Anyway, Cantwell disassembles his arguments with dramatic flourish. Some responses he provides are less compelling than others, but those that claim to be atheist or those that believe that paying your taxes, calling your senator, and voting is compatible with Christianity ought to watch this video.
An oldie, but goodie. In this one, Cantwell takes apart an argument provided by a self-proclaimed atheist who is anything but. Cantwell *is* an atheist, while I am most certainly not, I can appreciate the integrity of his position and the fact that he manages to come around to the Truth in so many things. Had he been raised by decent Catholics, he may not have had so strong an aversion to the philosophy which so closely parallels his own.
Anyway, Cantwell disassembles his arguments with dramatic flourish. Some responses he provides are less compelling than others, but those that claim to be atheist or those that believe that paying your taxes, calling your senator, and voting is compatible with Christianity ought to watch this video.
0 Comments
I may be over-delivering on my promise of more Rothbard. Maybe I'll have to loosen my self-imposed restriction on Tom Woods resources so as to give readers a break from Rothbard and hardcore economics.
A common question presented to free-market anarchists is "Without government, who will break up evil corporate monopolies?" There's a million legitimate and complimentary answers to that question, and I intend to begin writing posts covering my favorites in the future, but most of those posts are going to wind up being derivative of Rothbard. So, I might as well provide my inspiration for my favorite answers:
A one-hour lecture (40-minutes-ish if you listen at an accelerated rate, gotta love youtube) on competition and monopoly and a foundational argument that corporate monopoly can only exist when someone has a monopoly on force (you know, government). Of course, it's Rothabrd himself, demonstrating first principles in his charming and concise way.
In the spirit of Rothbard, Walter Block presents a treatise on the relationship between crime and economic manipulation, semi-appropriate ethical indignation and the unintended consequences of using violence to try to prevent those ethically unappealing actions.
In Defending the Undefendable, Walter Block defends the heroin dealer, the speculator, the employer of child labor, and the man who screams "fire" in a crowded theater against accusations of economic perversity and harming the social order. He does so quite effectively. After reading this book, one who is educated in economics will have to seriously reconsider support of a minimum wage and legal prohibitions against child labor. The introduction, written by Rothbard himself, makes it clear that while the people defended in Block's book are heroes because of the role they play economically and the adversity they face in reducing the friction of a politically-controlled economic system, this is not a moral defense of the particular actions the people make. For instance, a heroin dealer could very well be a boon to the market and a hero in face of the evils of government while also perpetrating an immoral or unethical act (such as selling poison to people, even if it is a voluntary interactions). As compelling, concise, and informative as the book is as a whole, there is one chapter, however, that doesn't seem to belong. The defense of the "Male Chauvinist Pig" was less an economic defense of chauvinism and much more an incoherent and aggressive defense of feminist talking points, most prominent of which being the importance of abortion. This defense of abortion is actually inconsistent with a much more compelling case he makes later on in the case of defending "The Employer of Child Labor". All-in-all, though, this book is a must-read for anyone who believes in the free market but hasn't critically assessed their position on "the undefendable" as of yet, people who are genuinely interested in reducing crime and increasing the quality of life for the poor, and those that still believe that government violence can somehow improve the world. Each chapter is a few pages long, very direct and to the point. One can acquire the book for free in digital form from the Mises Institute, or purchase a hardcopy at Amazon. I strongly recommend that you do so.
This is how police should treat people... and how people should treat police.
One of the single greatest reasons I intend to move to New Hampshire is this: A few guys (some openly carrying guns) take chalk and write polite but firm anti-cop messages all over the sidewalk in front of the police station. Instead of coming out, beating, and arresting these men, a solitary officer comes out for a nice lunch-break chat about how government is an unnecessary evil. In many other places around the country, as mentioned in the video below, people would be executed on the spot simply for having a gun, let alone writing chalk messages in front of a police station. Like Cantwell, I believe that if someone, anyone is attempting to rob, murder, or coerce you, you have an obligation to stop them at any cost. However, if someone is dressed like a criminal but not attempting to commit a crime against you, then you have an obligation to at least give them a chance. This video demonstrates this second situation perfectly.
I really don't know why liberty people don't want Cantwell​ around. He can be coarse, but the Truth is coarse. He sticks to the fundamentals because, without fundamentals, you can't go anywhere good. When it comes down to it, Cantwell has accomplished more for freedom by chalking sidewalks, pointing guns at drunks, and having cops out for coffee than everything done by Jeffrey A. Tucker​ or Austin Petersen​ combined.
https://youtu.be/Uqoh_xRYGuM As promised, here's more Rothbard. After a week of topical posts, I thought it would be appropriate to suggest a more timeless resource. Few things are as timeless as Rothbard. I was listening to an episode of Radical Agenda, and a caller reminded me of a short essay by Rothbard that lent itself heavily to my conversion from techno-marxism to anarchism.
It's a surprisingly difficult article to find and, somehow, the only places I've been able to find it is on leftist websites. This is ironic, as it is essentially taking the legitimate tools of the lest and turhing them to the ends of liberty and justice. The main thrust of the article is about a practical and principled solution to "public" property (ie. state property) in the hypothetical case of an orderly dissolution of government. Everyone, even those who know Rothbard, ought to read this article, as it presents a solution very similar to my own when people ask about what would happen to existing state infrastructure and corporations that are in bed with the state in an anarchist world. Confiscation and the Homestead Principle is a work that ought to be published right alongside For a New Liberty, maybe even as an appendix. There is a certain dry irony to the essay, as it essentially takes the kernel of truth hidden in marxism and sets it in the greater framework of anarcho-capitalism, exactly where it belongs. There is a veiled but undeniable call for what amounts to the proletariat to occupy and overthrow the state's management of their places of work, much as there is in Marx's works. Unlike Marx, though, Rothbard points out that such a repossession is not one centered on vengeance, labor theory, or class warfare, but instead on the basic principles of property rights and calling out the state on its rhetoric concerning "public property".
As I've said before, Cantwell, with rare exception, tends to say exactly what I'm thinking in more or less the way I'm thinking it. He has an incredibly rational, well-read, and solidly grounded approach and interpretation of facts. I'm not saying this because I agree with him, I'm saying it because he's managed to make me critically assess my beliefs and has led to me changing my position on a handful of things. He's got a grasp of economics and the human condition that rivals and even surpasses that of Andreas M Antonopoulos.
He doesn't always couch his arguments in the most dispassionate or compassionate manner, but that's not his rhetorical style. What he does is effective, and that's why those unable to measure up to his standards of integrity and knowledgeability are apt to attempting to silence and exile him. It is ironic that the anarchist, atheist, asshole, with a criminal record from New York City is, quite literally, the conscience of "the liberty movement".
He recently posted what has rapidly become his most popular piece of work by a tremendous margin. It was a response to the SCotUS' ruling mandating religious support of gay marriage licenses. Unlike many people who simply look at such issues as either, "Yay! Gays!" or "Boo! Gays!" Cantwell and I have an identical and less-conventional position on such issues: tell the state to mind it's own goddamned business.
As is the case with any other economic or human social issue, government involvement makes everything worse rather than better. The state has absolutely no reason, moral or otherwise to concern itself with the voluntary interactions of human beings, nor they types of agreements (or contracts, for those who believe in contracts) that humans make between themselves. The Church has no reason to try to make sinners the enemy of the state and use violence to try to force them to behave morally, as it will only increase opposition to the Church, and justly so. When did Christ ever take a sword to the adulterer? In the same way, the state cannot use violence to force the Church to acknowledge the state's claim to redefine an institution as old as the human race in order to garner political support. Inserting itself into the voluntary interactions of humans: forcing cake shops to serve customers, punishing churches that will not abandon their sacramental duties, and creating any number of perverse economic incentives will not make discrimination go away, it will justify and magnify it. Just as people are incentivized to kill endangered species that come to roost on private property, they are incentivized to make protected classes of humans go away when they come to roost. Before any commenters speak up, I am totally aware that I plug a lot of Tom Woods on this part of the blog. Some day, I will be plugging a lot of Rothbard and Spooner, but I need to get my priorities sorted out with them... they were very prolific writers and, while it would behove anyone and everyone to read the entirety of their works, I feel it would be prudent to focus on the highlight reel in this section. I am doing the same with Woods, currently.
14 Hard Questions for Libertarians: Answered is an excellent resource. Where reading Rothbard and thinking things through from first principles (fundamental economics, the NAP, etc.) will inevitably produce the same or similar answers to those in this book, it is an amazingly simple and accessible resource for beginners, people who can't be bothered making freshman-level arguments with detractors, and people who may have done all the heavy lifting themselves and may have a couple blind spots. I, personally, land in all three categories. I'm an anarchist of only about two years, and I have a lot of catching up to do, I've already cited and linked to this book twice on facebook in arguments with people that are intelligent but ignorant, and was surprised to find myself reassessing some of my stances on things. Most especially my position on Prisons in a Free Society has come into question, and I've been inspired to do more reading in primary sources and more critical thinking about how I arrived at my position. I expect to make a full blog post in the future, once I'm done researching and revising my position. I know I share a lot of Christopher Cantwell's material on this resource list, but when a man is right, he's right. Where other people are right and receive credit for being so, Cantwell is more right and receives almost no credit for it, because he refuses to temper his message of truth with platitudes or concessions. This podcast episode is no exception. If one is of delicate disposition or is unable to handle raw, unadulterated truth screamed at one's earholes (I'm not sure why they are reading my blog), they may want to sit this one out.
Despite the language and the yelling, though, this man is more intelligent than a majority of the "liberty movement" and has an education to back it up. The two-hour commitment of this resource is infinitely more valuable than the George Washington post I shared a few days ago, so if you watched Molyneux, you really must watch Cantwell. I have been slowly assembling a post about monopolies, as my more economically literate friends tend to fall on monopolies for their reason that anarchy cannot work. This is not the case, for a great many reasons. This article goes into a good explanation for some of them. I know I share a lot of Tom Woods' material, but given that he is so prolific and so right, I can't help it.
While some of this discussion my be a little outside the comprehension of someone who hasn't been involved or interested in the cryptocurrency space, I think Episode 211 of Let's Talk Bitcoin has something to offer even the people outside the space with regards to the ideals of DAPS and how they apply to economics and technology.
|
Archives
September 2015
Categories
All
|