Blog

January 2017

Viewing posts from January , 2017

Deregulation Of Innovation 

It’s no secret that I object to many of Donald Trump’s policy proposals. But I can certainly get behind one: deregulation. 

It has been estimated that the cost to an average household is about $15,000 per year, in terms of more expensive food, housing, education, health care, and many other goods and services. We can look at it this way: the annual costs of an average household are $15,000 more than they have to be, because of federal regulations. Or, an average household could have better food, health care, education at the same cost. 

There are important secondary matters, which go above and beyond this level of analysis. Federal Regulations stifle innovation and improvement. They impose fixed bureaucratic “solutions” on our efforts to improve our lives. 

I recommend this article for an in-depth discussion. Cost of regulations


Computer Woes

I apologize for posting so little. My tablet behaves like a dervish whenever it heats up, so I must shut it down let it rest and cool down. My laptop won’t boot. I hope, this Friday, to have help fixing the laptop. Think kind thoughts for me. Ciao!


Losing or Making Great Again?

Before trying to  “make America great,” it would be wise to ask what sort of America we wish to be – a question raised by William Graham  Sumner.

Many of today’s ideas are old nonsense, cribbed from mercantilists and crony capitalists, not from the great liberal ideas which define the best of American thoughts. If we pursue those ideas, greatness will naturally follow; it will not need to be forced. 


Can An Anarchist Participate in Politics, Without Dishonor?


I am an anarchist who labors in electoral politics.  I do not believe that winning an office by electoral politics grants any magical powers to rule over others.  So why then do I participate in electoral politics as if intending to win morally meaningless offices?  Just the thought of such dangerous foolishness should make me feel icky.

It doesn't though, because I have learned the light art of holding two contradictory thoughts in my head at the same time.  Not the dark art.  The light art entails understanding arguments on both sides of a moral question, and using that knowledge to make peace and increase understanding of others.  The dark art uses that same knowledge to lead people astray and sow general confusion.   I intend only to shed light: on the one hand, seeking magical powers to rule over others is plainly off the mark for an anarchist.  On the other hand: the enlightened ones do not need to be taught what they have already learned.  It is those who have never understood the message of liberty who need teachers and leaders.  For an anarchist, laboring in electoral politics is missionary work.

The "we-run-to-win" contingent might be heard groaning here, if any are present.  Please be patient.  One can wholeheartedly run to win, while simultaneously believing that the office contested for is immoral.  Of course, others may believe that the office is moral and necessary.  Let's leave the issue of the morality of the office aside for now.  We agree that the act of running for office is not, by itself, immoral.  And we agree that if we are going to run, we should run to win.  Winning is the point of playing the game; if we don't try to win it won't be a game.  We are going to work side-by-side to win, and if we win, you are going to have anarchists in your government, and you are going to better understand and accept what it means to be free.  If we lose, you are going to better understand and accept what it means to be free.  In that sense of understanding and acceptance, you are going to have anarchists in your government either way.  As I was saying, it's missionary work.

A good missionary learns more from the mission than those who are ministered to, and learns it from those who are served.  It's not as if the anarchists have all the answers.  We believe in liberty, but some questions are not yet answered by experimental data, and some expressions of the new order will not be foreseen or planned.  The amazing new orders that will emerge will be informed by so many different people, including by you to whom we bring our message of freedom.  We will learn from you as you learn from us.  Just know that we will never stop pushing for more liberty and justice in human affairs, which will once perfectly achieved dissolve the power of every office of authority that any politician might ever seek.

This missionary work can be done in any political party, or outside of any party.  I labor in the Libertarian party, because I am a convert of this party.  It was not the Republicans, Greens, Democrats, Peace and Freedom, or any other party who converted me.  I did not learn much about liberty in public school.  It was the Libertarians, the people I met at their conferences and conventions, who opened my eyes.  Not everybody has the same motivations or experiences as I, and that's OK.  There are other mission fields to work in.  So thanks for giving me a break, my friend.  It's not easy, being a missionary.
* * *
under Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic(CC BY-NC 2.0)

Can An Anarchist Participate in Politics, Without Dishonor?


I am an anarchist who labors in electoral politics.  I do not believe that winning an office by electoral politics grants any magical powers to rule over others.  So why then do I participate in electoral politics as if intending to win morally meaningless offices?  Just the thought of such dangerous foolishness should make me feel icky.

It doesn't though, because I have learned the light art of holding two contradictory thoughts in my head at the same time.  Not the dark art.  The light art entails understanding arguments on both sides of a moral question, and using that knowledge to make peace and increase understanding of others.  The dark art uses that same knowledge to lead people astray and sow general confusion.   I intend only to shed light: on the one hand, seeking magical powers to rule over others is plainly off the mark for an anarchist.  On the other hand: the enlightened ones do not need to be taught what they have already learned.  It is those who have never understood the message of liberty who need teachers and leaders.  For an anarchist, laboring in electoral politics is missionary work.

