1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13726/the-best-work-of-its-kind-since-rothbards-for-a-new-liberty/

The Best Work of Its Kind Since Rothbard’s For a New Liberty

August 30, 2010 by

David Gordon sings the praises of this accurate, inspiring, detailed, and innovative look at the core of modern libertarianism. Huebert neglects nothing, from foreign policy to intellectual property. FULL ARTICLE by David Gordon

{ 78 comments }

boniek August 30, 2010 at 8:56 am

If it is truly as good and important book as people make it then it would be more beneficial to the liberty movement and author himself if it could be available for free to download. Especially if author is already against copyright and thus doesn’t care.

Jay Lakner August 30, 2010 at 9:11 am

Which publisher is going to agree to publish the book knowing that the author is going to waive the government granted monopoly and give away free copies?

DD5 August 30, 2010 at 1:50 pm

What do you mean? He can be his own publisher.

boniek August 30, 2010 at 5:42 pm

David Friedman kept copyright for ebook editions of his books and publishes them for free on his web page.

Stephan Kinsella August 30, 2010 at 2:04 pm

your “then” does not follow from your “if”. Huebert was approached by this publisher to write the book. He accepted the offer, and wrote a great book in the service of libertarian ideas. It is incredibly ungrateful and churlish to fault him for doing this.

boniek August 30, 2010 at 5:52 pm

You are assuming that I actually had ill intent. I was just making a suggestion, not a demand and pointing out the obvious – the more people have access to this great book without barrier of a price the better chances somebody interested in libertarianism will stumble upon it and read it – I know I would. If it is not possible then too bad.

Peter August 30, 2010 at 7:33 pm

Mises.org isn’t the publisher, so there’s no point saying this here. Write to the publisher (http://www.abc-clio.com/publishing/customerservice — they list an ebook on their site, with “call us for a price”…I wouldn’t bet on it being free, though :))

boniek August 31, 2010 at 9:32 am

My message was not directed at the publisher (I assume publisher never claimed to be against IP) but the author, as decision what to do with book ultimately lies with his voluntary decision. Stephan Kinsella does what he preaches, as do many others that are against IP. I somewhat agree with Silas comment below. It screams hypocrisy to me.

Silas Barta August 30, 2010 at 10:13 pm

So what was going through Huebert’s head when the publishers offered him this? Did he think they *weren’t* going to use statist IP to recoup the money they were paying him? I thought the NAP applied just as well to delegating the initiation of force to others, which is what he was doing by transferring to the publishers his IP rights. You should be criticizing him for this!

Seriously, what’s with anti-IP libertarians who cheer on other anti-IP libertarians for getting copyright-laden book publishing deals? And then promoting the profits gained this way on their blogs by promoting the book?

newson August 31, 2010 at 9:44 am

if you won a state lottery, would you give the prize back as a protest for the iraq invasion?

boniek August 31, 2010 at 9:52 am

if you think taking part in state lottery is immoral you can choose to not take part in it.

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 9:56 am

And Walter Block needs to leave Loyola and we shouldn’t drive on the roads, yada, yada, yada.

boniek August 31, 2010 at 9:59 am

@mpolzkill
I don’t understand what you are trying to say. I never said that anyone “needs to” or “should” do something.

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 10:08 am

Sorry, Bonicek, I was just responding in general to Barta’s tired ploy. But you are suggesting that if Huebert were seriously anti-state one would think he wouldn’t be involved in this particular “IP” scheme, right?

boniek August 31, 2010 at 10:22 am

@mpolzkill
Not really. I’m arguing that if he is using concept of morality as an argument for something to be undesirable then voluntarily taking part in immoral, by his own standards – no less, activity makes him immoral too (unless he invented special exemption in cases like his own, but then to me his morality is the same as state morality).
Disclaimer: I may be wrong and I wish no harm to anyone;)

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 10:36 am

It *is* a dilly of a pickle, boniek, I grant you. And it provides so much grist for statists, as you can see. Ah well, such considerations and fine sensibilities never prevented atheists from joining seminaries and destroying churches from the inside.

newson August 31, 2010 at 7:15 pm

the state has so many tentacles, being completely disengaged from it is nigh on impossible. in any case, the book will probably appear on the torrents sooner or later.

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 10:14 am

A statist like Barta would have a good long laugh at all of us in our caves, wouldn’t he?

