Attention Kim DuToit: The Free Market Is Not Your Enemy

Kim DuToit expresses a mild dissent against my amusement regarding his faith in government:

I suppose it matters not to these frigging anarchists that government is sometimes capable of doing some things reasonably well (not always to our satisfaction, but when your binding purchasing criterion is always to go with the low bidder… well).

Government sometimes does some things reasonably well, y’know, for an organization that always goes with the lowest bidder. Now that’s a ringing endorsement.

But DuToit’s just getting warmed up, he’s not going to let the immigration issue get forgotten:

As for preventing the influx of illegal aliens across our southern border: well, I guess we could leave it up to Blackwater or someone to set up patrols—as long as their salaries and expenses could be paid by… whom, exactly? The border ranchers? Displaced native-born agricultural workers and housemaids?

DuToit carries this theme into comments at NT:

I await with interest to see how well the private sector manages to prevent Mexicans from flooding into the country.

The answer is of course that not only won’t the “private sector” prevent Mexicans from darkening DuToit’s neighborhood but that it’s the private sector (or “free market”) that’s drawing them here in the first place.

And this is a good thing.

A free exchange of values is what drives all of human progress. This is what first allowed people to spare enough time from tending to the business of staying alive to advance their own well-being. Everyone involved becomes richer as a result of a free exchange of values. For example, when Farmer Jim pays Jose Illegal to pick veggies, they both gain: Jose gains money from the work and Jim gains money by paying Jose less than it would have cost Jim to pick the crop. Jim can sell his crop to Safeway, and again they both benefit. And when Kim DuToit shows up and buys those vegetables in Safeway, he benefits too. Free exchange creates wealth: the more, the merrier.

But coercion works differently. DuToit’s IRS, for example. You know, the instrument with which he would pay for his border-closing scheme. They aren’t exchanging values, instead they’re presenting us all with the highwayman’s challenge: “Your money or your life”.

Every thin dime that this government confiscates is money that will be spent in a manner that doesn’t benefit all parties involved. In principle, as DuToit affirms above, it might be spent well (sort of) on things that (maybe) might be worth doing, kind of. In practice, most of it gets simply wasted. It’s potential wealth that gets lost, just as surely as if you take out a loan and burn the money rather than investing it.

And this is why I answer DuToit’s rhetorical question like so:

Mr. DuToit, closing the border oughtn’t be paid for at all. The free market isn’t my enemy, and it shouldn’t be your enemy either.

91 thoughts on “Attention Kim DuToit: The Free Market Is Not Your Enemy”

  1. You speak as if the case is closed, and that anarcho-capitalism (or whatever) is a done deal. But can you really prove that? With mathematical rigor? No. And inductively, the stark abscence of purely libertarian societies — despite the incredible advantages we’d expect such a society to have over its opposition — makes proving your case difficult.

    In fact, consider what happened to medieval iceland…

    You criticize Kim’s faith in the ability of the government to close the borders. Yet you do this from the perspective that the government cannot close the borders — another position of faith. Not compelling, especially given your self-attributed capacity for indefatigably logical argumentation.

  2. But can you really prove that? With mathematical rigor?

    Can you prove anything that is not mathematical in nature with mathematical rigor? No. So this argument is out the window. Of course, some people claim that they can prove many non-mathematical theories with mathematical rigor (e.g. Rand and Hoppe), but if you want to put yourself in the same group with these egomaniacal morons, go rigt ahead.

  3. BRILLIANT!

    I say this: “But can you really prove that? With mathematical rigor? No.”

    To which you respond: “Can you prove anything that is not mathematical in nature with mathematical rigor? No.”

    HOLY FUCK I AM SO ENLIGHTENED NOW I’M TYPING IN CAPS.

    Either you missed the rest of my post, or you don’t have anything useful to contribute. In which case, I smugly opine that all flavors of kool-aid are created equal.

    And Sr. Holmes: Tu hablas ingles?

  4. Actually, I am quite loss also. Could you please clarify, I;m not trying to be smart about it just honestly would like to know:

    What do you mean by “mathematical”?

    math·e·mat·i·cal (măth’É™-măt’Ä­-kÉ™l) also math·e·mat·ic (-Ä­k)
    adj.

    Of or relating to mathematics.

    Precise; exact.
    Absolute; certain.
    Possible according to mathematics but highly improbable: The team has only a mathematical chance to win the championship.

    I assume you mean Definitions two and three, exact and certain and you are not talking about Mathematics, which I think the others are confused. Or maybe I am the one confused. If so, please un-confuse me.

    What happened in medievil Iceland? It sounded like you were going to make a terrific point and you stopped suddenly. I like it when people use historic examples!

    Keep in mind that although the past is a good indicator of future endevors that have failed, sometimes we succeed were we had failed.

  5. Sam… are you fucking with me? You’re just fucking with me, aren’t you. No way you could really not notice the rest of my post. Don’t you know who the fuck I am? Because I don’t appreciate it.

    SAM:

    We can know a thing to be true through either inductive or deductive methods, coupled with some base assumptions — in fact, this very statement is a base assumption. Deductive logic also goes by the name of discrete mathematics, hence my employ of the locution “mathematical.” Come on, I thought all you phylosofir types graduated from talk-like-a-dick school, so play some fucking ball goddammit!

    Deductive logic does apply to certain facets of politics, namely in the branch of economics. So, in those areas where economic analysis holds, contingent on whatever moral code we’ve pulled out of our collective ass, we can determine how best to run a particular societal endeavor. Still, economics relies on the assumptions of rationality and simplicity of objectives, so it’s far from perfect, and there are a lot of areas where we get no clear answers from the subject. We can make a compelling case for free markets to a large extent, but the larger the extent gets, the more tenuous our case gets. To make a long story short.

    So, since deductive logic at the hyper-macroscopic level is out the window, that leaves us with inductive logic. I.E., the scientific method — making a hypothesis, collecting data, testing the hypothesis, etc. We’re all familiar with that. One example of inductive analysis is looking to history, contemporary or otherwise. And one thing we learn from historical anarchies is that they all fell. Medieval iceland bought the farm (and if you want to find out the details, read The Machinery of Freedom by David D. Friedman).

    Now, we can also learn from history that all states also fall, present company excluded ;-) So we don’t necessarily know, inductively, whether the state or the non-state is an inherently more robust institution. Speaking in hypotheticals, if I could get a 99% libertarian society with an absolute guarantee of stability, I’d take that over a pure anarchy with no such guarantee. That’s just me, and there are shitton of people who disagree with this view.

    My ultimate point is that nobody has all the answers in this field, and Lopez and co. are giving Kim a high-falutin philosophical ass fucking, but the great secret is that the only way they can maintain their erections of infallibility is with cockrings and cialis. Maybe the state is incapable of securing the border — then again, maybe it isn’t. And considering that illegals really do collect benefits that the rest of society has to pay for, the idea of just opening the fuck up and seeing what happens might not be so hot.

    Basically, I’m calling these guys on their shit. The pot’s calling the kettle black. They make their dispute with Kim’s position to be one of fact vs. opinion, when all we have is a round fucking table of speculation, with the supericilious scent of sickening sanctimony competing with my enormous boner for alliteration for the title of greatest capacity to induce nausea in present company.

    J.C.:

    Basically, just read the above, but subtract the vitriol and the ad hominem. If it that’s painful, just know that I don’t think Kim or no-treason et al has more to offer than speculation on this matter, and I don’t see that one is necessarily more enlightened than the other.

    I’m what you might call a “de facto long-run anarcho-capitalist,” in that my own arbitrary notions of would and should, coupled with my arbitrary notion of rationality, leads me objectively and generally to anarcho-capitalism in the long-run, though non-anarchic measures might best be employed in the short-run. I think that separates me a fair bit from most other ACs, but what really distinguishes me is I pretty much know to what extent I’m full of shit, and in what areas.

    To that end, I think trying to draw conclusions about the right thing to do with the borders is an endeavor that lacks any measure of certainty, unless your moral code says “we should have open borders.” My own position is closer to NT.com than Kim, though I have some other things that I think need to be done first before we can go free balling (for whatever that datum is worth).

    Happy to engage in dispassionate discussion if there’s anything else on your mind.

  6. Boy, when they tied you to the tracks that stupid train just kept on hitting you and runnin’ you over.

    Your pethetic attempt to goad me into another tirade won’t work, I am not a monkey for your amusement and I am not inclined to insult anyone else as I went over the line yesterday in my anger. But go ahead, keep on pocking the Bear with the stick and see what happens. I will be leaving this Blog (to most of your chagrins) to poke fun of The Mormons (not to me confused with The Morons, which is what I do on a daily basis). I dunno, church people are so boring, they hardly debate with vigor and instead apt to “turn the other cheek”. Well, its either the Mormons or Scientoligist, I’ll flip a coin for it.

    In this topic I actually agree in part to not knowing what Bessman is talking about, although I welcome the chance for him to clear his view point for those of us layman (I assume he’s using a type of anology/argument/definition that may actually be above my knowledge as I had previously thought mathematics had only to do with numbers, but it seems I am wrong? We’ll see!).

  7. I dunno, maybe mathematical rigor would be a nice minimum standard of evidence for deciding policy issues. I think it would work nicely if the burden of proof were always to lie with the side favoring interventionist policies.

  8. You speak as if the case is closed, and that anarcho-capitalism (or whatever) is a done deal. But can you really prove that? With mathematical rigor? No.

    And I can’t prove thought or free will or existence with mathematical rigor either.

    And inductively, the stark absence of purely libertarian societies — despite the incredible advantages we’d expect such a society to have over its opposition — makes proving your case difficult.

    I note that there’s a stark abscense of stable constitutional republics out there, too. The argument you’re trying to make is that modern welfare states are the best thing ever. Not that I’m dismissing that argument as invalid, mind, but it isn’t an argument that most supporters of government are comfortable making.

    In fact, consider what happened to medieval iceland…

    Or what happened to an industrialized democracy in 1930’s Germany, or what happened to a relatively crappy, but improving monarchy in early 1900’s Russia…

    You criticize Kim’s faith in the ability of the government to close the borders. Yet you do this from the perspective that the government cannot close the borders — another position of faith.

    No, it’s a rather straighforward argument from empirical evidence. This government hasn’t yet been able to shut off the flow of goods and services (drugs and illegal aliens among many other things) that’s crossing the US border. Them’s the facts. The question then arises as to why the government hasn’t yet been able to do this, and the answers seem to be both a) relatively complex and b) uncomfortable to supporters of government.

    For example, would you expect that doubling the income tax produce better borders? Why or why not?

    Not compelling, especially given your self-attributed capacity for indefatigably logical argumentation.

    There are arguments both for and against government, in fact I’ve linked above to one of the better arguments in favor of it that I’ve yet read. Nobody is asking you to take anything on faith. But just sowing doubt isn’t really an argument: it isn’t like this is the first time I’ve been asked these things or that I’ve failed to ask myself these things.

    You can judge for yourself how right or wrong I am by this thought experiment: suppose we each wager a hundred dollars on the effectiveness of the government doing various tasks. If the government does a good job at it, you win. If it does a bad job, I win.

    Looking back over the last 30+ years, how well do you think I’d have done?

  9. Peter,

    Your long post was caught in the moderation queue and so we’ve talked a tad past each other. However, this is worth noting:

    And considering that illegals really do collect benefits that the rest of society has to pay for, the idea of just opening the fuck up and seeing what happens might not be so hot.

    Who is it that makes you pay for illegals, again?

  10. To J.C., le bitch:

    Your pethetic attempt to goad me into another tirade won’t work, I am not a monkey for your amusement and I am not inclined to insult anyone else as I went over the line yesterday in my anger.

    Bitch, my pethetic post wasn’t attempting to goad you into shit, and this is the first time I’ve ever read this blog. If you think I’m giving you after-school-special-attenton, you can just fuck the fuck off, you pethetic monkey boy, before I SPANK that pethetic ass. Did you not read the last sentence in my post? I mean, come the fuck on. (Not on *my* face, though, that’s what your g/f is for.)

    BTW, myspace all the way motherfuckers:

    http://www.myspace.com/ninjadroid (me)
    http://www.myspace.com/pl4y3r0n3 (my band)

    To Lopez, la pesado:

    And I can’t prove thought or free will or existence with mathematical rigor either.

    Welcome to Chinese Foooooood! Aaaand theeeen?

    Seriously, whatchoo talkin’ ’bout, Willis?

    I note that there’s a stark abscense of stable constitutional republics out there, too. The argument you’re trying to make is that modern welfare states are the best thing ever.

    BZZT! You are wrong as two guys fuckin’! To quote myself, “we don’t necessarily know, inductively, whether the state or the non-state is an inherently more robust institution.” I definitely did not say what you said that I said. If I said it, then say the thing that I said which implies said saying. Because I think that you’re attempting to put words in my mouth, which I appreciate about as much as scheisse porn. Which is to say, only moderately.

    Or what happened to an industrialized democracy in 1930’s Germany, or what happened to a relatively crappy, but improving monarchy in early 1900’s Russia…

    Da. Hence my thesis that we don’t have any resounding conclusions to offer in this department, apart from the obvious one: nobody really knows the sum total of what the fuck they’re talking about.

    For example, would you expect that doubling the income tax produce better borders? Why or why not?

    That’s kinda asinine, and you’re still operating on the assumption that because a particular government can’t perform a particular task, said task can’t be performed by government in general. France has had it’s buttocks handed to it on a platter in matters military on a basis so frequent as to become comedic. But I don’t think it follows that government in general is incapable of repelling invasion. At most, we can conclude that the matter is not a thoroughly decided one.

    Looking back over the last 30+ years, how well do you think I’d have done?

    Dunno, how many things am I wagering on? This is a really open ended question, and given my personal proclivities, it’s not likely to be all that fruitful. Further, given the lack of anarchist states to act as control variables, I don’t know what the fuck we’re supposed to adduce from such an experiment. I can’t bet you 100 bucks 30 years in the past that Ancapistan is going to get invaded and/or go to shit because Ancapistan don’t fuckin’ exist.

    And yeah, I’m not doing much more than casting around doubt. What’s so fuckin’ wrong with that? It seems to me that, as I essentially said previously, the larger the extent to which we assert the superiority of libertarianism, the more tenuous our case gets. Pointing that out strikes me as being intellectually honest. Sure, I might be a dick for doing that — but I’m an intellectually honest dick.

    Here’s a thought experiment of my own: would you let the climatological alarmists get away with the epistemological standards you set for yourself? Also, if you fuck a fat chick, and there are no witnesses, and the fat chick gets hit by a truck and dies immediately after doing the derty-derty, and you yourself don’t remember shit from last night because you were absolutely trippin’ balls — did it really happen? Now don’t get me wrong, I am interested in the first question, but the second one has really grabbed my interest for some… uh… inexplicable reason.

    BTW, I’m on my 8th white russian now, so I apologize for any inanity contained in this here post. Except for telling J.C. to fuck off. I really meant that. Just fuck off, J.C. Lube up a Pringles can and sodomize yourself. Your mother was a hamster, blah blah blah, you get my mothafockin’ gist…

  11. Bessman,

    First of all, it’s nice to see you decided to use some logic instead of sheer dumbass rhetoric.

    Now, to get serious, you made an interesting point:

    Speaking in hypotheticals, if I could get a 99% libertarian society with an absolute guarantee of stability, I’d take that over a pure anarchy with no such guarantee.

    What I’m looking for is not stability but liberty. You can have stability under the most totalitarian regimes, and in fact you usually do. That is one thing they do well. At the same time, anarchy gives you no assurances, because liberty and freedom necessitate personal responsibility and letting the free markets deal with societal problems. Nothing is guaranteed under anarchy. Although it may sound paradoxical and contradictory, assured stability and assured liberty (assuming such things exist) are practically mutually exclusive.

  12. Actually, I don’t think the stability problem is conclusively proved one way or another. One could plausibly argue that all societies fall into one of two categories: those that have already collapsed, and those that have yet to collapse. Sure, statism is more prevalent than anarchism, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is more stable — just that it has better survival characteristics. From an evolutionary perspective, longevity of any particular organism might not matter that much — if you can live for 100 years but only reproduce once, whereas I can only live for 10 years but can reproduce 10 times, my genes will rapidly outnumber yours.

    I’m now 1.75 liters of vodka in the hole, and you have no idea how hard it is to type right now, so I’m out for the night. (Wait, I have to tell Joshua to lick the shit out of my asshole. Hey Joshua, lick the shit out of my asshole, faggot. Ok, done.) Coincidentally, I’m whitewater rafting over the next few days, so I won’t be able to respond promptly, but please do continue discussion if you feel it’s worth it, and I’ll get back in it as soon as I return to civilization.

  13. Mr. Bessman,
    I wasn’t talking to you, you fucking moron. You neanderthal.

    I am so aggravated after reading your post I have decided that cutting you up with rhetoric would be:

    a.) Too easy

    b.) A waste of time

    Number one: I was not talking to you, but the post immediatly after yours, which turns out to be written by “an observer”. Maybe I am hallucinating, but I thought he wrote:

    ———-

    An observer Says:
    June 15th, 2006 at Jun 15, 06 | 6:44 pm
    Hey, Uncle Sam! My friend Alethea is on MySpace! Don’t diss Alethea! She is nice! (aka Alphabot Dreadlok)

    Go ahead and diss Bessman and J.C., though. They suck.

    ———-

    So I made the mistake of actually defending your position by taking your side and giveing the benifit of the doubt to explain mathematical rigor to me.

    Since you are to stupid to deduce who is talking to you, I have decided you lack the skills to teach a dog not to shit all over the house.

    Having said that I went to wiki and read what mathimatical rigor is, and still am confused to how that implies to “nature” or the “real world”. Unless your talking about some game theary or something that could be implied.

    I don’t know, and I don’t care anymore. For you to imply that I was talking to shows your lack of understanding and frankly, your blatant stupidity. Your craving for attention, but you won’t get it. This is as far as I go in rebuking you.

  14. Forget it Josh, I looked at BREASTMAN’S myspace bio and he’s 21 years old and a CS major (which would explain his emphasis on Math). Now incedently I switched from a CE major and I went to ChemEng, whitch maybe that’s why I never got to “Math Rigor”. Though I heard the term before when explaining certain theroms, never in the political sense.

    Ooh! But for a kid who has yet to experiance the real world he is strong! And interested in Martial Arts. And 5’11 to boot! Well kid, I thought you were crazy that you would insult me and leave your Mypage bio up so I could see were you lived. You never no what crazies are out there!!!

    And why would you put that pathetic “band” of pot smoking godless nin-cum-poops? Do we care what you look like, or that you can play the SKIN FLUTE? Nope. Go back to blowing your trom-bones.

    But hey BREASTMAN, I see why you would be so brazen;

    1.) Your young, dumb, and full of cum…

    2.) Your egotistical as well as ego-testical.

    3.) Your a turbo nerd super-mario-playing sim-date fantasizing D & D wannabe.

    Go flash your credentials to someone who gives a crap, maybe your local dorm slut in college. But not to a 6’1 25 yr old Militry Vet who’s 260.

    And I don’t have to take pictures of my phisique and post them on Myspace. Hey, but I’m only a green belt in Shotokan, so maybe you win in the martial arts area? Please tell me that by “Martial Arts” your not referring to tea bo, ti chi, or tea kwon do (watered down version of karate).

  15. Bessman,

    I just debunked all your blather about “mathematical rigor” with one remark. Also note that my judgement that this government isn’t competent to close the border is based on straightforward observation (not “faith”), and thus remains dead on target. And you know this as well as I do.

    You can’t reign in your compulsion for trolling. It’s a vice, you’d do better with less irrelevancies and more argumentation.

  16. Note to J.C.

    Alethea would cut your spleen out without a second thought.

    “I don’t like guns.” she said to me once “I like knives

    (Bessman would be sucking bloody froth too, of course. Greek girls are dangerous.)

  17. Greek girls are dangerous.

    And hot, too! By the way, Alethea means “truth” in Greek. Is she available, by any chance?

  18. Yeah, I know all about stop loss happened to a friend of mine, as well as myself (kinda – I was held past my enlistment for two court-martials, the secound was dropped).

    Big emphasis on “was dropped”, because the goverment appealed to the air force court of criminal appeals. This panel of hack judges, which serve at the government’s best interest, decided that the Judge was wrong and reversed his decision (The Judge through out the case because;

    1.) They took to long charging me, amoung other things,

    2.) They did not give my attorneys all the evidence until a few days before court.

    Anyway, thankfully there is a civilian court above them which overturns these dumbass hacks on a regular baises, so my case is going to them as we speak and should be decided around september.

    In any event, the case was uverturned even though the Judges said that the findings of fact WERE NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. But they overturned it any way. This is against precedent (us v. cooper, us v. hatfield), which states that they can only over turn a case if the Judges findings of fact were clearly erroneous or his application of the law was incorrect (applying a de novo standard of review).

    Any way, you can read the Hacks poor-ass catering-to-the-prosecutor’s-demands decision here:

    Link

    [Long URls break the blog layout, use tinyurl if you can’t code them. JL]

    ———-

    Anyway, when I was confined and in shackels I ment a MSgt. named Phil who was in the Air Force over 20 years (I want to say 24). Anyway, he was stopped-loss right before he was sapossed to retire. He had marital problems so he started doing drugs. He pissed test positive and was court-martialed past his retirment date all because he was stopped lossed. He still was going to get his retirement, but they took so long to prepare his retirement even after he got out of jail. But hey, the scumbags had enough time to give phil another piss test. He was court-martialed agin, only to lose all his benifits. All because the military “stopped lossed” him.

  19. Gee, I guess you missed my point entirely. I was pointing out Sapienza’s analysis of “stop loss”, an analysis with which I completely agree. To put it more directly and bluntly: screw those animals in the military. They get what they deserve. Copy that, Private Jose?

  20. Private is a rank in the Army. And no, I didn’t miss your point at all, I just ignored it at presented my own story.

    Nope. Sorry, we also have “libertarians” and “sapossed anarchist” in the military. One of my coworkers named Greg M. was one. When I asked him why he joined he gave me some crap about a pink floyd song and that he needed a hand (money). And of course, some cash (GI BILL) to pay for his college debts. (He was a drop out, of course).

    Anyway, he tried his best not to go to Iraq, everything short of running to Canada like most of the anarchist-liberals that join but only want the bennies, not the obligation.

    Anyway, iv’e used the word “anyway” too many times so:

    Your analises that “…animals in the military…they get what they deserve” is nonsensical. You are assuming that everyone that serves is an animal.

    Even though you owe your freedoms and protection from these men who served, and served in wars past.

    Even though if the military were disbanded right now, we would be overranned and taken over in an instant.

    These people signed a contract, a special one, and they are aware they can be called back and extended at anytime. Stop loss only afects a small percentage of people, and even so only a small percentage (about 10 percent) actually derectly envolved in combat, which has been consistant even with Vietnam (the percentages are very simular).

    Your anti-government anti-military, but the fact is if we didn’t have these things you would’nt be in front of a computer typing on a technology and using the world wide web that was developed BY THE GOVERNMENT ABD BY THE MILITARY. Come to think about, canned goods, microwaves, pace makers, plastics, and hundreds of other technologies that are used today were developed by americans through the government.

    They are not “animals” but people. You people call the very people that would fight to protect your own pethetic lives as “animals” and “criminals” yet you would lable those that want you dead and would cut you and your families neck as “freedom fighters”, “liberators”. and “oppressed”.

    If we tolerated the same useful moron thinking, we would of loss the civil war as well as world war II. Keep it up, this government will fall, and we will all be in consertration camps. You fight for a better future, but your actions will give rise to a more authoritarian government. You all will become what you hate, like I have.

  21. Even though you owe your freedoms and protection from these men who served, and served in wars past.

    Right. After all, where would my freedom and rights be without 500,000 dead civilians in Vietnam, or 40,000 dead civilians in Iraq, or who-knows how many in Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, and countless other wars against the Bad Guys of the day.

  22. No, in an earlier post I specifically said that I am not an apoligist for the Irag or Vietnam “war” (vietnam was never catagorized as a war, but a conflict but hey, why split hairs?).

    The first part of the war we had very few causulties civilians and us (I think we had like six-eight till we captured Bagdad). Recent evidence shows a link between Saddam and the taliban. We went to war for the right reasons, even though no WMD;s were found, it is clear that saddam was tring to get his hands on some as soon asw he was able to bamboozle the UN inspectors (see his knewly discovered memos and adio recordeings for more info).

    Now Afganistan, Korea and Japan were necessary. The atomic bomb saved countless number of US soldiers and even Japenese soldiers (who were prepared to fight to the death). Now look at Japan today, so much stronger after reconstruction.

    Now here is the truth; either we fight a brutal war were we toltally demolish the enemy, or we leave before the whole thing turns into another vietnam (which it is starting to already). We know evn though we may not have been right to go to war in vietnam, we would have won if we decemated them instaed of fighting a politically correct war.

    Hey, riddle me this, why do liberals always forget to include the Kosovo War which was specifically orchestrated by Clinton to get the press off of Lewinsky. Ever see wag the dog? Oh, so bombs are good if they are blue with a letter D, not red with an R. How many inocent Serbs did Clinton Murder?

    In any event, war is neccessary onto its self and is human nature, as well as Forming a language, goverment, and currency/tax system. Which we see in ALMOST virtually every culture.

    But that is not the point. The point is if Terrorist kidnapped your family, slit their neck while chanting to there god, would you feel like “we got what we deserve because we are american”. Because that is exactly what they say about us when they attack.

    It is wrong for you to dehumanize US soldiers as “animals” as it is wrong for soldiers to dehumanize civilian casulties as “collateral damage”.

    THAT IS WHY I WARNED YOU THAT YOU PEOPLE COULD BECOME THE VERY THING YOU HATE.

    Like animal rights activist who value Animals life like that of humans, but would bomb a ship/building to make their point.

    Simular to an anti-abortionist bombing a clinic and killing innocent people who kill innocent babies.

    You should be asking yourself not were your freedoms would have been if vietnam, afganistan, korea if the US hadn’t went to war. But were would you be if we did not stop Germany twice, the Japs, the Brits.

    Still paying taxes to a King George? Maybe you’d be in a concertration camp or a Bar of Soap?

    Think about it.

    You say “countless other wars against the bad guys”.

    A disingenuos use of Hyperboyle. Of course the number of wars the US has been in can almost be counted on two hands. The “right” wars still outnumber the “wrong ones”.

    The men who died had feelings and emotions like us. They had girlfriends and families like us. People they will never see. Yeah, you know maybe the dirty terrorist as well as the not-so clean Iraqi have Mothers too. But I feel more regret when an American Dies Protecting Us. Is it wrong?

    Didn’t the Japenese slam there planes and Bomb our ports? What about the terrorist from Iraq/Afganistan, didn’t they hurt the US first? I dunno!

  23. Didn’t the Japenese slam there planes and Bomb our ports?

    You mean the ports on Hawai’i, filled with a Polynesian people who were suppressed under British and American imperialism, and which the United States had no just claim on? Cry me a river.

    Terrorists from Iraq/Afghanistan is GOP bullshit. The 9/11 terrorists were Egyptian and Arabian.

  24. But, Joshua, he makes a good point:

    Now look at Japan today, so much stronger after reconstruction.

    Don’t you see? These fuckin’ Nippons didn’t even send us a thank you note after we nuked them. Ingrates! They deserved to be nuked just for that! Oh, wait, but nuking them was actually good for them… Well then, the SOBs didn’t deserve to be nuked! Shit, I’m totally confused now…

  25. No, I mean the ports filled with our US sevice men. How many deid in the US Arizona and other ships that were sunk?

    GOP crap? Don’t think so. I did not say that the terrorist were from Irag/Afganistan, stop twisting my words to make a point. The point is THERE IS A CONNECTION WITH IRAQ TO TALIBAN FIGHTERS. SADDAM WAS PLANNING TO GET HIS HANDS ON WMDs AS SOON AS THE INSPECTIONS WERE DONE. IT IS IN HIS ADIO TAPES/MEMOS.

    Most were Suadi’s by the way Josh, but I know your not one to let the facts get in the way.

    ———-

    “Don’t you see? These fuckin’ Nippons didn’t even send us a thank you note after we nuked them. Ingrates! They deserved to be nuked just for that!”

    This is a Post Hoc Fallacy, which makes no sense whatsoever. They were of course Nuked before they were given money for reconstruction, ergo they can’t be…nevermind it is useless to explain.

    Nuking them was good for Japan as far as the alternative which was a prolonged war with many more causulties on both sides had we not dropped the nuke. Do you disagree? Or do I have to show you the research that was done on the estimates of death had we not dropped the nuke?

    Your comments have been analized and have contained the following errors:

    1.) You make a point that the terrorist did not come from Iraq. This is what we call a “Red Herring” were you try do distract the true issue which was true when stated: …even though no WMD’s were found, it is clear that saddam was tring to get his hands on some as soon asw he was able to bamboozle the UN inspectors (see his knewly discovered memos and adio recordeings for more info).

    Because you cannot prove the above false, you state that no terrorist came from Iraq which is off subject and not even a point that I made. I never said there were terrorist from Iraq.

    You do the same by mentioning American Imperialism in Hawaii when that was not the point. The Japs had a meeting with the US days before promising peace to the idiots that believed them, turned around and stabbed us in the back causing many US deaths. I’ll do you a favor and not go into how Hawians wanted to be a US state, I think you suffered enough already.

    2.) No ones saying anything about the Japs being ungrateful or that they should have been nuked. But the fact of the matter, which cannot intelligantly be argued against, is that the Japs are better off now than what they would have been if the US hadn’t interviened. We made them into a developed country capabale to trade with other countries in the world, while still retaining much of their social structure like honor and integrity :)

    3.) Do not presume to lecture me on morals. You who would spit in the face of our soldiers. You who would welcome our enemies with tea and crumpetts. You who teach tolerance to Islam (an intolerant religion) yet are intolerant to Christians.

    4.) Ann Coulter is right, you people’s belief is a religion on its on, based on faith, not fact.

    You see the episode on South Park when the non-conformist dressed differently, but they themselves had unwittingly became conformist in their own right, forming their own rules and value systems? Who does that remind you of? Do you know that these guys (stone-parker) are libertarians also? Think about it man!

  26. “Don’t you see? These fuckin’ Nippons didn’t even send us a thank you note after we nuked them. Ingrates! They deserved to be nuked just for that!”

    This is a Post Hoc Fallacy, which makes no sense whatsoever. They were of course Nuked before they were given money for reconstruction, ergo they can’t be…nevermind it is useless to explain.

    It’s called sarcasm, you fuckin’, god-damned idiot! You’re the paragon of a military-man: dumb, ignorant, chauvinist (check the dictionary for the real definition of this word, it’s not what you think), follows and repeats blindly creatures like Savage, Coulter, and others, and unable to think for himslef. I’m done talking to you. It’s too humiliating for me to reply to you. Semper Fi, moron!

  27. he point is THERE IS A CONNECTION WITH IRAQ TO TALIBAN FIGHTERS. SADDAM WAS PLANNING TO GET HIS HANDS ON WMDs AS SOON AS THE INSPECTIONS WERE DONE. IT IS IN HIS ADIO TAPES/MEMOS.

    Iraq’s supposed relationship to the Taliban is different than Iraq’s supposed goal of WMDs. No doubt Hussein wanted WMDs, since that is the only thing the US fears, but wanting and having are two different things. As for a Hussein/Taliban relationship, let’s see some evidence.

    Most were Suadi’s by the way Josh, but I know your not one to let the facts get in the way.

    No they weren’t. A Saudi is a person who is of the House of Saud, the royal family of Arabia. An Arabian is a ordinary person from Arabia. Calling them “Saudis” would be like calling Scotsmen “Windsorians”. The hijackers were from Arabia but not of the royal house. Hence, they are “Arabian”.

  28. Are you serious J.C.? This is like coming home from a night on the town to find a message on your machine from some ex who you barely remember at the moment — calling you a loser in great detail.

    Lopez, la pesado:

    I just debunked all your blather about “mathematical rigor” with one remark.

    Wrong. You debunked the myth of your ability to read for comprehension. Read my initial post again — slowly. See if you can figure out what point I was making about deductive logic. I will paypal you $0.69 if you can. You could use that money for a down payment on a tasty treat.

    Also note that my judgement that this government isn’t competent to close the border is based on straightforward observation (not “faith”), and thus remains dead on target.

    Wrong. The border currently is not closed. This does not imply that the border can not be closed.

  29. It’s called sarcasm, you fuckin’, god-damned idiot!

    Well what was your point then? You go from sarcastically saying they should have been nuked, to sarcastically saying they should not have been nuked. Which is it, and why? You’re not illustrating J.C.’s idiocy so much as your own difficulties with English.

    Semper Fi, moron!

    J.C. wasn’t a Marine, moron. And trying to make a veteran feel bad about his service is like trying to shame a guy for having a 10″ penis — he’ll be too busy fucking your girlfriend to care.

  30. Point taken Josh, and I am glad you got my point. I of course meant Saudi’s as from being born Saudi Arabia, and not the royalty. Well, we call ’em Suadi Arabia just Like we call Duetchland Germany and Nippon Japan. It just the nature of the beast.

    Well Sammy, I read Coulter and Al franklin (I have all his books, except the new one, lies and the lying liars that tell them is my fav). So I read books from both left and right. I used to be a “democrat” but realized I am more conservative in social isues and Democratic in government.

    What…that would make me the opposite of a libertarian, wouldn’t it? Oh yes, fraid so, an Authoritarian that favors totalitarian government.

    But what Sammy, let me put that aside and get to you and you once again idiotic post. Its called sarcasm? Well you suck at it, I couldn’t tell if you were being serious or what because you people are so far left you can’t tell. Like Al Gore and his religion of gloabl warming, I thought he was joking at first. But then I found out he was serious. So I thought, is this man using propaganda or demogogry, does he actually believe the crap out of his moth, or does he know he defecates from his mouth? Afraid he’s using all you morons. He made a statement that it was okay to over emphasis (we call it exagerate were I am from) the dangers of global warming. The score is useful idoit 10, common joe shmoe 0.

    Hey Sammy, since earlier when you said I spit out whatever “savage” says, I bought his knew book the Political Zoo!!!! Its great!!! This dude has it right on the money!!! Thanks Sammy, I stayed away from him since he was fired from MSNBC from telling a fag prank caller to get AIDs and die, now he is becoming my favariote author and its all thanks to you!!! I knew you Libs were good for something, I was taught by grandpa that you are cannon foder and manure, but hey everyone has their “uses”.

    BREASTMAN,

    I thought I sacared you away last time by pointing out you are too dumb to know when someone is and isn’t talking to you. Guess you came back for seconds, the wonders never cease to amaze me. You should know better than to attack someone who is so much stronger and smarter than you are unlike Slamming Sammy, the switch hitter who plays ball on both sides of the plate if you know what I mean.

    Its not Lopez’s fault he couldn’t deduce what the hell you were talking about, because neither could the rest of us.

    Ergo, the error is on your side because you fail to grasp the attention of the reader and make your point clear despite given ample time to do so.

    Instead of taking a few minutes to let everyone know what you are taliking about, you tell us to go back and read your original post slowly as if we should listen to Dark side of the moon to hear the wizard of oz theme. Well fuck you, were too lazy to look up something you read and my eyes couldn’t take the strain.

    The common answer: “Go back and read what I wrote”

    Translates to us as: “I don’t know what I am talking about, so go back, read it, and try to figure out a complete thesis for me, and if I like it, I’ll tell you, ‘yeah…that’s what I meant!”

  31. Dude, The Breastman was whitewater rafting. I told you that. Look:

    Coincidentally, I’m whitewater rafting over the next few days, so I won’t be able to respond promptly, but please do continue discussion if you feel it’s worth it, and I’ll get back in it as soon as I return to civilization.

    How can you conclude that you scared me away when I clearly told you I was going to be away? That implies that you don’t read well, hence my regular admonishments to re-read my posts.

    I’m not sure at what point ya’ll got lost. Let me try one more time. Posit that the methods available for us to determine truth are deductive and inductive logic. Also posit some base assumptions — e.g., the assumption of rationality, moral codes, etc.

    The question at hand is “is it possible for our government to effectively close the borders?” Let’s assume that we can agree upon some standard for “effectively.” Who here (or in general) can actually reach a conclusion with certainty (again, assume an agreed upon standard for certainty) using deductive methods? I have yet to see that case effectively made.

    On the inductive side of things, it is notable that one of the most prominent approximate anarchies of all time — medieval iceland — fell because foreign powers sent agents into the country to establish political institutions which they would control, to the ultimate doom of anarchic iceland. The commentary this makes on illegal immigration is almost macabre. Of course, it is equally notable that plenty of states have also fallen, so I personally don’t think this approach is conclusive either.

    Further, the economics of labor indicate that the effective escape illegals provide from minimum wage regs et al indicate that open borders would increase general economic efficiency. But due to our system of social welfare, it also follows that the increased number of freeloaders would decrease general economic efficiency. Then again, the increased freeloaders might incense the public enough to stop social welfare in general. On the other hand, the fact that many other countries endure greater taxation and welfare programs than the USA might lead one to expect that the increased freeloaders might spur increased taxation to fund the situation. But then…

    And that’s my point. We’re looking at an incredibly complex situation here, and that NT can call KDT delusional simply because they’re notion of the appropriate measures to handle it differ from his is absurd. My approach might seem pedantic, but this blog is, AFAICT, an orgy of pedantry. Don’t bust another guy’s balls for not playing by your rules if you yourself won’t adhere to them.

  32. Sorry, my fault. No I do read well (but can’t spell) in anycase, you should leave these post with what you are talking about, I do not have a fetish to read everything you write on Myspace or other blogs. My world revolves around me and my quest for vengence.

    Ahh…Great! I see your point! Good good good. Every last drop makes sense to me now, I was wondering were iceland was comming from and I am enclined to agree with your analysis with a few notes, not critizisms.

    I believe that counter point that was about to form was “so what”. I mean you say that you really can’t prove anything by arguing and essentially although the past is a good indication of what the future holds, it is not absolute and anything can happen. Have to say I agree with you there and infact I wrote something along those lines earlier. However, I believe the point you make is “pedantic” which even you concede.

    In a way your right, we can’t do anything about, and we cannot say this or that will happen with certainly. And we agree, although we know it won’t help, we debate the issue anyways, even though are inept opinions do not matter.

    I further concur with your analizes that this can blow up either way, to the left or the right. You should of wrote this excellant post earlier.

    Regards,

    J.C.

  33. Well, that’s not quite what I’m saying — I’m simply pointing out that the pot is calling the kettle black. It’s not that we can’t prove anything, for I don’t believe that is the case. Using my twice promulgated epistemology, I think we can absolutely prove that market allocation is more efficient than collectivist allocation. We can also prove that objects dropped in a vaccuum accelerate at 9.2m/s^2. In fact, there is a great body of stuff we have proved with certainty, and our current mode of communication owes to that fact.

    I’m sure I’ll get accussed of espousing some form of intellectual nihilism, but such is absolutely not my POV. On the contrary, I’m very clear on my intellectual standards — everyone here should be well acquainted with them by now. It’s really a pretty well accepted methodology, probably because it has an empirically verifiable tendency to produce material benefits — but choosing it is still a personal matter. So maybe Lopez is using some other system I’m not aware of, but until those details are elucidated, all I can go on is what he’s said — and it doesn’t fly with my epistemology.

    The crux of Lopez’s argument is that because the government has not yet closed the borders, it can’t close the borders. I can easily turn that around and say that because anarchy has not yet succeeded, it can’t succeed. This is kick-your-nuts-all-up-into-your-prostate obvious. That NT is looking down its nose at KDT in spite of this fact is ridiculous.

    The reason why I’m being a dick at NT and not KDT is that I actually like KDT as a person, whereas I think the folks here are largely a bunch of pompous pricks. I get a real anti-state.com vibe here, and I imagine my popularity will be comparable. But so long as people like this crew keep ruining the word “libertarian” for people like me, I’m going to at least get my kicks watching them writhe into gordian contortions of catholic proportions — perhaps changing a few minds for the better, though you won’t find me betting on it.

  34. I know, I meant to say we can’t really prove anything that has a lot of complex varibles like in politics etc. But you can prove certain things that do not have human free will as a varible. That’s were your whole “mathimatical” rigor comes in.

  35. Bessman –

    Your arguments amount to a lot of hot air and not much substance, and it seems that you are the one tying oneself in Gordian knots.

    As to whether the government can close the borders or not: there are roughly 2 million filthy swine in the US military. Put them all on the border, let then hold hands and form a human wall, and they would probably make for a fairly effective shield against “illegals”. Since this is not going to happen, under all realistic scenarios the government will fail in sealing the border, much like it fails anywhere and everywhere, and just like it has failed so far.

    As for the complexity of the immigration situation: I own a house. I want to have Juan from Mexico come work in my house and live on my land. Neither you nor the government have the right to tell me what to do on my property. If my Mexican employee later collects a welfare check, that’s your government’s fault, not mine. Infringing on my right to employ whomever I want is not the solution.

    You can talk about inductive and deductive reasoning all you want, but that is no substitute for common sense.

  36. But so long as people like this crew keep ruining the word “libertarian” for people like me,…

    Well, it breaks my heart that we pompous pricks are ruining the word libertarian for you. I don’t know about Lopez, Kennedy, and others, but I certainly am not out to win hearts and draw people to libertarianism. As I mentioned before, true libertarianism is a small, exclusive club, as it should be. I don’t think NT would lose much if you choose to take your brilliance elsewhere.

  37. “seems that you are the one tying oneself in Gordian knots.”

    ———-

    I love references to ancient Greece! Heres were you got me:

    ———-

    As to whether the government can close the borders or not: there are roughly 2 million filthy swine in the US military. Put them all on the border, let then hold hands and form a human wall, and they would probably make for a fairly effective shield against “illegals”. Since this is not going to happen, under all realistic scenarios the government will fail in sealing the border, much like it fails anywhere and everywhere, and just like it has failed so far.

    ———-

    Oops. There you go again with your anti-militry anti-government rhetoric calling the men that would die to protect you “swine” like the craven useful idiot that you are. Maybe they are swine if they fight to protect your dumbass. Oh, some men choose glory over greed Sammy, just ask Plato, they rather have medals than metal. But hey, there swine? Why should people shelfishly risk there own necks to die for a bunch of ungrateful morons? We should all be yellow bellied switch hitters like yourself. We all should be cowardly morons like you and your forfathers.

    The problem in why we cannot secure the border has to do with all the democrates and some republicans (they call themselves republicans, but there democrates in disguise).

    Nope, the government hasn’t failed in everything., last time I checked the US is number one, why do you suppose people com here in the first place? For the food?

    I’m afraid since you live in this country you are subject to its laws. So if the government tells you to leave, because their gonna make your house into a parking lot, then you gotta go and take Pedro with you.

    The point is that there are existing laws (that are not being enforced) that do not allow you to keep Pedro. You maybe right about it being your home and you should let anyone you want into private propety….but that is seldom the case, and Pedro will become a leech to all the social programs that we enjoy, hey, he may even want to bring his wife, Maria and his Grandpa Juan Pablo, but hey, you don’t see anything wrong with that. I mean its are laws that allow that…Oh wait, its not the Laws, its craven Morons that harbor, aid and abed that allow Pedro to stay.

    I suppose that you would let Pedro sleep in your propety too. Go ahead, and see what happens, I mean they all come here to work, right? I mean only a few…all right maybe its more than a few…turn out to be criminals.
    ———-

  38. Your arguments amount to a lot of hot air and not much substance, and it seems that you are the one tying oneself in Gordian knots.

    Heh. This from the guy who stipulates that the only way to close the border is with a conga line on steroids.

    Neither you nor the government have the right to tell me what to do on my property.

    Well that’s just, like, y’know, your opinion, man.

    You can talk about inductive and deductive reasoning all you want, but that is no substitute for common sense.

    Analysis trumps intuition. Always. You want common sense? Here’s some common sense: it’s mean to let rich people exploit poor workers with low wages. We should setup minimum wage laws to protect the poor.

    Have fun with common sense. Really. I mean that. I want you to, like, book a trip to the Bahamas with your pal CS. You can sit on the beaches drinking tequila and reminiscing about good times, but then have an uncomfortable segue to that time you cheated on her with Ad Hominem, and when she gets testy, you slap her in an inebriated rage. And then there can be an uncomfortable silence back at the hotel room, and you’ll be watching infomercials at 3am, miles apart in the same bed, and finally you’ll whisper “I’m sorry.” And she’ll break down and cry, and you’ll find yourselves locked in the throes of a passionate embrace, telling each other how much you love each other — and all will be well again.

    Seriously.

    As I mentioned before, true libertarianism is a small, exclusive club, as it should be.

    Have fun inbreeding there, true believer. Myself, I’ve never been the religious type. Call me “independent,” I suppose, though what I’m labeled matters little.

  39. When did I say that the conga line is the only way? The point, which you clearly failed to get, is that it takes extreme measures to seal the border. You could also do it by, say, sending all illegals and their employers to 20 years in jail. That would work. The government will not be able to close the border with mainstream measures.

    Libertarianism is a small club since very few have the courage, reason, and independence to reach the (sometimes hard to digest) conclusions that true libertarianism leads to. You are not an independent. You’re a punk who likes to talk a lot and say little. You’d like to think of yourself as an independent (most people do), but you really have nothing new to contribute to the discussion, other than your smart aleck comments.

  40. There you go again with your anti-militry anti-government rhetoric calling the men that would die to protect you “swine” like the craven useful idiot that you are.

    That’s an unfair misrepresentation of what I said. When I said swine I was referring to the military women as well.

  41. Libertarianism is a small club since very few have the courage, reason, and independence to reach the (sometimes hard to digest) conclusions that true libertarianism leads to. You are not an independent. You’re a punk who likes to talk a lot and say little. You’d like to think of yourself as an independent (most people do), but you really have nothing new to contribute to the discussion, other than your smart aleck comments.

    Coming from a guy who makes it a point to toe his party’s line…

  42. What party? Anarchist Party USA? You seem to as be lost as JC is regarding what this site is about. And if you think that I am a member of any party – political or otherwise – then you clearly have serious comprehension problems.

  43. Bessman,

    Wrong. You debunked the myth of your ability to read for comprehension.

    Let’s review: you said “You speak as if the case is closed, and that anarcho-capitalism (or whatever) is a done deal. But can you really prove that? With mathematical rigor? No.”

    I replied “And I can’t prove thought or free will or existence with mathematical rigor either.”

    I showed just how silly your appeal to “mathematical rigor” was with one observation. Now you’re backpedaling and trying to trash the discussion with nonsense.

    So what’s not to comprehend?

  44. Thanks, I looked up were “no treason” came from and read a little of the paper by spooner. I said a little, becuase I couldn’t stomach reading most his propaganda. His views were out of touch with reality, in any case when I work up the stones, I’ll read the rest and give you an analysis which will be quite some time.

    Swinging Sammy strikes out again. He’s trying to hit a hoerun, but instead he’s chopping the air.

    Libertarian is a party. They mostly vote left although they are supossed to vote right for economic issues, they find themselves more inclined to vote on social issues since many work for someone else and are not attracted to what the republicains have to offer.

    In any case, I seem to remember being called a “conservative” by a pillow biting switch hitter. This although I am an authoritarian, which is typically conservative, so unlike you I did not cry a river when you labled me as a conservative.

    Anarchist tend, not always, to be liberal or communist (see anarchist communism, hell I’ll post it). Of course there are differences in every Ideoligy, I am not a total authoritarian, I have views which many might consider “leftist” as I am sure that you have views that many consider “conservative”. In any event, I actually vote democrat 80 percent of the time locally, while voting almost all republican nationally.

    Anyway, I thought we had this discusion already. Come back latter when you get hair in funny places and start to think about girls, and i’ll tell you about the birds and the bees.

  45. Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favor of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs.
    Anarchist communism is also known as anarcho-communism, communist anarchism, or, sometimes, libertarian communism. However, while all anarchist communists are libertarian communists, some libertarian communists, such as council communists, are not anarchists. What distinguishes anarchist communism from other variants of libertarian communism is the former’s opposition to all forms of political power, hierarchy and domination.

    Anarchist communist currents manifested themselves during the English Revolution and the French Revolution. Gerrard Winstanley, who was part of the radical Diggers movement in England, wrote in his 1649 pamphlet, “The New Law of Righteousness,” that there “shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man,” and “there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself.”[1] During the French Revolution, Sylvain Marechal, in his “Manifesto of the Equals” (1796), demanded “the communal enjoyment of the fruits of the earth” and looked forward to the disappearance of “the revolting distinction of rich and poor, of great and small, of masters and valets, of governors and governed.”[2]
    An early anarchist communist was Joseph Déjacque, the first person to describe himself as “libertarian”.[1] Unlike Proudhon, he argued that “it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature.”[3]
    The collectivist anarchists advocated remuneration for labor but held out the possibility of a post-revolutionary transition to a communist system of distribution according to need. Bakunin’s associate, James Guillaume, put it this way in his essay, Ideas on Social Organization(1876): “When… production comes to outstrip consumption… [e]veryone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste.”
    Anarchist communism was first formulated in the Italian section of the First International, by Carlo Cafiero, Errico Malatesta, Andrea Costa and other ex-Mazzinian Republicans. Out of respect for Mikhail Bakunin, they did not make their differences with collectivist anarchism explicit until after Bakunin’s death. While both groups argued against capitalism , the anarchist communists departed from Proudhon and Bakunin who maintained that individuals have a right to the product of their labor and to be remunerated for their work, while the communists believe individuals should be free to access goods according to their needs without respect to how much labor they exert. Cafeiro explains in Anarchy and Communism (1880) that private property in the product of labor will lead to unequal accumulation of capital, and therefore undesirable class distinctions: “If we preserve the individual appropriation of the products of labour, we would be forced to preserve money, leaving more or less accumulation of wealth according to more or less merit rather than need of individuals.”[4] In 1876, at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International, held in a forest outside Florence due to police activity, they declared the principles of Anarcho-communism, beginning with:
    “The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity. The federal congress at Florence has eloquently demonstrated the opinion of the Italian International on this point…”
    The above report was made in an article by Malatesta and Cafiero in the (Swiss) Jura Federation’s bulletin later that year.
    Peter Kropotkin, often seen as the most important theorist of anarchist communism, outlined his economic ideas in The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops. Kropotkin felt co-operation to be more beneficial than competition, arguing in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution that this was illustrated in nature. He advocated the abolition of private property through the “expropriation of the whole of social wealth” by the people themselves[2], and for the economy to be co-ordinated through a horizontal network of voluntary associations[3]. He maintained that in anarcho-communism “houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation” and money, wages, and trade would be abolished.[4] Individuals and groups would use and control whatever resources they needed as the aim of anarchist-communism was to place “the product reaped or manufactured at the disposal of all, leaving to each the liberty to consume them as he pleases in his own home.” [5] Moreover, he repeatedly stressed (like other communist-anarchists) that individuals would not be forced into communism, arguing that the peasant “who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate,” the family “inhabiting a house which affords them just enough space… considered necessary for that number of people” and the artisan “working with their own tools or handloom” would be free to live as they saw fit. [6]
    [edit]
    Theory

    Anarchist communism stresses egalitarianism and the abolition of social hierarchy and class distinctions that arise from unequal wealth distribution, the abolition of capitalism and money, collectivization of the products of labor, and the introduction of the gift economy to facilitate the sharing of goods.
    In anarchist communism, property no longer exists and each individual and group is only allowed what they need to survive in reasonable comfort and what they can use to give others what they, in turn, need and can use in the same way. What one can use does not mean having so much that all of what one has becomes unusable, but only having enough that any upgrades are unusable. Any material gain beyond that would be considered theft and a reassertion of property, and will be brought to justice, however justice is done. One of the most commonly recommended solutions is simply returning the property to a non-property condition. This is called “expropriation”. If a fight were to erupt between the owner and the expropriator, then the owner would be the aggressor. All the same rules about self defense and defense of property still apply, with the only difference being that the ethical roles of the defender and attacker of property would be the reverse than with a capitalist ethical system.
    The abolition of work in the sense of wage slavery is central to communism. This program of eliminating work points to self control and voluntary cooperation much like volunteering for charity, in terms of its own definition of “voluntary”, as the model of useful nonwork. Communism claims that this will improve working conditions, increase efficiency, and make working enjoyable.
    [edit]
    Philosophical arguments

    One of the justifications for capitalism is the claim that work is necessary because human nature, not capitalism, already makes the individual vain and selfish. Society can only supposedly survive through work. Capitalism defines work as the harnessing of the allegedly inherent individual will to gain. Anarchist communists say that society can be or can only be sustainable without work.
    Communism is criticized by self styled “individualists” as an authoritarian and collectivist philosophy, while capitalism is called “atomizing”, “alienating”, slavering, shallow, corrupting and impoverishing by its own critics. But Anarchist communism is a rejection of work. Work is a process where the owning of a person or what they need is used by the boss to make the worker do what the boss wants. Thus, communism is only considered collectivist and capitalism only considered individualist because of what they do to resources. In terms of people, communism would be individualist and capitalism would be collectivist.
    Anarchist communism emphasizes the collective experience as distinct and important in the pursuit of freedom. All forms of anarchism recognize the experience of collective identity to some extent, but the Anarchist Communists, starting with Peter Kropotkin and extending out through Alexander Berkman, Nestor Makhno, and many others recognized that there was more to experiences which were less individualistic than meets the eye.
    Implicitly, the anarchist communists followed a Kantian scheme of classification: like Kant they divided life into its individualistic parts, which have a parallel with Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and the less obvious parts of life which characterize human relations to each another, which parallels Kant’s Practical Reason. Thus it is argued, no matter how autonomous individuals might be to ourselves when they are alone, once we start interacting with the world and with other people our change in circumstance calls for a different perspective.
    This follows from human biology. The parts of life that Kant singled out in his work on Practical Reason are generally not well understood. There are questions concerning the experience of work and its actual feeling. Also, questions arise concerning what natural thoughts come into play during work. Because of some sort of biological limitation when people deal with these aspects of life they tend to resort to using obscure or abstract metaphors and analogies to explain what they are talking about.
    This is where the difference between anarchist communism and other anarchist schools of thought shows up most clearly: the anarchist communists have taken on these hard-to-explain aspects of life, have desired to understand them, and have integrated strategies for liberation involving these aspects of life into their overall point of view.
    The catch with these aspects of life is that while mental liberation might be amazing, becoming aware of the collective substructure of life and society leads to deeper liberation than is commonly thought possible. Thus in this respect the anarchist communists see themselves as pursuing a fuller definition of liberation than other anarchists.
    [edit]
    Criticisms

    Some of the early individualist anarchists believed that elements of anarchist communism were inconsistent with anarchist principles. In modern times almost all individualist anarchists believe that anarchist communism is a legitimate form of anarchism, though they reject a communist economy in favor of a market economy. Anarcho-communism has not been universally accepted as even being form of anarchism among individualist anarchists. For example, Benjamin Tucker referred to it as “Pseudo-anarchism” (Labor and its Pay) when admonishing Peter Kropotkin for opposing wages. Henry Appleton said: “All Communism, under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of Anarchism, and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure as could be invented.” (Anarchism, True and False (1884)) Victor Yarros says “no logical justification, no rational explanation, and no “scientific” reasoning has been, is, will be, or can be advanced in defence of that unimaginable impossibility, Communistic Anarchism” (A Princely Paradox). Clarence Lee Swartz says, in What is Mutualism: “One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property.” William Kline says that the individualists and communists “could not reconcile their differences, the Communist Anarchists dedicated to a community of property and the Individualist Anarchists deeply committed to private property and individual effort.” (Kline, William The Individualist Anarchists: A Critique of Liberalism)
    Also there is the issue of enforcement of communist ideology and doctrine. If there is no authority governing and able to exert power to enforce these codes the system breaks down. This is because people aren’t hive-mind drones but have individual wants and pursuits and cannot conform to the limitations of a society if those limitations or expectations are too tight. Thus, Anarchist communism and Anarcho-capitalism to an extent are both considered utopian and impossible by some people.
    Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whose philosophy had great influence on early anarchist communists, nonetheless refused to use the term “communism” to describe his own views. At the time he wrote most of his works, the word “communism” was typically used to refer to the views of the utopian socialists, whom Proudhon accused of attempting to supply equality by sovereign decrees rather than believing in equality by nature and education. He also criticized them for allegedly “calling justice everything that seems to them to be love of one’s neighbor, and incessantly confounding matters of reason with those of sentiment.” Unlike anarcho-communists, Proudhon strongly supported private ownership of the products of labor and felt that collective ownership should arise only where it was natural, such as in mutual banks and worker’s associations. In opposition to the communist maxim, Proudhon said “To each according to his works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you, I will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained” (The Philosophy of Misery).
    More recently, advocates of post-left anarchy have made accusations, such as in works such as Bob Black’s Anarchy After Leftism, that leftists are “moralistic” and have an attachment to generic moral standards which is incompatible with anarchism, and establish political forms, such as the platformism and direct democracy, which they argue amount to forms of state.

  46. Following swinging Sammy’s advice, I have now bought Michael Savage’s book and today I listened to his radio program for the fist time in years (I did it through the internet, I don’t know when he is on in Chicago), and let me tell you this man is a genius.

    He had a guy named Congressman Kurt Weldon who is trying to get out the truth: they have found WMD’s in Iraq.

    Wait, if they did find WMD’s why isn’t the Bush cronies jumping on it? Well it appears according to Weldon that they don’t want to look stupid again. They (the burecrates, both Dems and Repubs) have just told the American people that there wasn’t any WMDs, so they don’t want to look dumb by doing a double-flip-flop in an election year.

    So they would rather pretend they made a mistake on WMDs instead of admitting they made a triple whammy, by saying there was WMD, then denying, then saying…Oops we were wrong again.

    Weldon, who is on the House Armed Service Committee, Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, Homeland and Projection subcommitte, and many others, is trying to get out all the evidence on this, able danger, and the supposed “massacre”.

    It seems that the Washing Times (maybe post, I get the two confused) reported that Murtha’s brother is a lobbiest for companies that make $$$ on the war. Which woould explain why Murtha would condem the Marines, to show the Liberals he is anti-war while shoving the money in his Brother’s pockets.

    It will be hard, but we must pray that Weldon is able to bust thruogh a bi-partisain attempt to block the report on WMDs from comming out. The report is entitled : Countinuing evidence on WMDs in Iraq.

    The people deserve to know the truth.

  47. Joshua –

    Are you saying that anarcho-communism actually exists? I know the term exists, but don’t you think it’s an oximoron?

  48. I showed just how silly your appeal to “mathematical rigor” was with one observation. Now you’re backpedaling and trying to trash the discussion with nonsense.

    For the LAST FUCKING TIME, my whole point is that deductive logic without a significant fudge factor is apparently impossible, so we have to fall back on inductive logic.

    Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?!

    since deductive logic at the hyper-macroscopic level is out the window, that leaves us with inductive logic.

    English motherfucker, do you speak it?!

    Who here (or in general) can actually reach a conclusion with certainty (again, assume an agreed upon standard for certainty) using deductive methods? I have yet to see that case effectively made.

    On the inductive side of things, it is notable that one of the most prominent approximate anarchies of all time — medieval iceland — fell because foreign powers sent agents into the country to establish political institutions which they would control, to the ultimate doom of anarchic iceland.

    What the fuck else do you want from me? Huh? HUH!? WHAT!? The whole point of me bringing up the deductive bit was to show that it wasn’t applicable as far as anyone can tell, and that we have to use OTHER methods. To wit, inductive logic. The balance of history. And in your case, dishonestly passing off your biases as enlightenment.

    And just what the precise fuck are you trying to get at with an asinine statement like “I can’t prove free will with mathematical rigor?” Do you want a damn toffee? I can’t prove havarti cheese either. And that makes just as much sense. And it has no bearing on anything, because I can’t prove that (de|in)ductive logic yields truth — I take it as axiomatic. I’ve said this numerous times, but let me quote myself again since I don’t trust your ability to scroll up:

    Posit that the methods available for us to determine truth are deductive and inductive logic. Also posit some base assumptions — e.g., the assumption of rationality, moral codes, etc.

    Now, if you’ve got some other method for determining truth, I’d love to hear about it. But by my standards, you have not come anywhere near proving jack shit, you’re just trying to foist speculation as truth.

    And y’all can effectively call my posts inane all you want, that certainly doesn’t make it so. You still haven’t addressed the fundamental shit that I have brought to light, man, and if you just can’t help but get hung up on me using so many dang curse words… go watch PBS. Your first post to Kim was a supercilious and circumlocucious jab at his putative racism, though since you spoke soley in insinuations you have plausible deniability in spades. So it’s not like you’re any less of a dick, you’re just classier about it.

    Here’s a lesson class: if it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science — it is opinion. And opinions are like assholes. Determining the obvious corollarly is left to the reader as an exercise.

  49. Here’s a lesson class: if it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science — it is opinion.

    No shit? My liver is in my abdomen. Can you prove that with figures? Is there a mathematical proof for that? Since the answer is apparently No, then is it just my opinion?

    Don’t get angry, Bessman – you had made a stupid assertion and we called you on it. Don’t give up on common sense altogether.

  50. Bessman,

    Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?!

    Some of them. I can’t quite get a handle on “Welcome to Chinese Foooooood! Aaaand theeeen?”. What did that mean?

    The whole point of me bringing up the deductive bit was to show that it wasn’t applicable as far as anyone can tell, and that we have to use OTHER methods. To wit, inductive logic. The balance of history. And in your case, dishonestly passing off your biases as enlightenment.

    So you challenged me on my lack of “mathematical rigor” in order to show that it wasn’t applicable in the first place?

    And just what the precise fuck are you trying to get at with an asinine statement like “I can’t prove free will with mathematical rigor?”

    To make it precisely clear how silly you were for mentioning it.

    And it has no bearing on anything, …

    Wrong, it shines a light on your thought process.

    Your first post to Kim was a supercilious and circumlocucious jab at his putative racism…

    I think I’ll have to ask for a citation of what, exactly, you’re talking about.

    What are you talking about, Bessman?

    … though since you spoke soley in insinuations you have plausible deniability in spades.

    I think you’re just ignorant.

    Here’s a lesson class: if it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science — it is opinion.

    Are all opinions equally valuable? Why or why not?

  51. Staples:

    No shit? My liver is in my abdomen. Can you prove that with figures?

    So I guess Heinlein doesn’t get read much in anarchist circles anymore? Either that or you’re so tightly wound that you can’t pick out the blatant reference? I mean… come off it lad… it’s a witty saying. Fill in the blanks.

    Lopez, la pesado:

    Some of them. I can’t quite get a handle on “Welcome to Chinese Foooooood! Aaaand theeeen?”. What did that mean?

    Obviously, you’re not a golfer.

    So you challenged me on my lack of “mathematical rigor” in order to show that it wasn’t applicable in the first place?

    What do we have here? A simulacrum? A tautology? I argued, in my very first post that I know of two ways of obtaining the truth, and that one of them didn’t seem useable in this context, whilst the other didn’t produce a conclusion in favor of your position. Where did I challenge you on your lack of mathematical rigor. Was it here?

    But can you really prove that? With mathematical rigor? No.

    If so, I invite you to go on a magical adventure, to a world where people read all the sentences in a paragraph, and not just the ones they can base an argument on. If you continued on, you’d reach the very next sentence, which reads thusly:

    And inductively, the stark abscence of purely libertarian societies — despite the incredible advantages we’d expect such a society to have over its opposition — makes proving your case difficult.

    You see? There is more than one way to skin a cat — if rigorous deduction doesn’t apply, try some induction! Amazing.

    After you’ve mastered the ability to read an entire paragraph, you could venture forth into the uncharted territory of the rest of the post. Why, take a look at the very next paragraph:

    In fact, consider what happened to medieval iceland…

    Ho ho ho! Being only one sentence in length, that dandy little morsel is fun for the whole family! Even Junior likes it! It also brings to question the stability of completely open-bordered societies. But then, if you addressed that point, you might realize that your position was not invulnerable — which I suppose explains why you keep coming back to discrete math as if I promulgated it as the only way to obtain truth.

    Aw hell, I like you Johnny boy. In fact, get me drunk enough, and I might even say I love you. So I’ll cut you a break — I’ll just go along with your little charade, and assume the role of the straw man you’ve built for me. Now, I’ll say that I was wrong, and that there’s a world outside of deductive logic — it’s called inductive logic. Isn’t that swell of me? Your pride doesn’t have to suffer a scratch. Man I’m great.

    But, you’ve still got to handle the bigger questions. If open borders are the woot, how do you explain the fall of iceland? The demise of the commanches? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Wrong, it shines a light on your thought process.

    No, this statement: And I can’t prove thought or free will or existence with mathematical rigor either. …has no bearing on anything. If want a light shone on my thought process, perhaps you should scroll up and check out my collected works. Choice excerpt:

    Posit that the methods available for us to determine truth are deductive and inductive logic. Also posit some base assumptions — e.g., the assumption of rationality, moral codes, etc.

    Titillating.

    I think I’ll have to ask for a citation of what, exactly, you’re talking about.

    First of all, you titled it “The Great Wetback Prevention And Elk Encouragement Debate.” As far as I can tell (googling thusly: site:theothersideofkim.com wetback), Kim has never used the word wetback. Which is, y’know, a racial epithet.

    Then there’s this little beauty:

    DuToit isn’t a philosopher and so has no inherent stake in making a correct analysis of the situation. His credulous faith in the nonexistent abilities of the Federal government to keep Mexicans out of the US

    So first of all, DuToit doesn’t meet your definition of a philosopher, which is a pretty dick move. Then you accuse him in a round-a-bout way of believing in the Fed the way some people believe in god — which is even more of a dick move, because you never lift a finger to prove that you’re position is any less of a belief. Then we have this:

    The goofiest bumpkin notion is equal to the finest philisophical idea, when they’re committed to ballots.

    The implication being, of course, that DuToit is from bumpkinville, whereas you are sipping a fine cognac with the ghost of Mises in the land of the englightened. Dick. But it gets better:

    All of that seems to speak against logical argumentation in general: why bother if it isn’t going to get anyone anywhere?

    Once again, the insinuation is that Kim just can’t handle dat der logic. Of course, you never actually engage in logical argumentation — your position is still just as much as a belief as his is. But that won’t stop you from acting like your philosophical shit don’t stink.

    And that’s just from your original post. Does daddy need to hold your hand for the second one, also?

    I think you’re just ignorant.

    Heh. Well, it takes one to know one, so neener neener.

    Are all opinions equally valuable? Why or why not?

    That depends? Can you prove havarti cheese? How about this — you prove whether or not all opinions are equally viable, and I’ll continue to ponder how I can make any sort of allusion without the reference wooshing over ya’ll’s swollen noggins.

  52. Bessman,

    So I guess Heinlein doesn’t get read much in anarchist circles anymore? Either that or you’re so tightly wound that you can’t pick out the blatant reference? I mean… come off it lad… it’s a witty saying. Fill in the blanks.

    Once again, you make a stupid claim, I call you on it, and then you backpedal with some excuse – you did not read the whole paragraph, you don’t read Heinlein, it’s just a saying, etc. Let me give you a tip: Think first, write last. And, just for the sake of courtesy, assume that those who read your crap have a modicum of intelligence and can tell BS when they see it.

  53. Bessman,

    Iceland is a pretty crappy example for your side of the debate. It lasted from about 930 AD to 1220 AD (according to David Friedman.) That’s nearly 300 years. How long do states typically last? How long did the US remain anything close to a minarchy?

  54. Actually, it lasted from ~870 to 1262. That’s almost 400 years. Besides, comparing Iceland to the US is ridiculous. Iceland did not have a military to protect it, and by the way, it does not have one today either. The US will not fall to an invading foreign military, open borders or not. Open borders may lead to terrorism, but foreign invasion and conquest are out of the question.

  55. Once again, you make a stupid claim, I call you on it, and then you backpedal with some excuse

    Dude, this isn’t even a point worth arguing. I’m not going to make witty asides any more, because you can’t seem to pick them out. The way you debate would be akin to me seizing on your incorrect attribution of Semper Fi to the airforce and attempting to disprove everything you say thereby. It’s asinine. I admit that that quote didn’t prove anything — witty sayings never do. If it makes you feel better, I’ll pretend that I thought differently until you proved me wrong. Whatever.

    And you guys still can’t read for a damn:

    we don’t necessarily know, inductively, whether the state or the non-state is an inherently more robust institution.

    And you don’t comprehend what actually led to the fall of Iceland. In the beginning, the society had around 4K farms. By the end, they had been consolidated down to 5, which became subject to foreign manipulation, which resulted in violent upheaval, which concluded in the Icelandic peoples voting for the Norwegian king to rule them.

    Yes, it lasted for longer than the US has, but the Roman Republic lasted longer than either institution. Given the inconclusive nature of the data, you can either admit that we don’t really know which institution is more stable, or you can ascribe superiority to a particular system based on whatever arbitrary criteria you promulgate.

    Until you guys do something to the contrary, the only thing you’re case for open borders will have going for it vis-a-vis Kim’s case for border control will be greater ideological purity of the libertarian persuasion. This is like a pissing contest over piety, and has no bearing on discerning truth from fancy.

    I doubt anyone here would argue that there are no more mysteries in science — and yet, when it comes to matters political, you act as if there are no unanswered questions. Well, contingent on your morals, this might be correct. But a utilitarian libertarian like myself (and DDF, BTW) understands that there are plenty of gray areas. And this is one of them.

    Until next time, True Believers.

  56. …or you can ascribe superiority to a particular system based on whatever arbitrary criteria you promulgate.

    Arbitrary criteria? I thought it was obvious that the criteria is individual freedom.

  57. Obviously, you’re not a golfer.

    But what did it mean, Bessman?

    First of all, you titled it “The Great Wetback Prevention And Elk Encouragement Debate.” As far as I can tell (googling thusly: site:theothersideofkim.com wetback), Kim has never used the word wetback.

    I wouldn’t have expected him to, as he’s trying for mass persuasion. I’m not, I’ll title ’em as I like.

    Which is, y’know, a racial epithet.

    Oops. Does that mean that I’ve been booted out of the movement?

    So first of all, DuToit doesn’t meet your definition of a philosopher, which is a pretty dick move.

    If you’d have bothered to click through the link I gave (right there in “philosopher”), you’d have realized what I was talking about and thus wouldn’t be making the absurd implicit claim that DuToit applies epistemic rationality to his political decisions.

    Because there are two choices here: either you don’t know what I’m talking about because you haven’t read the source material or you judge that DuToit’s political behavior is based on a correct understanding of reality. And even you aren’t going to cop to the second option.

    Then you accuse him in a round-a-bout way of believing in the Fed the way some people believe in god — which is even more of a dick move, because you never lift a finger to prove that you’re position is any less of a belief.

    Holy shit, the sum total of my thoughts on moral and political philosophy weren’t chopped up and spoon fed out a bite at a time in a blog post so that Bessman could process them properly! Not that he’d have bothered to read any source material, mind.

    Of course you could judge the relative correctness of the two positions for yourself by applying a little thought (like the hypothetical wager I proposed to you that you dodged with “Dunno, how many things am I wagering on?”), much as you could judge the relative correctness of faith in tetanus shots versus faith in healing prayer by applying same.

    The implication being, of course, that DuToit is from bumpkinville, whereas you are sipping a fine cognac with the ghost of Mises in the land of the englightened.

    I judge that DuToit’s political ideas might as well be from Bumpkinville (“CLOSE THE GODDAMN BORDERS FIRST!”). The “implications” you’re reading into the matter are products of your own fevered imagination.

    Dick.

    Does that mean you aren’t going to nominate me for a Libertarian Communicator(tm) award?

    Once again, the insinuation is that Kim just can’t handle dat der logic.

    No, once again it means that DuToit isn’t applying epistemic rationality to the matter at hand. Unless, once again, you want to make a silly argument that he is.

    That depends? Can you prove havarti cheese?

    Are all opinions equally valuable? Why or why not? Those aren’t hard questions, but you know that answering them means undermining everything you’ve put forth as an argument in this comment thread.

  58. billy-jay:

    Arbitrary criteria? I thought it was obvious that the criteria is individual freedom.

    That’s arbitrary.

    Lopez, la pesado:

    But what did it mean, Bessman?

    It meant you don’t have a monopoly on being a dick, Lopez.

    I wouldn’t have expected him to, as he’s trying for mass persuasion. I’m not, I’ll title ‘em as I like.

    Still a dick move.

    If you’d have bothered to click through the link I gave (right there in “philosopher”), you’d have realized what I was talking about and thus wouldn’t be making the absurd implicit claim that DuToit applies epistemic rationality to his political decisions.

    But you don’t demonstrably rise above his putatively proletarian thought processes. This is hypocrisy, and it’s a dick move.

    Because there are two choices here: either you don’t know what I’m talking about because you haven’t read the source material or you judge that DuToit’s political behavior is based on a correct understanding of reality. And even you aren’t going to cop to the second option.

    I know what you’re talking about, and DuToit’s argument is as grounded in reality as yours is.

    Holy shit, the sum total of my thoughts on moral and political philosophy weren’t chopped up and spoon fed out a bite at a time in a blog post so that Bessman could process them properly! Not that he’d have bothered to read any source material, mind.

    You don’t know what I like and what I like to do, and that is to tell you what to do, and you better listen to what I say ‘cuz I’ll eat your brains.

    Put another way, what quantity of source material Bessman has read on the subject is anybody’s guess, because he has not directly stated his position. Apparently, he isn’t interested in proving which position is correct, merely in revealing the degree of bogosity in the air.

    Of course you could judge the relative correctness of the two positions for yourself by applying a little thought (like the hypothetical wager I proposed to you that you dodged with “Dunno, how many things am I wagering on?”), much as you could judge the relative correctness of faith in tetanus shots versus faith in healing prayer by applying same.

    Your wager does not prove your position. That tetanus shots work and faith doesn’t can be proven inductively. That border control is a non-issue cannot be. You still have not addressed this.

    I judge that DuToit’s political ideas might as well be from Bumpkinville (”CLOSE THE GODDAMN BORDERS FIRST!”). The “implications” you’re reading into the matter are products of your own fevered imagination.

    And your political ideas are no better, since you can’t support them any better than he can.

    Does that mean you aren’t going to nominate me for a Libertarian Communicator(tm) award?

    I’m going to nominate you to drive the Oscar Mayer Weinermobile.

    No, once again it means that DuToit isn’t applying epistemic rationality to the matter at hand. Unless, once again, you want to make a silly argument that he is.

    My argument isn’t that he is, but that you aren’t. Your case remains unproven.

    Are all opinions equally valuable? Why or why not? Those aren’t hard questions, but you know that answering them means undermining everything you’ve put forth as an argument in this comment thread.

    Why don’t you tell me why not all opinions are equally valuable, and then — since you seem to be implying that your position is no more than an opinion — demonstrate why your opinion on this subject ought to be favored over Kim’s. If those are easy questions, and answering them means undermining everything I’ve put forth in this comment thread, I challenge you to invest the little skullsweat that’s required and then reap the reward of watching me get my shit pushed in.

    Heh.

  59. “Iceland did not have a military to protect it, and by the way, it does not have one today either. The US will not fall to an invading foreign military, open borders or not. Open borders may lead to terrorism, but foreign invasion and conquest are out of the question.”

    1.) I thought I read this argument in an ancient book when the senators declared that no army had ever marched into the Roman Empire and how it would never collapse to foriegn invasion.

    2.) We are being invaded by Mexico. Not military, but through “immigration” very simular to how Rome was invaded through the visigoths and barbarians, who were also welcomed under the banner of “immigration” and promised citizenship.

    3.) There is a reason noone has invaded Iceland:

    a.) The land sucks, hence the name Iceland

    b.) It is small and insignificant and is surrounded by nations with real militaries to protect it if the need should arise.

    4.) Go ahead useful idiot and spread your rhetoric that the US will not be invaded if we just folded our arms, thats exactly what the commies want you to do. Look at the wars today, in South America, in Africa, in the Middle East, can you tell me that the US is not in danger WHEN IT IS BEING INVADED THIS VERY MOMENT WITH MUSLIMS AND MEXICANS!

    Oops, guess its to far from your “tolerant” mind to understand, maybe this will help:

    ———-

    Gadhafi: Islam taking over Europe

    WorldNetDaily.com ^ | May 3, 2006
    Moammar Gadhafi Islam will take over Europe without violent force within a few decades, said Libyan Leader Moammar Gadhafi in a speech aired on the Arab satellite network Al Jazeera. “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe,” Gadhafi said. “There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” If Turkey is added to the European Union, the Libyan leader said, Europe will have another 50 million Muslims. Albania, a Muslim-majority country, and Bosnia,…

    Qaddafi: Europe and the U.S. Should Agree to Become Islamic or Declare War on the Muslims
    Posted by Dark Skies
    On News/Activism 05/02/2006 12:33:02 PM PDT · 142 replies · 3,070+ views

    Jihadwatch.org ^ | 5/2/2006 | Robert Spencer
    He says many other notable things as well, including the idea that Turkey’s admission into the EU is a step toward the inevitable Islamization of Europe. He also denounces the Jewish and Christian Scriptures as forgeries, in accord with mainstream Islamic thinking, and asserts that they teach hatred, in a nice bit of pot-calling-the-kettle-black activity. He recommends the Medieval Muslim forgery called “The Gospel of Barnabas” as a substitute. “Libyan Leader Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi: Europe and the U.S. Should Agree to Become Islamic or Declare War on the Muslims,” from MEMRI TV, with thanks to WC: Following are excerpts from a…

    ———-

    So why did militant Libya drop its weapons program? Because they decided to resort to the old way of taking over a country THROUGH RELIFION AND NOT MILITRY. I said old way, because the Muslims have done this many times before and it is ordained through there Koran to convert a foriegn countries leaders.

    But keep thinking that nothing will happen if we give “peace a chance” maybe I’ll see you in a concertration camp were you will no doubt blame conservatives even though it was you hate America, give peace a chance morons who can’t or refuse to learn the lessons your ancestors did.

    If a superpower like the one we encountered in WWII should arise, God help this nation, pecause I do not think we could survive.

  60. But you don’t demonstrably rise above his putatively proletarian thought processes. This is hypocrisy, and it’s a dick move.

    Oh noes, I’m a proletarian too?

    I know what you’re talking about, and DuToit’s argument is as grounded in reality as yours is.

    You didn’t know it when I caught you making a nonsense complaint regarding “philosopher”. Because if you had, you wouldn’t have said what you did, since the proof of the matter is as close at hand as the simple fact that DuToit votes and I don’t, and and the reasons behind each of us making those choices.

    Put another way, what quantity of source material Bessman has read on the subject is anybody’s guess, because he has not directly stated his position. Apparently, he isn’t interested in proving which position is correct, merely in revealing the degree of bogosity in the air.

    Is that phrasing supposed to give you plausible deniability?

    Your wager does not prove your position.

    It doesn’t prove it with a mathematical equation. Your continued weaseling on the matter, however, indicates that you don’t want to deal with the implications of that question.

    And your political ideas are no better, since you can’t support them any better than he can.

    I’m quite confident that I can show that my political ideas are less absurd than his, in fact I’m confident that I can show that my political ideas are less absurd than pretty much anyone’s. It isn’t “mathematical rigor”, of course, but proving that I’m not a brain in a vat isn’t either.

    And you know this too, since you’re desperately dodging every question that would lead you to admitting the same.

    Why don’t you tell me why not all opinions are equally valuable…

    I’m interested in your analysis. Are all opinions equally valuable? Why or why not?

  61. Bessman,

    The way you debate would be akin to me seizing on your incorrect attribution of Semper Fi to the airforce and attempting to disprove everything you say thereby.

    That’s a false analogy. My argument was not based in any way on Semper Fi.
    In fact, I did not even make an argument then. I was just telling that vermin
    to get lost. You, however, made these witty remarks (as you call them) a
    central part, if not the only part, of your arguments. Once these are proven
    false, your entire argument falls apart. Your analogy, to paraphrase a great thinker, amounts to a dick argument.

    but the Roman Republic lasted longer than…
    whether the state or the non-state is an inherently more robust institution…
    …we don’t really know which institution is more stable

    Once again you use words like stable and robust. Once again, I
    don’t give a damn about robustness, stability, or whatever. I
    want liberty. North Korea is very stable right now. Would you take it as
    evidence that closed borders bring stability, and therefore we need them too?
    Keep your eyes on the ball, Bessman – freedom, liberty, life, property. Fuck stability.

    Until next time, True Believers.

    What is it with your fixation with referring to us as true believers? All I have
    said so far is fairly original argumentation, based on my analysis of the issue at
    hand. You’re the one repeating the old mantras about closed borders. If I am
    a true believer, who is my god? What’s my holy book? Think about that.

    But a utilitarian libertarian like myself…

    There is no such thing as a utilitarian libertarian. Libertarianism is based on
    simple, inflexible, non-utilitarian principles of justice. Justice, bessman not utility. Not surprisingly, many conservatives like to refer to
    themselves as libertarians. Well, utilitarian libertarians. Put the junkies in
    jail, because I don’t want them around me. Throw the illegals back, so I can
    keep my job, and so on, and so forth.

    For you, apparently, liberty means that you should have the liberty to consume whatever chemicals you want. It does not mean, Ford forbid, that I have the right to employ Mexicans. Kind of like Rush Limbaugh.

    … understands that there are plenty of gray areas. And this is one of them.

    Utilitarians love gray areas. Gray areas allow them to jump back and forth from one position to another based on utility and expediency. Utilitarianism takes right and wrong and mixes them into, well, gray.

    Here’s a piece of Randian reasoning for you: if there is gray, then by
    definition there is also black and white, since gray does not exist in and of itself. Of course, this is a simplification, and does not always hold (typical of Rand). It is useful sometimes, however. It this case, it’s very easy:

    White (just/good): I do whatever I want with and on my property, with other consenting adults.
    Black (bad/unjust): government (or anyone else) comes in and tells me what to do or not to do with or on my property.

    It’s that easy. You can bring your gray in to this all you want, and talk about
    the implications for the rest of society, etc, but that does not change the fact
    that it is wrong to prevent me from doing what I want on my property. Period.

  62. Uncle Sam,

    Yeah, I don’t think anarcho-communism is a contradiction in terms, but only if the communism is actual “communes”. Any hope of recreating the Supreme Soviet without becoming a state is beyond fantasy.

  63. Man, ya’ll still fail it.

    Lopez, la pesado:

    I’m quite confident that I can show that my political ideas are less absurd than his, in fact I’m confident that I can show that my political ideas are less absurd than pretty much anyone’s. It isn’t “mathematical rigor”, of course, but proving that I’m not a brain in a vat isn’t either.

    Ok, seriously, why do you keep coming back to mathematical rigor? Do you understand that I don’t think anybody can prove these things with mathematical rigor, but that they can still be proven through inductive means? Let me say that again: I think there is another way to prove truths other than formal deductive logic, and I call this method inductive logic.

    You’re free to prove your case inductively, man. Go for it. I grant you permission. Here is your engraved invitation. No mathematical rigor needed. Happy fun fun joy laughs!

    Capisce?

    I’m interested in your analysis. Are all opinions equally valuable? Why or why not?

    I’ll trade you. I’ve already provided empirical evidence that your position is an untenable one, and you’ve yet to come back. I’m not going to spend more than I get. If you really are interested in my analysis, then give me yours first. C’mon sugar pop. It’ll be fun.

    Uncle Sam:

    Ha. Ha ha. Here’s what I recall of an example from The Machinery of Freedom:

    I’m standing in a public park with a many women and children at play. In the middle of this park is a small shack, with a loaded rifle at the door step. The shack is and the rifle are public property, and the owner — who is not currently present — expressly forbids any and all use of his property without his permission. All of this is clearly and publicly documented by way of signs on the shack. For the purposes of this discussion, everybody knows that touching the owner’s rifle without his permission is a violation of his express wishes — and thus, his property rights.

    All is going well, until a mad gunman materializes and prepares to open fire on the crowd. I happen to be unarmed, but very near the rifle. If I take the rifle and shoot the gunman, I save the women and children, but I violate the rifle owner’s rights. If I leave the rifle, the women and children get shot up, but the rifle owner’s rights are respected.

    Black and white, eh?

    Sam would do the right thing — he would let the women and children get shot. I would do the wrong thing — I would take the rifle.

    And if that’s wrong, I don’t wanna be right.

  64. Bessman,

    Before I post a reply to your ridiculous argument, let’s make sure that we understand each other:

    The shack is and the rifle are public property, and the owner — who is not currently present — expressly forbids any and all use of his property without his permission.

    I assume you mean that the rifle and the shack are private property, right?

    And if that’s wrong, I don’t wanna be right.

    Don’t worry, you’re not.

  65. Bessman,

    Ok, seriously, why do you keep coming back to mathematical rigor?

    Because, seriously, you brought the matter up first. I’m merely hammering the point home, over and over and over again, that “mathematical rigor” is a silly test of pretty much anything outside of mathematics. It’s silly to bring it up and it’s silly for you to assume that you were making some sort of point by doing so.

    You’re a weasel, Bessman, and as such the best thing to do is to drag every single point back out in to the center of the arena until it’s been beaten to death.

    I’ve already provided empirical evidence that your position is an untenable one, and you’ve yet to come back.

    Ignored? Hell, I linked right to a fantastic empirical argument for welfare states. Didja not bother to click through the link? Of course not, just like you didn’t click through the link about “philosopher”.

    DuToit has an excuse in that he’s trying to be a political evangelist and so he’s just looking for the first phrase he can latch onto and spin in the proper direction for his echo chamber to cheerlead. Reading the source material is very much optional because he knows his audience won’t read it and wouldn’t understand it if they did.

    But what’s your excuse?

    If you really are interested in my analysis, then give me yours first.

    Of course I’m not really interested in your analysis, I’m just setting verbal traps so that you end up contradicting yourself. But no doubt you’ve thought all that through and as such you have airtight refuations lined up.

    No need to be shy, Bessman: read the above-linked argument for welfare states and then cleverly tell me why it’s invalid but your empirical arguments aren’t.

  66. Sam:

    Yeah, it’s supposed to be private. I attribute that slip to my drinking problem (airplane reference).

    Lopez, la pesado:

    You’re a weasel, Bessman, and as such the best thing to do is to drag every single point back out in to the center of the arena until it’s been beaten to death.

    Can you at least quote the point that you think you’re beating to death? Because I seriously don’t see it — and theoretically, I wrote the fucker.

    I’m gonna one at a time this shit with you, because I may be a weasel, but a snake would break its neck along the path you cut with your keyboard. We are currently debating about what my original argument was. Theoretically, once this matter is settled to the satisfaction of all parties involved, we will then move on to the thrust of the argument itself.

  67. Bessman (Tim Starr may also benefit from reading this),

    First of all, your example described a situation involving public (i.e.
    governmental) property. To engage in a discussion under these premises is meaningless and ineffective, since in a state of anarchy there would be no “public” property. Therefore, in the situation you described, the solution is simple: government will decide whether you have the ?right? to take possession of the gun and that’s it. You cannot expect justice, reason, or rights under government and democracy. All you can hope for is that the damage to your life, liberty, and property will minimized.

    To make this discussion a bit more interesting and relevant, let us now assume that all property is private, and so the property surrounding the shack is owned by someone. Let us also assume that a private company uses this area as a “public” park, i.e. a privately-owned park that is open to the paying public.

    I’ll state it straight out and then elaborate: any unprovoked aggression
    against another person’s property is a crime, regardless of the
    circumstances. You would be in violation of this person’s
    property rights if you trespassed and used his gun without his permission.

    Now, the question of whether or not I would usurp the gun in order to shoot the perpetrator is different but related, and must take into account several observations:

    a. there is no such thing as a state police under anarchy. The job of
    protecting property rights, investigating crimes, and apprehending criminals
    will be handled by private security/policing/insurance companies. In order to
    hire such a company, you would probably need to sign a contract. This contract
    will probably contain some sort of a provision saying that you agree that the
    Police Company or some other independent agent access your property without
    your expressed permission in some cases of emergency that will be detailed in
    the agreement. Assuming that the shack owner has a contract with some such
    company, you have committed no crime by using his gun, as he gave his written
    permission in advance for you doing so. You will not, however, have
    foreknowledge of this at that same instance, and therefore you will be taking a risk.

    b. Let’s assume that the owner did not have such an agreement, or that you are not poptenctd by it, or whatever. As heroic as your act may have been, you have committed a crime and are liable for prosecution. You do not have, under any circumstances, the right to take one’s property without one’s
    permission, unless one somehow violated your property rights first.

    Nonetheless, the owner may choose not to press charges anyway because:

    1. he understands that your intention was to save lives and he has no desire
    seeing you punished for your actions.
    2. he faces social consequences if he did press charges..

    c. Now let’s assume that the man is a sociopath who would like nothing better
    than to see those kids and their parents being shot, and you being punished for
    using his gun to defend them. Legally, he would have every right to take you to
    court and demand you compensate him. No one gave you permission to use his gun and you must be ready to face the consequences if you did. Since you are a
    gallant, brave man, you’d be willing to risk some monetary punishment in order
    to save the lives of a whole bunch of innocent people. If you don’t, then
    don’t pretend to care about them at all.

    d. If you are found guilty and are required to compensate the owner, you may
    still have no out-of-pocket expenses, as the potential victims you saved will be
    willing to pick up the tab for you, or you had liability insurance with your
    police company.

    Now let’s take it a step further. We will now assume that the owner is at
    home, armed with another gun and watching the whole thing from his front porch.
    Being a misanthrope and a sociopath, he can’t wait to see these innocents
    being butchered, and would not agree in any way with you using his gun to stop the massacre. You, being the saint that you are, decide to grab the gun nonetheless and stop the massacre. Now take a deep breath: The gun owner has every right to use reasonable force to stop you (exactly what constitutes “reasonable force” is a topic for another discussion). We can argue about the morality of such an act (although we probably agree on that already), but the legality of it is clear and undisputable: The gun owner has a right to protect his property regardless of the circumstances.

    Your argument (or Friedman’s, or whoever) is nothing but a different version
    of the old, beaten-to-death Pharmacy Argument that non-anarchists (see Starr above) have been using as their default argument for decades in trying to prove that property rights are not absolute and that some situations require and permit infringing upon these rights. I’m sure we’ve all heard this argument
    before:

    Your son is dying of a disease. The only drug that can cure him is sold at a
    price you cannot afford. You have no way of getting the money and the pharmacy
    owner won’t give it to you for free or for a price you can afford. Wouldn’t
    you (the crazy anarchist) steal the drug, if that were what it takes to save
    your son’s life?

    This argument is simplistic and appeals to emotions rather than to reason. The short answer to all these Pharmacy Arguments is as follows:

    1. I would indeed steal the drug
    2. I would then accept responsibility for my actions and be ready and willing to pay the price.
    3. I would accept and understand that the owner of the pharmacy has every right to use force to stop me.

    If you assume that you may steal the drug and, by virtue of your special circumstances, have an immunity from prosecution, then you’re, well, dead wrong.

    Objections, Bessman? Problems, Starr? Goofy enough for you, Lopez?

  68. The government is great at doing some things well–things that nobody wants. At least, not at market prices, and spending their own money. In other words, the government sometimes creates genuine use-value, but (because it works in a context of calculational chaos) with no known exchange-value.

  69. Sam,

    This is all you needed to say:

    We can argue about the morality of such an act (although we probably agree on that already), but the legality of it is clear and undisputable: The gun owner has a right to protect his property regardless of the circumstances.

    If you think that the legal and the moral are in conflict, then you are not a strict rights-based libertarian. You could still think that the law should be strictly libertarian because, for instance, your moral code is utilitarian, and you believe strictly libertarian law to produce the best possible (or least sucky) world. But my whole point was that unless you define your moral code to be strictly libertarian, you will probably encounter scenarios where your morals and strict libertarianism clash — in other words, grey areas.

    So what kind of libertarian would you call yourself?

  70. Bessman,

    Actually, all I needed to say is, Keep your hands off my stuff!. This is the libertarian manifesto in a nutshell. You refuse to accept it, and hence we are in this debate.

    If you think that the legal and the moral are in conflict,

    The legal and the moral are not in conflict, or at least they would not be in a libertarian order. They are separate issues, and the attempt to fuse them is what leads to fascism, theocracy, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, and other mental diseases.

    Example: Do you think that believing that non-whites are less human than whites and that Hitler was a saint is moral? I think we both believe it is not.

    Do you think that people who think so (think only, no acts implied) should be imprisoned? I think we both think not. Here is but one example where you think differently about the moral and the lawful, yet you have not engaged in inconsistency.

    Libertarianism is not a moral theory. It is a political theory*. It does not deal with what is moral or immoral, but with what is lawful and unlawful.

    But my whole point was that unless you define your moral code to be strictly libertarian, you will probably encounter scenarios where your morals and strict libertarianism clash — in other words, grey areas.

    Wrong. See above. My morals are independent of my libertarian outlook. The only possible exception would be that it is immoral to aggress against non-aggressors, but even that can be viewed as a result, not a core principle. But let us not split hairs on that. We can have a whole chicken-and-egg discussion on whether libertarianism is moral because it preserves rights or vice-versa.

    So what kind of libertarian would you call yourself?

    What were the options again? If you say that they are utilitarian libertarianism versus rights-based libertarianism, I’ll say what I had said before – there is no such thing as utilitarian libertarianism. The only kind that exists is private property libertarianism.

    * Actually, per Franz Oppenheimer, libertarianism is not a political theory since the political means by definition involve aggression against non-aggressors and violation of rights. Libertarianism is thus an anti-political economic theory.

  71. They ran him out of SA.

    Hy is ‘n moffie en vals afrikaanse wie is ‘n traitor tot sy eie mense. Bigot en bully maar geen spierkrag of brein.

    Instead of defending his own people he ran away to the US.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *