in favor of Sean Talty, saying his sentence was too broad because it did not include a method for lifting the ban if Talty caught up with his child-support payments.
Talty, 32, has seven children by five women. He was required to make “reasonable” efforts to avoid conception during his five-year probation after being convicted of not supporting three of the children.
Well it may not be the predominant libertarian view, but if I had to side here, I’d go with the lower court. This guy should be banned from having children. I’m sure this’ll give the chattering punks at Not Reason and libertines something else to chatter about.
I am tempted to favor banning anyone without a job from having kids, but I guess that’s over the line.
[continue reading…]
{ }
[continue reading…]
Recent Comments