Myron Goodrum August 30, 2010 at 9:59 am

Great article…keep up the good works. I however, am in 100% agreement with Heubert’s views; after all, having our cake and eating it too (aka – the chipping away at the core of libertarianism) has gotten us into way to much trouble. Thus we have the continued erosion & certain destruction of a once great idea called the United States of America.

Wildberry August 30, 2010 at 11:32 am

I usually draw attention as a neophyte when I attempt this sort of analysis, but I cannot seem to cross the bridge from libertarianism to anarchism, so here goes anyway. A path from statism to libertarianism could begin by eliminating government functions one at a time, until the State was reduced to something much less than it is today. If this process continued to its logical conclusion, the State would eventually vanish entirely. This is the theoretical situation that the author Jacob Huebert, and other important contemporary thinkers, including the greatly respected Huerta De Soto, seem to espouse as a “pure” manifestation of a social system that is true to libertarian ideals. I can’t seem to find a way to agree. Consider this: On the hypothetical island community that economists are so fond of visiting in their thought experiments, a “pure” free-market economy has produced a prosperous community, full of shops and tradesmen of all kinds. However, human nature being what it is, some mysterious elements of the population hit on the idea that it is easier to steal than to work for a living, and begin to break into the shops at night and help themselves to the goods inside. In a free-market response, each shop owner hires a security guard (oops! I’ll have to forego dealing with the scarcity of unemployed or underemployed workers in this scenario) to protect his own shop. Of course, since the guard is paid by shopkeeper A, he doesn’t protect Shop B, who in turn can sell his goods for less since he doesn’t hire a guard. (We’ll also forego the discussion of what the guard does with a criminal once apprehended…). One day a brilliant mind comes to the following realization: Each shopkeeper pays for one full-time guard, but each has the capacity to guard more than one shop. He proposes that several shopkeepers pool their resources, each paying less than before, and thus creates a “night watchman” system. Each subscriber has their shop guarded. Over time, various “syndicates” form, each guarding their own networks of shops. Some succeed and others succeed less well, and a brilliant mind soon realizes the following: the night watchman system is working OK, but there are some inefficiencies and exploitations diminishing the overall effectiveness. Some shopkeepers are benefiting even though they don’t pay. Advertising which ones are protected simply tells robbers which shops should be robbed. Small syndicates are less well equipped than larger ones, and therefore are less efficient. He calls a community meeting and everyone attends. There he proposes a community-wide night watchman system, called the “police”. Everyone pays a small amount, and the police will guard all shops equally with the most efficient and well-equipped “officers”. They put it to a vote and it is unanimous. Viola, the police State has been created, and it appears wholly consistent with the principles of libertarianism. What is the problem? Doesn’t it follow that at some level and within some reasonable set of conditions, a free society is entitled to form “state” entities for the common good and benefit? On either side of the argument in this stylized hypothetical, there are difficulties at the margins. When does it morph from consent to oppression? How do we deal with those who wish to benefit but not to pay? What system of laws and punishment do we impose on the robbers? How do we manage the scope of the police “intervention”? In my view the debate between libertarians and “pure” libertarians (i.e. anarchists) is of value only in the utility of creating a vantage point from which to enter a discussion of the important issues of social organizations and economic issues. It is at the margins of utility in the same sense that when you know enough about both science and religion, debating the Truth of one over the other becomes meaningless.

Dave Albin August 30, 2010 at 11:46 am

Why would the shop owner benefit without paying? The security would only guard those stores who subscribed and paid. They are free to assume this risk (and not pay), and charge lower prices. This may work out for them, or they may get cleaned out by the robbers. Some or all businesses would not go for the security service if they realized that unpaying customers were getting it, too. They would all try to quit paying, and the security service would fold.

Wildberry August 30, 2010 at 3:35 pm

Thanks Dave.
The non-paying shop owner would benefit because the mere presence of the police raises the risk for all robbers. Therefore some benefit, although perhapsnot the level enjoyed by paying members.
It seems that you are selecting your assumptions to support the proposition you wish to prove. We could assume that on balance it is worth it to the payers to carry a certain amount of non-payers, or only payers could put a sign in their window indicating security, but then in the absence of copyrights, anyone is free to copy the sign, etc. etc. You cannot prove the superiority of one system over another simply by making the assumptions you need to prove your point.
My point is that every action brings a counter-action. That is the nature of humans and evolution, and therefore there is no “perfect” solution. It is more about the principles that are applied to the solution, and what solutions we retain over time and which ones we reject, and whether we can effectively correct the course if we head down the wrong road.
When you take this debate to its logical conclusion, you can only conclude there is no conclusion. The approach should be to take what we have, examine the principles we wish to follow and then make changes following those principles. Anarchists seem to rely on making assumptions about how people will behave under a system of social organization that has never existed. I believe that every action carries the risk of unanticipated consequences. To think that any given system can be so well designed as to have none, is utopian. This is why I reject anarchism and think the debate is a distraction to all but the philosophers that engage in this form of thought.

Fallon August 30, 2010 at 5:01 pm

What about the role ideas play in informing decisions? After all, even the criminals in your scenario recognize the division of labor. How far is the leap to recognizing peaceful cooperation as superior? Even so, it should be admitted that market cooperation and resultant society can and does break down when there is no belief in (or knowledge of)market among the general populace, regardless of the current political structure.

Wildberry August 31, 2010 at 7:12 pm

Thank you Fallon,
Yes, you and I could easily agree in the proposition that peaceful cooperation is superior to other alternatives. Getting everyone in any given social structure to go along is the problem, especially if there is no room for any form of coercion allowed, i.e. some members of the group will choose not to go along, and calculate themselves to a different conclusion. Every action creates a counter-reaction and at some level of social evolution that becomes statist. Since statism is bad, everything that leads to it must be rejected.
I am looking for a persuasive argument for anarchism but find none. Social organisms organize. But upon what principles? It appears that the issue has to do with the point at which “self-government” becomes “statism”, and oppression seems to be the determinant factor.
However, complete lack of enforceability results in a class of victims in one form or another, and the oppression of the State become oppression by the “outlaws”.
Primitive cultures lived by this principle: Love your brother or vanquish him. Those are your choices. Isn’t that all this thread comes down to? Accept the State or defeat it? And replace it with what? A society based on a new set or organizing principles, perhaps; principles which embrace local over central, freedom over intervention, competition over monopoly, etc. I can’t see the argument that this is not enough, and we need something defended as anarchism. I just can’t get it.

Fallon August 31, 2010 at 7:40 pm

I think maybe you misapply determinism. Grant that the universe and everything in it, including humans, is governed by cause and effect: it still has to be allowed that human driven cause and effect differs from physical objects; humans make conscious decisions. So to state flatly, as you have, that “Every action creates a counter-reaction and at some level of social evolution that becomes statist”, is denying humans their humaness. There is no inevitability or social evolution outside individuals attempting to improve their situations. There are no ‘forces of history’ so to speak.

ABR August 30, 2010 at 11:59 am

The absence of the State does not imply the absence of governance. The absence of the State implies the absence of a fiat monopoly of government.

A natural monopoly of police services is hypothetically possible under anarchy. If such a monopoly emerged, I doubt it would last long.

“What system of laws and punishment do we impose on the robbers?” — The laws the robbers agreed to in advance of their crimes. If they failed to agree not to rob, then others would know them for what they are in advance, and shun them.

Dave Albin August 30, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Exactly – remember, no public property for them to “hide” on. The private-property owners would all shun them. If the robbers were local property owners, the other owners could work together and cut them off to the point that they would straighten up or leave.

Wildberry August 30, 2010 at 3:52 pm

Dave,
If “the other owners could work together and cut them off to the point that they would straighten up or leave”, what would restrain any group of people from getting together and “shunning” someone for any reason, i.e. “We don’t need another stinkin’ donut shop in this neighborhood!”.

To ABR’s point about agreeing in advance to the laws; What is to prevent a person from lying on the form and then doing what they wanted? Only consequences. In that world, everyone gets together in a big room at the age of consent and signs their name in a book of laws? From then on, their behavior always conforms? Or what? By whom? Aren’t we back to the same issue?
Do you see that the argument cannot be resolved. It is not a position that can be defended with facts, only assumptions and speculations. It is not a world that does or has ever existed. But anarchists can invent one from scratch? I don’t think so. It is an interesting “what if”, and nothing more, in my humble opinion.

ABR August 30, 2010 at 5:28 pm

The laws of a society would also determine a process for investigating crime, apprehending criminals, and determining restitution.