The "we-run-to-win" contingent might be heard groaning here, if any are present.  Please be patient.  One can wholeheartedly run to win, while simultaneously believing that the office contested for is immoral.  Of course, others may believe that the office is moral and necessary.  Let's leave the issue of the morality of the office aside for now.  We agree that the act of running for office is not, by itself, immoral.  And we agree that if we are going to run, we should run to win.  Winning is the point of playing the game; if we don't try to win it won't be a game.  We are going to work side-by-side to win, and if we win, you are going to have anarchists in your government, and you are going to better understand and accept what it means to be free.  If we lose, you are going to better understand and accept what it means to be free.  In that sense of understanding and acceptance, you are going to have anarchists in your government either way.  As I was saying, it's missionary work.

A good missionary learns more from the mission than those who are ministered to, and learns it from those who are served.  It's not as if the anarchists have all the answers.  We believe in liberty, but some questions are not yet answered by experimental data, and some expressions of the new order will not be foreseen or planned.  The amazing new orders that will emerge will be informed by so many different people, including by you to whom we bring our message of freedom.  We will learn from you as you learn from us.  Just know that we will never stop pushing for more liberty and justice in human affairs, which will once perfectly achieved dissolve the power of every office of authority that any politician might ever seek.

This missionary work can be done in any political party, or outside of any party.  I labor in the Libertarian party, because I am a convert of this party.  It was not the Republicans, Greens, Democrats, Peace and Freedom, or any other party who converted me.  I did not learn much about liberty in public school.  It was the Libertarians, the people I met at their conferences and conventions, who opened my eyes.  Not everybody has the same motivations or experiences as I, and that's OK.  There are other mission fields to work in.  So thanks for giving me a break, my friend.  It's not easy, being a missionary.
* * *
under Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic(CC BY-NC 2.0)

Can An Anarchist Participate in Politics, Without Dishonor?


I am an anarchist who labors in electoral politics.  I do not believe that winning an office by electoral politics grants any magical powers to rule over others.  So why then do I participate in electoral politics as if intending to win morally meaningless offices?  Just the thought of such dangerous foolishness should make me feel icky.

It doesn't though, because I have learned the light art of holding two contradictory thoughts in my head at the same time.  Not the dark art.  The light art entails understanding arguments on both sides of a moral question, and using that knowledge to make peace and increase understanding of others.  The dark art uses that same knowledge to lead people astray and sow general confusion.   I intend only to shed light: on the one hand, seeking magical powers to rule over others is plainly off the mark for an anarchist.  On the other hand: the enlightened ones do not need to be taught what they have already learned.  It is those who have never understood the message of liberty who need teachers and leaders.  For an anarchist, laboring in electoral politics is missionary work.

The "we-run-to-win" contingent might be heard groaning here, if any are present.  Please be patient.  One can wholeheartedly run to win, while simultaneously believing that the office contested for is immoral.  Of course, others may believe that the office is moral and necessary.  Let's leave the issue of the morality of the office aside for now.  We agree that the act of running for office is not, by itself, immoral.  And we agree that if we are going to run, we should run to win.  Winning is the point of playing the game; if we don't try to win it won't be a game.  We are going to work side-by-side to win, and if we win, you are going to have anarchists in your government, and you are going to better understand and accept what it means to be free.  If we lose, you are going to better understand and accept what it means to be free.  In that sense of understanding and acceptance, you are going to have anarchists in your government either way.  As I was saying, it's missionary work.

A good missionary learns more from the mission than those who are ministered to, and learns it from those who are served.  It's not as if the anarchists have all the answers.  We believe in liberty, but some questions are not yet answered by experimental data, and some expressions of the new order will not be foreseen or planned.  The amazing new orders that will emerge will be informed by so many different people, including by you to whom we bring our message of freedom.  We will learn from you as you learn from us.  Just know that we will never stop pushing for more liberty and justice in human affairs, which will once perfectly achieved dissolve the power of every office of authority that any politician might ever seek.

This missionary work can be done in any political party, or outside of any party.  I labor in the Libertarian party, because I am a convert of this party.  It was not the Republicans, Greens, Democrats, Peace and Freedom, or any other party who converted me.  I did not learn much about liberty in public school.  It was the Libertarians, the people I met at their conferences and conventions, who opened my eyes.  Not everybody has the same motivations or experiences as I, and that's OK.  There are other mission fields to work in.  So thanks for giving me a break, my friend.  It's not easy, being a missionary.
* * *
under Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic(CC BY-NC 2.0)

Can An Anarchist Participate in Politics, Without Dishonor?


I am an anarchist who labors in electoral politics.  I do not believe that winning an office by electoral politics grants any magical powers to rule over others.  So why then do I participate in electoral politics as if intending to win morally meaningless offices?  Just the thought of such dangerous foolishness should make me feel icky.

It doesn't though, because I have learned the light art of holding two contradictory thoughts in my head at the same time.  Not the dark art.  The light art entails understanding arguments on both sides of a moral question, and using that knowledge to make peace and increase understanding of others.  The dark art uses that same knowledge to lead people astray and sow general confusion.   I intend only to shed light: on the one hand, seeking magical powers to rule over others is plainly off the mark for an anarchist.  On the other hand: the enlightened ones do not need to be taught what they have already learned.  It is those who have never understood the message of liberty who need teachers and leaders.  For an anarchist, laboring in electoral politics is missionary work.

The "we-run-to-win" contingent might be heard groaning here, if any are present.  Please be patient.  One can wholeheartedly run to win, while simultaneously believing that the office contested for is immoral.  Of course, others may believe that the office is moral and necessary.  Let's leave the issue of the morality of the office aside for now.  We agree that the act of running for office is not, by itself, immoral.  And we agree that if we are going to run, we should run to win.  Winning is the point of playing the game; if we don't try to win it won't be a game.  We are going to work side-by-side to win, and if we win, you are going to have anarchists in your government, and you are going to better understand and accept what it means to be free.  If we lose, you are going to better understand and accept what it means to be free.  In that sense of understanding and acceptance, you are going to have anarchists in your government either way.  As I was saying, it's missionary work.

A good missionary learns more from the mission than those who are ministered to, and learns it from those who are served.  It's not as if the anarchists have all the answers.  We believe in liberty, but some questions are not yet answered by experimental data, and some expressions of the new order will not be foreseen or planned.  The amazing new orders that will emerge will be informed by so many different people, including by you to whom we bring our message of freedom.  We will learn from you as you learn from us.  Just know that we will never stop pushing for more liberty and justice in human affairs, which will once perfectly achieved dissolve the power of every office of authority that any politician might ever seek.

This missionary work can be done in any political party, or outside of any party.  I labor in the Libertarian party, because I am a convert of this party.  It was not the Republicans, Greens, Democrats, Peace and Freedom, or any other party who converted me.  I did not learn much about liberty in public school.  It was the Libertarians, the people I met at their conferences and conventions, who opened my eyes.  Not everybody has the same motivations or experiences as I, and that's OK.  There are other mission fields to work in.  So thanks for giving me a break, my friend.  It's not easy, being a missionary.
* * *
under Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic(CC BY-NC 2.0)

Why Gun Control?

Why did the British government pass the Penal Codes, denying firearms ownership to Irish Catholics? Was it their deep love for the Irish?

How about the British colonial laws preventing Indians from bearing arms? Let’s ask Gandhi about that: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

An anti-gun “scholar” once advised us that Hitler wasn’t really anti-gun, since he only denied weapons to those whom he wanted to kill. Somehow this does not make me feel better.


Who Cares About Conspiracies?

I spend little time studying and talking about conspiracy theories. I do not. Why? Three main reasons.

First, who cares? For your knowledge about a given conspiracy to have any use, it isn’t enough for the theory to be true; you’ll need to convince the very people who are already in on it. So, what are you going to do with this information?

Second, consider a thought experiment: the “Bilderberger Bomb”. It’s just a thought experiment, don’t go reporting me to the DHS. Imagine a pocket nuke is smuggled into the next Bilderberger Conference. All of the leaders of the global conspiracy are blown to bits.

Would this fix our problem? No. Their lieutenants and sub-lieutenants would scramble to fill the gaps. We saw this during the failed War on Drugs – when Escobar was imprisoned, when the Medellin Cartel was cracked, the supply of drugs continued, led by different actors.

The only action which actually hurt the drug cartels was when it became legal for peaceful people to supply better product at lower cost.

And that’s the strategy I advocate. Forget about the conspiracies. They exist, they have power, because we grant it to them. We demand their “product,” whether it be “national security,” or “better education” or “law and order” or anything else. We empower the conspiracies because we refuse to solve our own problems.

The only thing we have control over is our own actions. If we “be the change we wish to see,” we’ll be a catalyst for change.

Third, there is a hidden assumption built into the “it’s all a conspiracy” theory. If only the “right” people were in charge, one thinks, then the mechanism of government would behave “properly.”

But why do we allow such a mechanism, to begin with? It isn’t merely that “power corrupts,” but that such great power is a magnet to the corruptible.

To give an example of how I think: in the matter of education, Joel H. Spring has done fine work in Pedagogies of Globalization, documenting part of the paths by which Fichte’s Addresses to the German Nation propagated worldwide from one nation to another, resulting in what is now known as the Prussian Model of Education, and which Joel Spring aptly describes as the Rise of the Educational Security State.

Important to know, but the precise links are uninteresting; more important is the fact, which Joel H. Springs also conveys, that these numerous states responded to similar incentives; they saw control over the schools as a convenient method of increasing their control over their subjects. This is no mere hypothesis; it is clearly stated in Fichte’s Addresses To The German Nation.