---

The burning question is for state officials.

Why force property owners to have to stump bump their way through scorched terrain, evading roadblocks in order to protect their own property?

Would it present insurmountable problems to simply lay out an expert assessment of the situation to the locals and then let them decide if it's worth the risk to try to save their homes?

photo by Jack Kurtz
From the Arizona Republic:
A spokesman for the firefighting team, said that while crews were trying to save houses, they were not going to risk their lives on them. He also warned that firefighters would not risk their lives to save homeowners who refused to leave.
"We will not put firefighters at risk to go in and get them out," he said. "When houses burn, it's too late to try to escape. Those people are going to be pretty well pinned in."

---

Future Imperfect: "A book about technological change in the near future and its consequences". David Friedman has posted a partial draft of his next book. It's bound to be of interest.

---

Who Is Jane Galt? Find out at Capitalist Chicks Dot Com - The New Face of Capitalism. Hell yeah!



God, I love capitalist chicks. Value for value, baby...

---

Pat Galea had something to say about my recent articles. Galea's site has some great resources that you wont find anywhere else, like the cartoon version of Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom:

---

Another AnCap blog: Duncan Frissell comments on The Revolution Will Be All Business at his interesting site The Technoptimist.

---

Strike The Root: I'm honored and gratified that Rob gave me the opportunity to guest edit his very fine journal of liberty today. Strike The Root is one of the premier anarcho-capitalist sites on the net and I'm proud to be part of it.

---

The Grand Old Man of anarcho-capitalist blogging must be Bill St. Clair, he's been going strong for quite some time with End the War on Freedom. I found his site over a year ago, and I'm certainly influenced by his example. I reccomended his site highly and I'm gratified at the interest Bill took in this site recently.

---

Small Tyrannies: Its the small tyrannies that get to you. Traffic cops, bossy city clerks, petty code inspectors, fees and fines and permits, the little thorns of local govt tearing your skin at every opportunity. You may never get gutted like a Peter McWilliams or a Randy Weaver, but you're going to get nicked and jabbed in sensitive spots by life long low grade torture. Your friendly neighborhood despot has got you sealed tight in a dull bladed Iron Maiden. Irritating to the extreme but not severe enough to spark real outrage in the typical complacent townsfolk.

My grandfather, a rich conservative property owner, has been harassed to the point that he claims to understand what was going through Timmy's mind. I have an ex-neighbor, ordinary in every way, who surprised me by moving to Spain rather than pay taxes that would buy war materiel. Two level headed people who have never been arrested or beaten, thoroughly unhappy with the state of affairs. How much longer are people going to take it?

---

My First Time: This is the first time I have ever posted to a blog. I have avoided blogs thus far because their content seems fleeting and often includes many personal details that no one cares about, and because the overwhelming majority receive very little traffic. But John was kind enough to ask me to participate in this blog, and it seems to have some real potential (this blog is currently sending me more traffic than anti-state.com or FreeMarket.net). It doesn't surprise me that John has taken the lead with this. He actually started No Treason before I started Strike The Root. He even invited me to become an editor of No Treason and offered me space on his server. His No Treason name and logo (which are brilliant) influenced the development and design of the STR logo. It's good to see that he's now back in the saddle with guns blazing. We need more No Treasons and ASCs.

I have often heard of these blogs by Andrew Sullivan, Mickey Kaus, etc., but I've always been puzzled by the one called Libertarian Samzidata. "Who the hell are these people?" I often ask myself when I come across that name. Natalie Solent? Who is she? How come I've never heard of her?

Hopefully this blog will become influential and will reclaim the good libertarian name from these erudite quasi-libs who all link to Andrew Sullivan and Virginia Postrel. Better yet, I would like to see this blog become the purest blog of hardcore market anarchism. Let's make Spooner and Thoreau proud, and spread their ideas to the world.

---

Chick Day at No Treason? Welcome, Rachael Anne Fajardo.

Now if only Meaghan Walker Williams could venture in from the high latitudes of the budding free state on Vancouver Island, but this being the longest day of the year, she's likely to be outside making the most of the daylight until well past the cocktail hour this evening. Last I heard she was hellbent on ending a gas tax imposed on native land. But it would be great if she'd pop her head up before midnight.


Marmota vancouverensis

---

The Marines: So, I don't have much time to surf the 'net anymore, so my post won't have any nifty links. I do, however, have time to go to the movies. And lately, I've gotten ticked off every single time. (And no, it's not the statist theme of all the summer action-packed, CIA-centric films.) You know how now there are commercials before the good previews start, before the movie? Well, the first commercial is always for the Marines. It shows a young man free-climbing a craggy rock with super-imposed images of Marines spoon feeding cute little girls (probably because her arms got blown off). When he reaches the top of the rock, he becomes a Marine. The best part is the slogan: The few. The proud. The Marines. Are you freakin' kidding me?? The Marines take ANYBODY!

---

The other psychobilly: A new musical subgenre with a curiously evocative name...

(From the Up & Coming section of the Seattle Stranger, June 20, 2000.)

Saturday 6/22

DEMENTED ARE GO, THE SPECTRES, THE DEADCATS, GRAVEYARD SHIFT

(Graceland) Though much maligned as retro-kitsch, I've always enjoyed psychobilly for its somehow seamless melding of two seemingly incompatible personas, the 1950s greaser tough and the B-grade horror movie geek...Lead singer Murder Mike has a killer (ha ha) voice that's a near dead-ringer for Screamin' Jay Hawkins...Also on the bill are the Spectres, another local band who throw a good helping of country twang into the psychobilly mix and come out sounding pretty damn awesome - BILL BULLOCK


(Sorry, Beck - I couldn't resist. JS (Nor I - JTK))

---

The Revolution Will Be All Business - From my new article at anti-state.com:

"The entire project of building a movement is misguided and of no use to market anarchists. The impulse to build a movement is collectivist in nature; it is rooted in an egalitarian and even democratic view of society. The idea is that when enough people come to see what is truly in their common interest, they will voluntarily cooperate to secure that common interest. It’s not terribly surprising that many would have difficulty escaping this mindset, it’s not far from the democratic ideals set forth by the Founding Fathers, ideals that we are taught to revere from an early age. But these democratic ideals are not appropriate to market anarchism and they will not advance it."

---

Don't give them ideas Charlie! "That might be so Johnson, but these are my sons! They don't belong to the state. When they were babies I never saw the state comin' around with a spare tit."
- Charlie Anderson in Shenandoah


Big Mother? The Wrong Hills?

---

The Wrong Hill - From my new article at Strike The Root:

"The problem with fighting the war of ideas on the wrong hill is that you can lose your war on that hill, but you can't win it there. Many anti-war libertarians are choosing the wrong hill to fight on. They argue against war as if it were bad public policy. They argue that war is bad, war is evil, war is unprofitable, or that war is senseless. Libertarians can lose a war of ideas with these arguments, but winning such an argument will yield no libertarian victory."

---

Why Not Reclaim the Left? I can think of lots of reasons why libertarians should not undertake such a project, but Wally Conger and Justin Raimondo apparently can't think of any. Raimondo launched a crusade in 1993 to reclaim the American right. That didn't work, so now it's time for libertarian's to reclaim the left. Raimondo prescribes a return to the classical liberal tradition that he claims rose up against statism. But the modern state is the product of classical liberalism. The United States will always be the greatest achievement of classical liberalism, and thus the final refutation of classical liberalism.

There is plenty to dislike about the project. Conger praises The Movement of the Libertarian Left as a group characteristic of the left libertarians who have "made inroads" with such luminaries as Noam Chomsky.

Conger says libertarians should align themselves with leftists who embrace smashing the state as their top priority:

"Much contemporary anarchist literature, sadly, suggests that smashing governments is secondary to destroying businesses and shaping communal utopias. As the hardest of hard-core anarchists, we can’t waste time with such socialist sentimentality. Our first duty is to stamp out all political power."

No, I don't think smashing the state is the goal of sensible anarcho-capitalists. The hardest of hard-core anarchists hold the abolition of the state above all other values, but I sure don't.

What is the source of this nonsense? Conger: "Opposition to war, the undeniable health of the State, is the one barometer we can rely on to judge suitable allies." I'm confident Raimondo would endorse that sentiment: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. These guys see the leftists marching against this state and they want to harness them. They want a piece of the action.

No thank you sirs, that is nothing like principled libertarianism.

---

I could be taking serious chances with my soul, here, but I think I'd like to know what sort of a bloody twit it takes to become a Forest Service officer and then, being pissed off about her husband, go out into the middle of some of the worst drought conditions in recent memory in order to set fire to one of his letters.

Now, it could just be me, but I'd like to believe that, finding myself in similar straits, I would have enough sense to burn the offending epistle in my bathtub. I am compelled here, to stipulate to some kind of specialized training and knowledge manifest in the status of a "Forest Service officer" -- which is a long stretch, because I cannot imagine that she knows more about the dangers of fire in a drought than I do with nothing beyond common sense. If I succeed at the stretch, however, then it only makes the shocking absurdity of this episode all the more glaring.

And it's an easy thing to argue simply that one never knows a lunatic until they step out on the edge, but I really have no other choice than to point to this case as evidence of a rising tide of stark irrationality so pervasive that it can lie hidden in the trees until, literally, the whole forest is burning down. A bunch of teen-aged punks playing with matches in a field is one thing (as in a case in southern California, a few years ago).

I'm here to point out that this case is something special.

---

Freedom is not Public Policy - Lew Rockwell argues persuasively for the end of government:

"Free markets are not just about generating profits and productivity. They aren’t just about spurring innovation and competition. To make a transition from statism to the market economy means a complete revolution in economic and political life, from one where the state and its interests rule to a system where the power of the state plays no role. Freedom is not a public-policy option. It is the end of public policy itself. It is time for us to take that next step and call for precisely that."

I agree completely, but I must point out that Rockwell and many of his columnists routinely argue against the war on terrorism as if it were a public policy issue.

---

Shenandoah: I saw this terrific anti-state film starring Jimmy Stewart over the weekend. Stewart has long been one of my favorite Hollywood actors but I had missed this film, which I now gather is his last great role.



Stewart plays Charlie Anderson, a Virginian patriarch in the Shenandoah Valley during the civil war. The film opens with a skirmish between Union and Confederate troops. Two of Anderson's sons witness it and the eldest son Jacob reports back to Anderson, who can hear the cannons clearly:

Jacob: They come closer every day, Pa.

Anderson: They on our land?

Jacob: No sir.

Anderson: Well, then it doesn't concern us. (Pause.) Does it?

Charlie Anderson is a widower still deeply in love with his wife who has been dead for sixteen years. He promised her on her deathbed that he would raise their children as Christians but it is clear that Charlie himself is not by nature a religious man. He begins each meal by leading the family in saying grace. Charlie Anderson doesn't have much to say to God, but if he has to speak to him then God's going to hear what's on his mind:

"Lord, we cleared this land. We ploughed it, sowed it, and harvested. We cooked the harvest. It wouldn't be here, we wouldn't be eating it if we hadn't of done it all ourselves. We worked dog bone hard for every crumb and morsel, but we thank you just the same anyway Lord for this food we're about to eat, Amen."

A great anti-state scene comes early in the film. A confederate officer named Johnson arrives with a handful of soldiers and asks Anderson if they can drink from his well. Anderson recognizes Johnson, and gives his permission. Their conversation begins politely enough but quickly turns sour:

Johnson: When are you gonna take this war seriously, Mr. Anderson?

Anderson: Now let me tell you something Johnson, 'fore you get on my wrong side. My corn I take serious because it's my corn. And my potatoes and my tomatoes and my fences I take note of because they're mine. But this war is not mine and I take no note of it.

Johnson: Well..., maybe you'll take note of it when the Yankees drop a cannonball in your front parlor.

Anderson: Well I might as well tell you right now that I can't think of another thing I want to hear you say.

Johnson: You have six sons, don't you Mr. Anderson?

Anderson: What, does the size of my family have some special interest for you?

Johnson: Matter of fact it does. We need men. Now two of these men here are no more than sixteen. It seems strange to quite a few people around here that none of your sons are in the army.

Anderson: Well it don't seem strange to me, with all the work there is around here.

Johnson: I'll come right to the point Mr. Anderson. Came out here to get 'em.

Anderson's eyes narrow. He has not enjoyed talking to Johnson, but now he begins to contemplate the ways he could kill Johnson, if need be. Then he laughs in the officer's face. Johnson has not brought enough men, not nearly enough.

Johnson: I say something funny?

Anderson: I think so... You came all the way out here to get my boys, huh?

Charlie Anderson calls out his six sons and invites Johnson to say his piece to them.

Johnson: There's a Yankee army breathing down your neck Mr. Anderson, I don't think you realize...

Anderson: You're town bred, aren't ya?

Johnson: I don't see what that has to do...

Anderson: I've got five hundred acres of good rich dirt here. As long as the rains come and the sun shines it'll grow anything I have a mind to plant. And we've pulled every stump, we've cleared every field, and we done it ourselves, without the sweat of one slave.

Johnson: So?

Anderson: So? Can you give me one good reason why I should send my family, that took me a lifetime to raise, down that road like a bunch of damn fools to do somebody else's fightin'?

Johnson: Virginia needs all of her sons Mr. Anderson.

Anderson: That might be so Johnson, but these are my sons! They don't belong to the state. When they were babies I never saw the state comin' around with a spare tit. We never asked anything of the state and never expected anything. We do our own living and thanks to no man for the right.

---

"Arthur Andersen bestrode the world a year ago. Today, it's a dead firm walking, and people notice that."

(George Will -- ABC's "This Week", 6/16/02)

Will was remarking in the context of Andersen's conviction on charges of obstruction of justice. It's more than interesting that he saw fit to preface his remarks with the assertion that "American capitalism faces its greatest crisis since the Great Depression," -- a crisis of confidence bound up in the cynical incest of charlatains and the professional liars who help to foist their frauds on a credulous public. It would not be difficult to make the case that the investing public has been trained to this credulity over generations of government regulation aimed at protecting fools from their own foolishness.

Big Brother is watching, right? What could go wrong?

Not to damn him with faint praise, at least Will did not jump right up to cheer calls for increased regulation ringing around the discussion table. He is a conservative, you see, and prefers instant prosecution of these and other cases, in order to make prospective perpetrators "fear the law."

One would ordinarily hope that a man like Will might see that Andersen was a "dead firm walking" before the charges were filed, but these are strange times, and the matter is not quite so clear. The actual fact is that the truest avenging angel of all -- the market -- would never have tolerated the rotten duplicity of an Andersen or its clients, unless it had been banished to a far corner for decades on end.

The connected case of Enron brings to mind the wisdom of an old banker who once pointed out that "No man ever had to ask me for credit, because it is something that he brings with him when he walks into my office." Investors have little or no sense of the character of their credit supplicants at market now, precisely because the responsibility for sensing it was long ago abrogated by the SEC standing watch over affairs in which it actually holds no principal, responsible, interest.

And, of course, the age-old smear goes on: it is patently ridiculous to refer to these various mountebanks as "capitalists". Some people never learn, however, and worse: they're actually not interested to learn.

It is far, far past time for individual investors to take their chances at market, on their own exclusive responsiblity and authority. Close down the SEC, and let nature take its course ever after.