Suppose that for all time, the State was in charge of making shoes. Then one day someone proposed that the making of shoes be left to a free market. Could you guarantee that the market would make your size shoe? No. Could you predict how many shoe companies might emerge? No. Could you predict the prices of the shoes sold? No.

Would you then say, gosh, let’s leave it to the State, because we know how it works?

Wildberry August 31, 2010 at 7:20 pm

Thank you ABR.

I was with you right up to the last, when you made the leap to your conclusion. the answers seem simple, although you are making a different point?
‘Could you guarantee that the market would make your size shoe? No.” Yes, if I had something of value to trade for it. Latent production capacity will respond to demand in a free market.
“Could you predict how many shoe companies might emerge? No.” Yes. Enough to fill demand.
“Could you predict the prices of the shoes sold? ” Yes. The prices would be set in the exchange between seller and buyer. Over time this price would tend to normalize because of competitive market forces.

So why would I conclude that I should leave it to the state, unles they so completely satisfied the needs of society, that no one had an economic incentive to compete?

We choose not to leave it to the State precisely because they fail to measure up to what the free market system can deliver. The “States” desire to prevent “free-market intervention” into their markets, therefore is “wrong”.

Where am I going wrong?

Dave Albin August 30, 2010 at 11:08 pm

You can shun anyone you want – freedom of association.

Wildberry August 31, 2010 at 7:22 pm

Yes, true. but is it the same to imagine a group of people getting together and preventing a person from participating in the market because you decide it’s within your rights under “free association?” You can buy or not buy. Sell or not sell. But how far does this “freedom” go before it impinges on the freedoms of another?
Tricky, isn’t it?

Russ the Apostate August 31, 2010 at 7:25 pm

“Tricky, isn’t it?”

Not at all. Choosing to buy or not buy from a person, or sell or not sell to a person, is well within your rights. Choosing to use force to prevent a person from buying from or selling to another is not. Easy peasy.

Wildberry August 30, 2010 at 3:44 pm

Thanks ABR.
“The absence of the State does not imply the absence of governance.” However the absence of governance is implied (required) by anarchy.
The issue of monopoly is another issue, which I oppose. The ability to enforce monopoly is one of the most insidious aspects of state oppression. Although the free-market argument is that a monopoly is a trade government makes to encourage long-term investment in innovation (i.e. your cable company). But it prevents the market from producing a constant stream of superior products and services. Just check out Windows or your local Muni service.
So on this point I agree, the State should not have the ability, at the local, state or Federal levels, to prevent the entry of competitive products and services. But, this is simply a principled restriction on the power of the State, not an argument for the elimination of all forms of governance by consent.

ABR August 30, 2010 at 5:35 pm

“However the absence of governance is implied (required) by anarchy.” — Definitely not! Have a look at Mike Rozeff’s articles on panarchy. Here’s one:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff260.html

My view of panarchy is that it is a free market in governance. You might form the Wildberry society, and Obama might form the Obama society. It is up to you and Obama to devise sets of laws that might appeal to new members.

If there’s a dispute between A and B, and both belong to Society X, then the laws of X apply. If A belongs to X, and B belongs to Y, then side-agreements between X and Y apply.

Sounds complicated? Hold on. The laws would be several magnitudes simpler than the ones we have today, because membership is voluntary. Secondly, although there might be an initial proliferation of legal societies (think auto companies), over time many will merge.

In the end, there might well be fewer societies than there are nations, today. Far fewer, I expect.

Brian Drake August 30, 2010 at 8:09 pm

Wildberry,

“The issue of monopoly is another issue, which I oppose. ”

What is the State but a monopoly?

“[monopoly] prevents the market from producing a constant stream of superior products and services”

Exactly! Your questions above all assume that for one to say that a libertarian society is realistic, that we (the “pure” libertarians) must first describe how the problems of society will be solved (like property protection) in absence of a state. But that’s a question no one can answer because it is the dynamic process of the market that will provide those solutions, not a libertarian theorist trying in futility to play the role of central-planner.

On a practical level, the libertarian recognizes the market’s ability to produce “a constant stream of superior products and services” is not somehow magically inapplicable to the provision of arbitration, security, rules of behavior, education, roads, etc… (i.e., whatever it is “government” is supposed to provide). Take the legitimate services currently monopolized by the State and open them up to the market. What will happen? No one knows and it’s silly to demand that someone must have perfect predictive ability. All we know is that the absence of monopoly is a relative improvement (ceteris paribus) so these services will be provided better and cheaper than under the State.

Morally, the NAP (one way of fundamentally defining libertarianism) and the State are incompatible. Period.

Peter August 30, 2010 at 7:47 pm

Viola, the police State has been created

Great typo! Violá indeed.

John B August 30, 2010 at 12:41 pm

One of the things I noticed during my work with Don Pilkington’s International Institute of Inventors and Innovators, was that patents and copyrights mainly seemed to be of use to the big corporations and companies which had the funds to back up action against infringements.
The small guy never really stood a chance, often seeing his invention taken on by a larger group or company, if it was any good, and not receiving much in return.
Patents and copyrights mainly seemed to protect those who least needed it.
But I’m still not certain about how the originator of an idea should be able to expect to receive a reward for his invention, or not have it taken from him, other than by keeping it secret.

Dave Albin August 30, 2010 at 1:10 pm

You are right that bigger companies benefit from IP much more than smaller ones – I’ve seen this very thing myself (working for a smaller company).

As to your later point – Coca-Cola was never patented, but only a few people know the formula.

newson August 30, 2010 at 7:19 pm

the-first-to-commercialize often retains market share, even after others have copied the product/service.

pro-IP-libertarian August 30, 2010 at 7:30 pm

IP-protected works/products could just be labeled that if found, bought, or received as a gift they can be used, or resold only to be used, but not duplicated or resold to be duplicated. So this is basically in line with the pro-IP position.
.
The minarchist/anarchist dichotomy is an oversimplification. Some, like myself, support minarchy as an intermediate state where sectors could further – when possible/optimal – be privatized piecemeal eventually arriving at something approaching anarcho-capitalism. But in any event lines start to blur when we talk about minarchism/anarchism. Can an association that licenses/qualifies private police contractors and is supported by fees be considered a kind of “government”? Possibly. Depends on a number of variables – who can opt out, what the consequences are, what alternatives they have, etc. So to say anarchy is the “correct” position is glossing over, ignoring, or missing a lot of issues that would need to be identified, defined, and resolved.

newson August 30, 2010 at 9:33 pm

property that is “found” cannot bind the finder to the creator. and gifts, as opposed to contracts, have no strings attached.

if you regard the government in some form as legitimate, then moving beyond that stage would logically be illegitimate. how can one support minarchy as an intermediate phase? surely if it is legitimate then it’s final.

Russ the Apostate August 30, 2010 at 9:56 pm

If one believes that we can’t get to anarcho-libertarianism without going through “minarcho-libertarianism”, and if one believes that anarcho-libertarianism should be the ultimate goal, then I can see how one could say that minarchism is justified as an intermediate phase.

newson August 31, 2010 at 4:42 am

once something is justified, then it is the end-objective.

Russ the Apostate August 30, 2010 at 9:47 pm

I haven’t read this book, and am just going off of Gordon’s review here, but it seems the book has the same problem that many people here do. First, it defines a libertarian as a person who follows the NAP, and then claims that only anarchists are really “pure” libertarians. Well, yeah, that follows from the way you define libertarianism. But is this a good definition? Not to me. To me, libertarianism is first and foremost about wanting to maximize individual freedom. From there on, people disagree. Some people believe that following the NAP is the best way of maximizing individual freedom; others don’t. I consider both kinds libertarians, and I don’t consider one kind more “pure” than the other. They just have differences of opinions. Then there are some who apparently believe that there could be less than maximal freedom with the NAP, and would still prefer following the NAP even if it didn’t maximize individual freedom. I would say that these people are not so much libertarians at all, but NAPitarians, or NAPsters, or whatever. I would bet that Brian Doherty’s “Radicals For Capitalism” (which I have read) gives a much more well-balanced picture of what different libertarians “in the wild” actually believe.

Nappy Chappy August 30, 2010 at 11:56 pm

how could a “little” aggression possibly improve overall freedom?

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 12:03 am

He believes that the gangsters from his neck of the woods are intrinsically better than gangsters from other parts of the world, “his” gangsters will take better care of him for some unexplained reason.

Oh, and though they can not do anything well in any other field, due to all the reasons those familiar with Austrian economics understand, only his government can protect him from freelance criminals.

Russ the Apostate August 31, 2010 at 12:08 am

If anarchy (no aggression by a government) results in a situation where criminals or foreign enemies can more easily get away with violating the rights of others, whereas a minimal government (some aggression by a government) results in a situation where there are less rights violations (or at least less severe ones), then anarchy is not the state of maximal freedom. This is not exactly a radical notion; it’s what most people believe.

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 12:15 am

What most people believe is not what constitutes what’s radical or not. Most everyone was radically wrong when they advocated chattel slavery, and almost identically, they are all radically wrong today when they almost all advocate political slavery.

Brian Drake August 31, 2010 at 12:28 am

If YOU are fine with “some aggression by a government” being committed against YOU to “maximize individual freedom”, go for it.

The problem is, that you, as a minarchist, are fine with “some aggression by a government” being committed against ME and others. Since that is what you knowingly advocate (recognizing that minarchy still involves aggression), that means you advocate aggression against me and others.

At the very least, that makes you an a**hole. Arguably, that also makes you a criminal.

And that’s “libertarianism” to you?

I don’t mind if you want to be a slave (have someone other than you own you), but you have no right to demand that I also be made a slave just so you feel safe.

Raynor August 31, 2010 at 1:26 am

“First, it defines a libertarian as a person who follows the NAP, and then claims that only anarchists are really “pure” libertarians. Well, yeah, that follows from the way you define libertarianism.”

I adhere to the NAP because of many factors, such as empathy and economic causality, that preclude me from harming another human being or even advocating such. I distinguish myself here from the crowd that preaches the NAP for the sake of NAP itself, as if it’s some unquestionable commandment from Rothgod.

Furthermore, I see a problem rearing its ugly head with regards to contemporary discussion of the NAP among Rothbardians. The definition of non-aggression varies among individuals holding a diversity of moral standards and justifications. You cannot just assume that the NAP is this, and that you have monopoly over its meaning. What is considered the NAP under the Rothbardian framework is based on arbitrary appeals to property reductionism. They hold no weight outside of aforementioned tunnel vision, and its ghastly implications are sure to invoke hostility toward the “sacred tenant of libertarianism”.

Peter August 30, 2010 at 10:33 pm

Some people believe that following the NAP is the best way of maximizing individual freedom; others don’t.

Some people believe that the best way of maximizing individual freedom is to have Kim Jong Il running the world (e.g., Kim Jong Il believes this). Are these people libertarians, then? I say no. Your idea of “libertarianism” is simply Incorrect.

Russ the Apostate August 30, 2010 at 11:12 pm

Strawman much?

mpolzkill August 30, 2010 at 11:28 pm

Yes, Peter there is no need to strawman this guy with the goofy persecution complex (Russ “the Apostate”, be sure to have him tell you his fantasy about why so many people dislike him). You could say, “some people believe that the best way of maximizing individual freedom is to give the American government more power to spy on Americans”, or, “some Americans think that Muslims in caves on the other side of the world restrict their liberty more than the U.S. government does.”

Paris Hilton August 31, 2010 at 12:02 am

The civilized world cannot rest whilst cornflower-blue burkhas roam Afghanistan untrammeled. Peace will not come until the G-string rules. Go America!

Russ the Apostate August 31, 2010 at 12:27 am

In some cases, I am all for burkhas. I live near Dearborn MI, where there is a large Arabic population. Don’t get me wrong, some Arabic women are very hot. (Rima Fakih, she’s G-string material!) But believe me, after seeing some other Arabic women, I can tell why they started the custom of burkhas; they hadn’t invented paper bags yet!

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 12:33 am

Lovely. I guess he’d like it to be true that they “hate us for our freedom”.

Russ the Apostate August 31, 2010 at 12:19 am

“Russ “the Apostate”, be sure to have him tell you his fantasy about why so many people dislike him”

I mainly keep the “Apostate” nickname because I know that it cheeses you off so much.

“some Americans think that Muslims in caves on the other side of the world restrict their liberty more than the U.S. government does.”

Some Muslims, funded and inspired by another Muslim hiding in a cave half way around the world, “restricted the liberty” of about 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, to a degree much greater than their rights were ever violated by the American government. And if Iran gets nukes and gives some to terrorists, we could be pining for the days when only 3,000 people get killed in terrorist attacks on US soil. But hey, no matter, let’s all pretend that Islamic extremism is not a serious problem, because doing otherwise would conflict with NAPster dogma.

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 12:31 am

“cheeses you off so much”

I tell him that I don’t care if he makes an ass of himself, I feel sorry for him. And knowing that dishonest people assume dishonesty in others (and that’s close to the root of his love for “his” state), I know he’ll then keep the ridiculous handle.There are a million more effective ways he propagandizes against libertarians he doesn’t like.

If Iran gets nukes there will be no group more responsible than this buffoon’s government, just as there was no group more responsible on 9/11. That is: in their pathetic security measures, their systematic infantalizing of the American population, and in their constant military and economic outrages throughout the world. This headcase here, who is as ignorant about religion as he is about politics, believes they attacked out of pure insanity, apparently. Meanwhile, they *are* winning and driving us all to the poor house.

Russ the Apostate August 31, 2010 at 12:49 am

“If Iran gets nukes there will be no group more responsible than this buffoon’s government, just as there was no group more responsible on 9/11. That is: in their pathetic security measures…”

But if their security measures are not pathetic, you would complain about them for violating privacy or something. It must be nice to have an ideology that is so well innoculated that it can’t be wrong, no matter what.

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 12:57 am

Lame. Of course one can almost never be wrong opposing an all-consuming government. They were in charge of the planes, they’re in charge of almost everything. They should not be, they can’t deliver the freaking mail. Locks on the cockpit doors, as some underlings in the FAA begged for, would have done the trick against those demons with box cutters.

Brian Drake August 31, 2010 at 12:36 am

“But hey, no matter, let’s all pretend that Islamic extremism is not a serious problem”

It’s not, and you’re a hysterical coward to think otherwise.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

Russ the Apostate August 31, 2010 at 12:45 am

Brian Drake wrote:
“It’s not, and you’re a hysterical coward to think otherwise.”

Yeah, that’s it. It couldn’t be that the government is actually preventing some terrorist acts from taking place. Why don’t you try to shove 9/11 down the Memory Hole, while you’re at it? After all, it’s so inconvenient for your ideology.

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 12:52 am

It is so *not at all* inconvenient, and he knows it. That is why until now he has run away every time the subject has been brought up (I suspect he is only hanging around this first time here because he is drinking). And if you discuss the beefs the thugs had he’ll stupidly call you a “leftist”. His government was powerless to prevent the attack that they massively instigated. There couldn’t be a better example of why his idiots “protecting us” is the last thing we need.

Paris Hilton August 31, 2010 at 1:09 am

The patriots at the Pentagon who sadly couldn’t save their own palace from a commercial aircraft are going to keep us nice and safe through their superior intelligence. Go America!

Raynor August 31, 2010 at 9:29 am

“let’s all pretend that Islamic extremism is not a serious problem, because doing otherwise would conflict with NAPster dogma.”

Didn’t you know? The middle-east is a hotbed of ancaptopias. They have merely been subjugated to the tyranny of western imperialism and are now fighting back. Blow back is the sole reason why we’re facing violent repercussion from teh Muslims. I’m also an American who has never crossed the borders of my own county who enjoys exercises in confirmation bias.

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 9:40 am

I’m not following you here, Raynor, sorry. Anyway, “Russ the Wannabe’s” strawmen are so extensive they can be approached from a multitude of angles. Of course millions upon milions of seriously aggrieved Muslims are a huge problem, it’s maybe the biggest reason his government must be disbanded immediately.

Dave Albin August 31, 2010 at 11:34 am

Self-defense – of course. What’s going to happen when we pull our troops out of the warzones – to innocent people there, and to people who have grown to hate us by being there? I’m not saying there is an easy answer…

Fallon August 31, 2010 at 5:32 am

Butler Shaffer points out that the neocons and warmongers aim at creating an impression that there is an “Islamic” threat, religious in nature, when the reality is that the major attacks on western targets sprung from political motivations.

Paris Hilton August 31, 2010 at 9:34 am

You’ve obviously never got hit by an airborne sandal. Those things are deadly. Go America!

Raynor August 31, 2010 at 12:25 pm

“Butler Shaffer points out that the neocons and warmongers aim at creating an impression that there is an “Islamic” threat, religious in nature, when the reality is that the major attacks on western targets sprung from political motivations.”

Butler Shaffer should stop stroking himself in the Rockwellite echo-chamber and take a look at MEMRI TV for once.

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 12:46 pm

Ah, so much interesting stuff today, I can’t pull myself away. Checking some of that out, very funny stuff. This guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdLpxmN9SRo

is apparently the Arab Chris Rock. The persecution complexes are very similar, and what do you know, the same bogeyman…hmmm.

Now it’s becoming more clear to me, looks like you are another war salesman, unwittingly or not.

“I’m also an American who has never crossed the borders of my own county who enjoys exercises in confirmation bias.”

I’d say the most influencial experience in my life was just out of my teens living with peasants in one of the U.S. Empire’s closer, but still outlying plantations. I was there helping rebuild an earthquake damaged Costa Rican church (observing *that* kind of Imperialism is another story) and it was the start of *my* life-long hatred of mercantilism.

Raynor August 31, 2010 at 1:22 pm

“Ah, so much interesting stuff today, I can’t pull myself away. Checking some of that out, very funny stuff. This guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdLpxmN9SRo

is apparently the Arab Chris Rock. The persecution complexes are very similar, and what do you know, the same bogeyman…hmmm.”

It’s nice of you to pick out the ideal material for erecting a straw men. Must I do the searching for you child?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtt8V25lGmc&feature=related

Are Nonie Darwish and Ayaan Hirsi-Ali tacit warmongers who chase booger men?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmRSE02mwjo

“Now it’s becoming more clear to me, looks like you are another war salesman, unwittingly or not.”

Really? And here I thought that you were trying put forth a spurious argument that would automatically declare you the winner, and shield you from any sort of future criticism. I see that repackaged social contract theories are very popular on this blog.

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 1:28 pm

“Must I do the searching for you, [inadvisable slur]”

That was the first one I ran into, asshole. I’ll check these out too, thanks so much.

Morons + mercantilists = permanent war.

Big deal, I don’t want to win, I want to stop being robbed to murder people, I wish you’d smarten up.

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 1:39 pm

I’ve seen all of this stuff, and documentaries about the Hitler Youth and Sarah Palin rallies, too. Very big deal.

Let me tell you how Empire works, son: The best example I know of is during the extermination of all Ute men. After pushing them further and further towards the worthless “Four Corners” area, the gangsters appointed the most vile and Indian-hating governor they could to enrage and provoke them. When the target group almost inevitably does something stupid, that’s the pretext to open up the slaughter. You see, when you apply serious pressure to a group, the hotheads always rise to the top and a very nasty general process is put into the works (as shown in your videos). Works every time, worked really well on the Japanese throughout the 20s and 30s, working great in Gaza today.

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 2:45 pm

Now I’ve watched your second propaganda video, junior, and I’m reminded of the other great tool of Empire: Quislings and Toms. Nothing she said regarding the indoctrination of children in school and church can not also be said about the indoctrination of American children in school and church…*except*…warfare and conversion require completely different tactics for weaker groups.

The treatment of women in much of Islam *and* in much of the West is generally deplorable. And there’s another near parallel between American ghetto culture and Arab ghetto culture that I don’t find to be a coincidence.

Raynor August 31, 2010 at 2:28 pm

“I’ve seen all of this stuff, and documentaries about the Hitler Youth and Sarah Palin rallies, too. Very big deal.”

What does this even mean?

“Let me tell you how Empire works, son: The best example I know of is during the extermination of all Ute men. After pushing them further and further towards the worthless “Four Corners” area, the gangsters appointed the most vile and Indian-hating governor they could to enrage and provoke them. When the target group almost inevitably does something stupid, that’s the pretext to open up the slaughter. You see, when you apply serious pressure to a group, the hotheads always rise to the top and a very nasty general process is put into the works (as shown in your videos). Works every time, worked really well on the Japanese throughout the 20s and 30s, working great in Gaza today.”

If you are alluding to some conspiracy by western belligerents using puppet rulers to incite the Muslim population to violence and adherence to barbaric social norms, through the use of religious indoctrination, then you’re going to have to provide some serious evidence for that claim. Where do Islamic groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, that call for the restoration of the caliphate fit into all of this?

mpolzkill August 31, 2010 at 2:48 pm

“What does this even mean?”

I’ve seen children all over the world indoctrinated in violent stupidity, momo.

“If you are alluding to some conspiracy by western belligerents using puppet rulers to incite the Muslim population to violence and adherence to barbaric social norms, through the use of religious indoctrination…”

Woof, you’re dumber than I thought. Now I’ve lost all interest.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: