The Libertarian Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Libertarian Thread

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Murray Rothbard was an rear end in a top hat who thought that parents were under no obligation to feed their children because a burgeoning market for buying and selling babies would let them get the fair market value for the baby instead of just letting it rot on the vine.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2014 20:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:16

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists?

Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors. - Murray Rothbard, not a racist.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2014 17:13

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Libertarianism would be easier to swallow if it was coupled with voluntary human extinction now that you mention it.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2014 18:00

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

I guess you're right as long as we're sticking to Rothbard's "It's not racist if blacks actually are stupid and lazy" definition.

R to the B the boss MC posted:

Why Malcolm X? Why the sudden rage, replete with baseball caps inscribed with X�s, for a man assassinated nearly thirty years ago? Partly it�s media hype, centered around the new hagiographic movie made by our Most Politically Correct Movie Director, Black Division. More seriously, the nostalgia for Malcolm is part of America�s permanent Jacobin Celebration Project, in which new politically correct birthdays and anniversaries are dug up and compulsorily celebrated (Earth Day, Earth Week, �Dr.� Martin Luther King Day, etc.), while others are overlooked or dumped altogether (Washington�s Birthday, Columbus Day � you should forgive the expression). To paraphrase LBJ, seize control of a nation�s celebrations, and their hearts and minds will follow.

OK, but why specifically Malcolm? Isn�t �Dr.� King for Heaven�s sake, enough? Are we now to boycott any state that doesn�t give a paid holiday or two in honor of Malcolm? The Authorized Version holds that Dr. King is indeed not quite enough, that restless black youth need a more militant and less �Christian� icon and �role model,� someone who was at least willing to flirt with violence, someone therefore more in tune with their own proclivities.

It�s true that Malcolm was more militant than King; he was a black nationalist rather than an integrationist. Yet, the emphasis on Malcolm�s ideas in the Received Version doesn�t begin to explain the Malcolm phenomenon. In the first place, Malcolm�s original nationalism in the form of the Black Muslims still lingers on in the person of �Minister� Louis Farrakhan. Yet, who really cares about Farrakhan? Surely he is scarcely the figure cut by Malcolm, Farrakhan�s original mentor. In fact, Malcolm made most of his impact in the scant few months after he had broken with the Black Muslims and before his assassination. And it was then that his ideology was in a state of severe flux. Groping his way out of the Nation of Islam, he had a conversion experience toward genuine Islam when he traveled to Mecca. Furthermore, ideologically, he was courted and pulled at by groups ranging through a wide ideological spectrum, from the Trotskyites of the Socialist Workers Party, over to free-market economist and Fortune journalist Charles Silberman, who was trying to make Malcolm into a free-marketeer. Indeed, Malcolm�s Black Muslim emphasis on black self-help, his attacks on drugs and going on welfare, were an attempt to bring ghetto blacks over to a Protestant Ethic, and it had a limited success in what could have developed into an ideology of Black Capitalism. But it is impossible to say where Malcolm would have headed had he not been gunned down in Harlem�s Hotel Theresa Ballroom in February 1965.

There is no question that black nationalism is a lot more libertarian than the compulsory integration pushed by King, the NAACP, and white liberals. But there are deep problems with black nationalism, which Malcolm never had a chance to explore. The most fundamental: black nationalism in what territory? A nation has to have territory, and blacks are only one-fifth of the American nation. �Black nationalism� within the United States is then only a phony nationalism, and beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population. The territorial question was at least faced by the Black Belt thesis of the Communist Party of the USA during the 1920s: Black Belt slave counties of the South. There were two grave problems with this doctrine: (a) what do you do with the existing usually majority white population in these areas, and (b) as time has gone on since 1865, more and more blacks have moved out of the historic Black Belt, and have taken over various inner cities in the North.

A second, and more plausible, form of black nationalism is for a separate black nation in currently existing black areas: a New Africa comprised of Harlem, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Detroit, Watts, et al. with its capital the old Washington, D.C., and President Jesse Jackson sitting in the Black House. But then more problems arise. Apart from all the problems of enclaves and access, does anyone really believe that this New Africa would be content to strike out on its own, with no massive �foreign aid� from the U.S.A., and strictly limited migration between the two nations? In a pig�s eye.

Actually, since Malcolm�s preferred term was �African-American� and since this word has now become the PC moniker, it would make the most sense to adopt the solution of early twentieth-century black leader, Marcus Garvey: a mass exodus, a return to West Africa, there to carve out a new black nation, as a people�s exile from the Old Sod is at last redeemed. It is true that in contrast to voluntary immigration, black migration from Africa to America was coerced, and voluntary black �Zionism� or African repatriation was the preferred solution to the black problem for most groups, North and South, before the Civil War. Even now, I bet that many Americans would cheerfully chip in to support such a crusade. But why am I convinced that such a Back to Africa solution, even though it would offer a permanent escape from the alleged horrors of White Racism, is not going to fly, especially among those who aggressively like to refer to themselves as �African-American�?

In the last analysis, then, it is not Malcolm�s ideas, militant or not, nationalist or not, that continue to fascinate, and to attract followers. Not at all. On the contrary, it was Malcolm as a person who was the great attraction when alive and still is, thirty years after his death. For Malcolm was indeed unique among black leadership, past and present. He did no shuckin� and jivin�, he was not a clown like �the Rev.� Al Sharpton, he was not moronic like Ben Hooks or Thurgood Marshall, he did not simply threaten Whitey in a loutish manner like the Black Panthers, he was not a fraudulent intellectual with a rococo Black Baptist minister style, like �Dr.� King. He stood out like a noble eagle among his confreres. He carried himself with great pride and dignity; his speaking style was incisive and sparkled with intelligence and sardonic wit. In short, his attraction for blacks was and is that he acted white. It is a ridiculous liberal clich that blacks are just like whites but with a different skin color; but in Malcolm�s case, regardless of his formal ideology, it really seemed to be true.

I had the privilege of seeing Malcolm speak on two occasions in the year before his death. It was a delightful experience. His answers to questions were a match for any political leader, for intelligence and wit. He was, for example, a lot more impressive than Bill Clinton. My favorite memory of Malcolm was the second speech, before a large gathering, when he made mincemeat out of the insufferable Jimmy Wechsler, ex-Communist turned Social Democrat, and beloved columnist and editor of the New York Post. In his speech, Malcolm had spoken of black tenants living in Harlem, while their landlords �lived on the Grand Concourse� (a large, once fashionable street in the west Bronx, then almost exclusively Jewish). In the question period, Jimmy Wechsler bounced up, and pointed out that Malcolm�s remark had �anti-Semitic� implications. �Oh,� replied Malcolm in fine mock indignation: �Are you telling me that only Jews live on the Grand Concourse? Why that�s terrible; that�s �segregation�; that needs to be investigated!�

Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Aug 11, 2014

# ¿ Aug 11, 2014 00:13

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

All rise for the national anthem of libertopia: http://youtu.be/2vNzz2VMWac

# ¿ Aug 11, 2014 00:33

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what's wrong with any of that?

# ¿ Aug 11, 2014 00:45

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

The criminals who terrorized our cities � in riots and on every non-riot day � are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2014 00:52

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

It's just a coincidence that racial and religious minorities will bear the brunt of their terrible policy goals. But seriously, white supremacy and confederate revenge fantasy is core to the belief system. I can find a Johnny Rebel song that covers anything jrodefeld posts, because "against the welfare state" means kill black people, "smaller government" means shut down the largest employer in the inner city, and "self ownership" means chattel slavery. A lynch mob is one of the few times you can see an uninhibited free market in action.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2014 01:06

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Let me level with you jrizzle, if it wasn't for the state I would kill and eat you. That's the bitch of it; there is complete freedom to do whatever you want and a cold calculating arbiter of worth. It is reality, and to survive it mankind established states.

I can't believe that this is what you posed while I was writing that:

jrodefeld posted:

If a private security firm is doing a lousy job at protecting the property in a specific neighborhood, like for example Babylon Astronaut kills and eats you, then you could fire that security agency and hire a different agency to defend your property and keep you safe.

ftfy

Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Aug 11, 2014

# ¿ Aug 11, 2014 01:58

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

/\ He glossed over the fact that the supply of gold can increase from, you know, digging it out of the ground. What do you think?

Pretty much. Social Darwinism is all fun and games until it dawns on you that you aren't the cruelest motherfucker on the block and maybe, just maybe the state was protecting you from the big scary world you're so fond of.

Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Aug 11, 2014

# ¿ Aug 11, 2014 02:20

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Christmas Present posted:

The ancap hugboxers go on to say-- hahaha--- that a hands-off anarchic free market is-- hehe I can't even I can't ok-- that the free market is the most democratic form of society because the consumer gets to vote with their dollars
No no see it makes sense when you can define words to mean anything you want them to and a ~*free market*~ would allow every dictionary publisher to switch the definitions for 'democracy' and 'oligarchy' anyway

Voting with your dollars is a sham because you can't vote 'no.'

Finding out about DRO (the lovely kind) has made me change my stance on J to the Rizzle: I will not kill and eat him, I will get him to pay me not to kill and eat him, then kill and eat him. There is a famous private security company known to lock women in shipping containers and rape them for days on end, so with even less regulation and accountability I can't imagine killing and eating jrock oboring would even make the nightly news in libertaria.

On a more personal note: you don't learn about economics by trolling people on web forums, you read books. Please read a book, and not some quack get slaves quick manual, a real honest-to-god book. The problems you seek to reintroduce by devolving into savagery have been solved. You should find out how we solved them.

# ¿ Aug 12, 2014 01:29

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

quote:

I don't understand why you wouldn't expect that if the community had choices about who they feel comfortable protecting them that would lead to the same level of brutality. If for no other reason that a narrow interest in seeking profits, a private defense agency who is representing a community would want to keep their customers reasonably happy. If you have the choice to simply refuse to pay a defense agency who is providing nothing of value to you, then that automatically compels more discipline on the part of the defense agencies that are seeking your business.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2014 15:38

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

More critically, I think, is that while the end-game of their philosophy is never going to happen, they support real policies that screw people over in the interim. This doesn't benefit their ideal of hands-off government, it benefits the ruling elite.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2014 02:00

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

In libertopia, people could freely associate into corporations and then forge contracts that gave them limited liability.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2014 05:29

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Hey, that's just what the guy in his avatar said about it.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2014 05:37

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

"It should be clear...that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations."
\|

# ¿ Aug 15, 2014 05:41

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Tell me how to detect salmonella in produce. I bet you can't. People actually put effort into becoming food inspectors.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2014 06:00

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

"I'm cool with corporations actually. It's part of free association, a core component of the philosophy I helped found."
\|

# ¿ Aug 15, 2014 06:03

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Somfin posted:

Go on, tell us why the Free Market would have less theft and fewer rape cages.

"Suppose, for example, that there are many competing cantaloupe stores in a particular neighborhood. One of the cantaloupe dealers, Smith, then uses violence to drive all of his competitors out of the neighborhood; he has thereby employed violence to establish a coerced monopoly over the sale of cantaloupes in a given territorial area. Does that mean that Smith�s use of violence to establish and maintain his monopoly was essential to the provision of cantaloupes in the neighborhood? Certainly not, for there were existing competitors as well as potential rivals should Smith ever relax his use and threat of violence; moreover, economics demonstrates that Smith, as a coercive monopolist will tend to perform his service badly and inefficiently. Protected from competition by the use of force, Smith can afford to provide his service in a costly and inefficient manner, since the consumers are deprived of any possible range of alternative choice.1 Furthermore, should a group arise to call for the abolition of Smith�s coercive monopoly there would be very few protesters with the temerity to accuse these �abolitionists� of wishing to deprive the consumers of their much desired cantaloupes."
\|

# ¿ Aug 15, 2014 06:12

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

I'm not seeing how he doesn't believe in free association or contracts. No state, no contracts, no organizing, then what's left besides foraging and loving like animals?

VitalSigns posted:

And how does giving them a green light to buy private armies improve this situation?

Because by diverting their energy to causing violence, when they decide to stop terrorizing people they will be behind the companies that focused on their services.
\|

# ¿ Aug 15, 2014 06:28

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

"Curing polio by raising taxes is equivalent to curing someone's bronchitis by shooting him. The "cure" is far worse than the disease."
\|

# ¿ Aug 15, 2014 16:10

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Travic posted:

As I said I'm not terribly well read. Who is this gentleman? He sounds positively delightful. "I'd rather be crippled for life and unable to walk than pay a dime in taxes."

That's my main man Murray Rothbard. I had a coworker who was into mises.org and all that jazz, so I read up on Rothbard and quoted it back to him. He then accused me of over representing fringe beliefs. I kept reading Rothbard, because it is hilarious and I admire that he got a Christian with children to accept his political philosophy that allows parents to stop feeding their children by promising lower taxes. This dude did not make 6 figures or anything, so the reward for collapsing civilization isn't much, and he fully signed on to starve the children, kill the bums, because of a couple hundos extra a year and the promise that he could be a millionaire if he didn't have to follow the rules.

panascope posted:

What prompted the switch on this forum from the posters being mostly unabashed libertarians to being mostly socialist? I'm aware that it's a thing that happened but I never knew why or what the instigating events were.

I was never a libertine because I work for a living, but I would also guess that toxxing for John McCain took out a bunch of them, or at least the conservatives that enable them.

Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Aug 15, 2014

# ¿ Aug 15, 2014 17:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:16

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

No they haven't. You poo poo during long rests, and bathe at the inn.

# ¿ Aug 19, 2014 21:04

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Libertarian Thread