tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1157548180598923042024-03-13T12:10:58.590-07:00The Free RadicalAn Education in the Fundamentals of Liberty
(It's not rocket science)Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-7128311296033829682013-09-09T19:22:00.000-07:002013-09-09T19:28:12.890-07:00The Statist Mess of Syria<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>How Would a Free Society Handle it?</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The question of how a free society would handle the Syrian situation has come up recently. Such a question is out of context. The likely scenario is that the circumstances in Syria would not exist as it does today for a number of reasons.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That notwithstanding let's take a look at the question from the perspective of liberty. A free society would not carry the burden of a state. There would be no entity posturing as we currently witness. Likely there would be a number of dispute resolution organizations (DROs) in existence. Their incentive, like any business would be to maximize profits. They would not be incentivized to unnecessarily expend resources. So a strike or similar action would be in reaction to requests from its customers, in defense of property. The DRO would be contractually bound to avoid the use of aggressive actions. If a DRO broke its contractual obligations, the contracts with clients would be subject to nullification and revenues would be lost. So a DRO engaging in aggressive activity would subject itself to increased cost and declining revenues. It would face financial ruin.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I would venture that most activities (and not likely from DROs) would be in the form of aid to refugees. By the way, both (or more) parties to war lose, in more ways, but in addition to, as a result of people fleeing an area. People would voluntarily aid those that are seeking to leave especially those that have friends and relatives "caught in the crossfire".</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Back to the aggressive part of the conflict. A DRO would likely be strongly opposed to action in the event its clients and their property are not threatened. It simply would not have the incentive to act aggressively.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Many claim that DROs would need to be of significant size to counter or to deter actions of aggressive nation states. (Realistically few societies would opt to become stateless at least in the short term.) And if a DRO would become comparable in size to the federal government, many assert that there would be no difference in such a behemoth from what we have now in the federal government. Not true.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There are a mountain of differences. Most notably a DRO would not be a coercive entity. That is, it would not be in a position to compel compliance. So those that would become unsatisfied with a DRO's performance would seek alternative protection. The DRO would be highly responsive to customer demands or face economic distress. A DRO would not have the ability to finance wars or actions by debasing the currency. The direct cost of such activities would be born by the customers and if they were unable to bare such cost, the war or aggressive action would cease or be avoided in the first place.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In short, a free society is likely to diminish tensions and to deal most effectively when property rights have been violated. It is also more likely that innocents who are caught in the crossfire would be recipients of aid. A free society would likely be a more peaceful and productive world. Only those who support aggression would resist a society. Liberty. Spread the word.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-24944069913282488452013-07-28T09:30:00.000-07:002013-07-28T09:30:50.148-07:00Justice for Trayvon? Not Possible.<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now that the bulk of the Sunday morning quarterbacking is behind us (ok, I know it will be a while yet), I thought I would take my shot at evaluating whether "justice was served" in the Trayvon Martin case.<br />Unlike the egomaniacs that have been on tv, radio and the internet, I cannot comment on the facts of the case. Why? I did not witness the trial in its entirety. I did not receive the jury instructions. I did not listen to the testimony in its full context. Whereas the egomaniacs know the unknowable, no reasonable person can make such a claim.<br />But I can apply what I know about economics and political philosophy. We all can.<br />To begin my analysis, let me define monopoly. In concert with property rights, every individual is at liberty to employ his own property in any way he sees fit, and to enter any line of production deemed profitable. In distinct contrast, monopoly and monopolistic competition are defined by the absence of free entry, i.e., as the presence of exclusive privilege. And Hoppe explains that as a result of the barrier to entry, ie the absence of alternatives, prices will necessarily be higher and the quality of the product or service produced is necessarily lower.</span><div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Most support this concept when applied to the marketplace. Very few are in favor of a monopoly when it comes to automobile manufacturing, textile production, agricultural products or anything else. Most object to having even a relatively small number of suppliers (oil companies, airlines, phone service etc.). The populace clamors for government intervention even at the suspicion of "collusion". And there are a number of examples in US history (think of the AT&T breakup in 1974 and an infinite amount of ongoing regulation, never mind the intervention which creates the necessity for large scale operations).<br />It is the anarcho-capitalist who understands these concepts; that it is the free market which provides for the greatest abundance and diversity of goods. It is the free market that ensures the lowest price and the highest quality of goods and services are available.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now we come to the point where the free society advocate separates himself. Where most (the statists) believe there should be two classes of people (the rulers and the ruled), the advocate of a free society does not. He steadfastly supports equality universally. He therefore asserts that monopolistic characteristics apply to markets as well as state activities. The state court (being a monopoly, by definition) necessarily provides services at a higher price and a lower quality than a court subject to competitive forces. So can I say that Trayvon or George Zimmerman received justice? I cannot. No more than most would claim to receive a low price or a high quality product or service from the postal service, the DOT, the IRS, public education and the myriad of state services. Economic reasoning supports this claim. The counterclaim is based in indoctrination and emotional support of the state.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Like all services that are monopolized, the legal system is necessarily provided at a higher price and a lower level of service than would otherwise exist. A free market for courts would necessarily make the dispensation of justice less expensive.<br />Do not to confuse the decisions of any monopoly court system with that of the dispensation of justice.</span></div>
Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-33230058875440934922013-07-13T16:38:00.001-07:002013-07-13T16:40:51.927-07:00Liberty is an Intellectual Pursuit<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As you may imagine, I have engaged in my fair share of political debates.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the vast majority of these debates, I have mostly engaged those that see themselves on equal footing. There may have been the instance when I have been overmatched intellectually, of course, but not in philosophical position. I have not once had an opponent yield to a better understanding of the philosophical and economic issues. And there is reason for this...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As a result of one's indoctrination and of the current political climate, most see such a difference as one of a difference of opinion. These opinions are based on a subset of facts and statistics combined with one's experience. The more analytical see their scholastic effort of choice as an intellectual pursuit. Being familiar with an intellectual pursuit one might be inclined to credit another for his intellectual interest of liberty. Not so. Not in my experience. Those of a less analytical inclination - those engaged in a less analytical scholastic choice and those of a more cultured interest tend to swiftly dismiss the libertarian on a purely difference of opinion basis. Still they see their academic pursuits as necessary and fulfilling. They see no merit in an intellectual pursuit of liberty.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The media plays a role. Most major media outlets have a political bent that favors the "right" or the "left" or holds a position in between. To the advocate for liberty, these are essentially the same statist positions and unwittingly support injustice, war, death and destruction. Indoctrination, from an early age, may play the most crucial role. The young are likely the product of statist thinking parents. They enter the state school at an early age. Later they attend state supported colleges and universities. Still later, they either work for the state, work for a business that relies on the state for business, for regulatory compliance or in another important role. Still, at the end of life, many rely on the state for end of life medical care, retirement funding and more. Society is a product of the state. These and many other reasons cause the majority to favor the state without question.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Intellectual discovery plays little or no role in making a case for the state.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The difference of those who support the state and those who advocate liberty is a difference in their level of understanding.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Those who steadfastly advocate for liberty mostly do as an intellectual pursuit (my experience). Little or usually no credit is given for a greater understanding of philosophical concepts. A number of have dedicated their intellectual life to the understanding the political philosophy of liberty. Many institutions and organizations base their existence on such a pursuit. Likely the brightest institution today is the Mises Institute and there are many more.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I encourage all to visit mises.org or other sites that provide an intellectual foundation for an understanding of the case for liberty. All should take the time to do so.</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-74417351326472079352013-05-26T08:55:00.000-07:002013-05-26T08:55:42.653-07:00False Accusations Against a Private Law Society<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I am not kidding myself here, likely no statist reader will be compelled to learn more. They will continue to be dismissive of the philosophy of peace as they are trapped by their indoctrination. They will continue to support the use of aggressive force against those who hold the opposing position.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There are so many false claims against a private law society. Maybe the most common comment is that there will be lawlessness, chaos. Some statists will go as far as to say voluntaryists have a better idea in theory, but voluntaryists don't recognize the realities of the world. There are bad people "out there". And what about the people who just won't "go along" with this utopian world? Other "realists" will acknowledge that there are some "bad" people in government or that there are some "bad" policies, but on balance, this is the best government in the history of mankind. "We" are the greatest! "This is the greatest nation on earth!" If you do not agree, you are "unAmerican". And "if you don't like it, you can just leave."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When a libertarian says that there should be no law against prostitution, the statists claim the libertarians are for prostitution. When a libertarian asserts it is unjust to prohibit the use of "drugs" it is said that libertarians are for drugs. When an anarcho-capitalist claims the very existence of the state is a violation of property rights he is immediately accused of just being nuts.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Few even go the tiniest step toward real debate (thinking). The bulk of statists simply dismiss the idea from the start. They do not understand one iota of the stateless society philosophy. It is foolishness chasing after some utopia, they say.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A stateless society, I am told, is one in which there is no mechanism to protect the innocent. It is a society in which the wealthy and evil will overtake the innocent and the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. The following narrative addresses these false assertions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A free society is the essence of justice, peace, wealth and stability. A description of the functioning of a stateless society, however, holds uncertainty. The simple reason is that it is the marketplace that will provide for the needs of society. (Those of you who dispute this, continue to use the computer (and everything else for that matter) that you currently have in use!) Exactly how the marketplace will respond to any demand is unknowable. However, a very likely scenario is that the market will provide for a mechanism that is commonly referred to as a DRO (dispute resolution organization). This enterprise is likely to be a vertically integrated firm; possibly with an enforcement arm (private police), an arbitration department (private courts) and an insurance component. Each individual or family will purchase the services of such a firm to provide many of the protections that the state claims to supply currently (it in fact does the opposite - another writing). So many ask, why not just continue the current system? We have these services now. And many assert that the state works for them quite well. Further, the wealthy could "control" or corrupt these organizations using their "power" and influence.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let's assume such a scenario. In the event a DRO was not performing to your satisfaction, would you not fire them as you currently do a plumber, physician or retail store? Would you be more careful in hiring your next supplier? And if it happens that you are in a dispute with an incredibly wealthy and "powerful" person, would you find a DRO that would represent you to the fullest extent of your rights? It is the fact that you can fire such a firm that provides the incentive for responsiveness to needs. Try firing the current legal system!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the event you have a dispute with an extremely wealthy and "powerful" person in the current paradigm, the legal system will represent you, right? But will it do it well or to your satisfaction? You are in an uphill battle because the resources your adversary is likely to expend to complicate, delay and dare I say "influence" the proceedings. We all know this could not happen! The rich and famous gain no favors from the state. That is not possible under the law! Jurors are not influenced. Judges have never been corrupted. There is no corruption, especially at the highest levels of government. It simply does not happen. The state is the defender of the innocent. It is the referee! Nothing could be further from the truth.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the event such indiscretions occur in a private law society, you simply fire your DRO. (You could possibly bring suit against your former DRO.) In the statist system, you are left to appeal to a higher court of the same organization. In a free society, when a significant number of customers become dissatisfied with the performance of their DRO, it either responds to these criticisms with an improved service or it is removed from the marketplace through bankruptcy, much like any failing business (with the exceptions of banks, financial institutions, automobile companies, green technologies, business that are deemed "to big to fail" by the state, favored enterprises, the US post office, Amtrak etc. (sorry, I got off track there)).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Think about this for a moment. In a system where there is a monopoly of supply (there is only one supplier by law (the courts for example)) if a powerful person gains influence, you have no alternative pursuit. This powerful person has been able to wrest control of the final arbiter of the land. Case closed. In a private law society, you have alternatives. Which society sounds "fairer" to you?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I understand, many people will question the ability to pay for such services. There is much to describe here, but the short answer is that there would be no income tax removed from your pay in a free society. You would have vastly more resources to engage in such a battle (and your risk would be <i>voluntarily</i> pooled). Further, a DRO would likely be skilled at recovering costs from the guilty party or the representatives thereof.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is much more to discuss, however, use the comment section to ask questions or simply read from the masters of the libertarian philosophy.</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-45161284782802286342013-04-20T08:40:00.000-07:002013-04-23T17:31:17.975-07:00The Root of the Speculation<h3>
It's Crazy People (Wait a Minute)</h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the subsequent manhunt, there is considerable chatter regarding the two young men that are reported to have taken part in the attack. Two sides shape the discussion of the debate. One is in lockstep support of the state and its efforts to track, kill and finally capture the remaining "person of interest" (there are no suspects anymore). Then there is the side that is typically referred to as "the conspiracy theorists" who base their case on wild speculation and not the facts on hand. But is this so?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What causes such dichotomy?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Both sides claim to understand the facts. The state supporters have seen the video of the terrorists on the day of the bombing. They have listened diligently to the reports on the radio and television. They have payed attention to a variety of sources. They have the truth. And it is obvious.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The conspiracy theorists question all of the "facts" of the story. They circulate many varieties of a potential conspiracy. Were the two men in question set up by the state only to have law enforcement later capture them and play the part of the hero? Were the two men planted by the Russian, Iranian, US or other government? Were they militant religious fanatics? What was their motivation? Were these men actually behind the bombings at all? Were the videos doctored?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Two perspectives are in play here. One is fully inclined to back the state. These are likely not philosophical statists. They are statists by default. That is, they have never given any thought to the existence of the state. The conspiracy theorists may question the incentives of the state. They may even have a philosophical difference with the existence of the state. Or they may have had a bad experience with the state (my guess is that this is the more likely scenario). But it is likely that the argument of both sides are born of emotionalism.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So let's look at the role of incentives. But first, just what is the state? The state is an agency that insists that all conflicts among the inhabitants of its territory be brought before it for ultimate decision-making. It is a monopoly regarding the adjudication of conflict. Additionally, it unilaterally determines the price citizens must pay for this service. This creates perverse incentives.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Might the state have the incentive to act according to these perverse incentives? Of course it does. Have they acted on them? No one can tell for sure. The state supporters believe or hope that the state will act in concert with the will of the people. The conspiracy theorists at least doubt this or may be convinced the state is evil. One appears to have an understanding of incentives, one refuses to consider that the state is influenced by incentives. On a particular case, such as the Boston Marathon bombing both could be wrong. Who is to know. But I do ask the questions as I understand the state has perverse incentives in play.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As a supporter for liberty, I do understand the state will act ultimately in its interest as any entity would. To deny this is to deny the fundamental nature of man. The state is aggressive force. It must be so as invasion is the only tool at its disposal.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To side with liberty is controversial at best in this society. One risks being ostracized. One must have knowledge, but also the courage of such conviction to act in concert with an understanding of liberty.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So let the propaganda games continue between the state supporters and the conspiracy theorists. Enjoy the show. But always consider the underlying incentives of any act, person or agency.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Liberty! Learn, think, teach!</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-20356927273900441932013-03-31T08:27:00.001-07:002013-03-31T08:27:42.841-07:00How Would it Work? Anarcho-capitalism.<h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It's an Absurd Question</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When contemplating a stateless (private law) society, most question how such a society would operate. They often dismiss the concept altogether as unworkable. <span style="background-color: white;">Such questions and dismissals stem from largely two roots. In the citizenry, the questions and dismissals originate from a lack of understanding - the full comprehension of the state and an improved understanding of a private law society. The purpose of this writing is to improve that level of understanding.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The advocate for justice (synonymous with peace and freedom) sees the question of how a private law society might work as absurd.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From the view of the justice advocate, the state is immoral. It is the purveyor of injustice and disorder. It is aggressive force. It is de-civilizing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From the view of the statist, a supporter of state intervention, the state is the purveyor of justice and order. It provides an essential framework for society. It is a basis of social order - civilization.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Statists, however, overlook the means employed by the state. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> They claim libertarians naively overlook or underestimate the evil in the real world. And the libertarians have no mechanism to deal with evil doers. The state, they claim, is necessary to deal with evil doers. And if the state engages in some limited "dirty" activities to maintain order in society - so be it. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To the statist, the means justify the ends. These ends, however, are necessarily inferior to the ends of a just society; this is my thesis. The following is a summary support for that thesis.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The supporter of a private law society sees the existence of the state as immoral. To understand the conclusion of the anarcho-capitalist, accept for sake of argument, the characterization of the state as <i>force</i>. If one can gain this understanding, it is then merely an extension to conclude that it could only improve the condition of society by the removal of aggressive force. How could it be possible for the condition of society to be degraded by the removal of force? How could our standard of living or quality of life decline as a result of a reduction in the use of aggression?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The statist must position himself to claim that society "works better" or works at all because of the application of this force. One must conclude that society would virtually collapse or at least decay as a result of not being forced to go about life in a way that the government directs.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So who or what is the state? Most respond that in a democracy "it is us". <span style="background-color: white;">If this is the case, why would the citizenry require an agency (the state) to force themselves to organize? Why would these citizens not organize to benefit themselves? I believe, th</span>ey would in fact organize on their own accord, voluntarily.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Many claim that the state is, however, merely a set of leaders. And that leadership is required to organize any society. No doubt that this is true. But leadership is born of high character, ability and vision. And the affinity to those of high character is the product of the steady application of justice. An agency with even the capacity to use aggressive force is unjust, unnecessary and de-civilizing. Leadership, as has been defined, is incompatible with the existence of the state. Leadership and the state are mutually exclusive.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The underlying question of the advocate of a private law society is this; how is it possible for a society to function at a lower level with the removal of the state? How could it even function at the same level as a society employing the use of force? The avoidance or removal of aggressive force from a society is freeing and empowering, offering those of ability and motivation to become highly productive. Peace is the condition that makes this so.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The state does not have the capacity to create wealth. It is aggressive force, invasion and war. It is destruction and consumption. In contrast, the free market (a summary of voluntary exchanges) brings every one of the advances that improves daily lives.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">History has taught the lesson, time and again, that it is peace and cooperation not war that offer the opportunity of productive gain and rising standards of living.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Simply ask "would slaves likely be more productive if they were free"? The alternative view is to claim that slaves are productive because of their masters. To support this view is to support slavery.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Liberty is the philosophy of justice, freedom, and peace. The alternative is injustice and slavery.</span><br />
<br />Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-38923257706758336862013-03-23T18:17:00.000-07:002013-03-23T18:37:11.633-07:00The Tenth Anniversary of the Iraq War<h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What Goes Around Comes Around</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In my last post I described how many advocate the use of aggressive force (unwittingly or unknowingly). And they do so commonly through third party associations. By far, the mechanism of choice is the state. The many, of course, see the state as legitimate. So the apparatus of the state is "legitimately" used to acquire the ends they desire.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The war machine is routinely cranked up to avenge attacks, punish those who disagree with the state, and to quiet its critics. Rarely, if ever, is there a legitimate case for war (self defense). But I caution those who advocate invasion. Retribution is inevitable. And it is then too late to understand the ramifications of engaging in endless wars. What you reap you must also sow.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Iraq war has reached its ten year anniversary; ten years of death and destruction on a mass scale. War on such a scale would not be possible without the state. Wouldn't that alone be stabilizing? The world is poorer in countless ways as a result of such wars.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I assert the United States used aggressive force against Iraq. The case for war was built upon a variety of concerns. The dispute, we were told, was centered on Iraqi threats against the US, neighbor states, people within its borders, and its citizens. (Iraq had aggressed against its neighbor Kuwait before, apparently with the word of US "leadership" offering a limited response at the time.) Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction and had threatened to use them we were told. These threats were substantiated by previous use of such weapons on the Kurdish people in northern Iraq.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And the circumstances for conflict do not end there. There is a long list of US interventions in the middle east, the Saudi Arabian peninsula and northern Africa. To point out one such intervention, consider the long time support for Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader, and for his regime by the US government.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But the thrust of my argument is not the facts of the case for war with Iraq. My argument is centered on the use of aggressive force by the modern nation state and the ramifications of such use.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Those who support the state, support murder on a mass scale. It is undeniable. State supporters cannot decouple their support of the state from the actions of the state. Their devotion to the state does in fact render them responsible for the actions of the state; including the death of thousands of innocents. Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state under then president Bill Clinton was confronted in a 60 Minutes interview originally aired on May 12, 1996 with the "statistic" that 500,000 children were dead as a result of sanctions imposed in large part by the US. The question from Leslie Stahl "Was it worth it?" Albright responded that it was a hard choice, but it was in fact worth it. You can see the youtube here (http://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8 and see Bill Richardson's response here http://youtu.be/5S1YkQs5nXQ when confronted with the same question). </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">How is it possible to support the war with Iraq without accepting the responsibility of the deaths of an estimated 500,000 children? The play is simply a game of avoidance and a failure to accept responsibility on the part of state supporters.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Would any US parent be prepared to sacrifice their child to further the policies of <u>any</u> state? I submit this is not a hard choice. It is in fact an easy question to answer. And that answer would be a resounding <u>no</u>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And what do the Iraqi parents of these dead children think of the actions of the US military? What is the likelihood that these people understand the "legitimacy" of these actions? What is the probability that given the opportunity that they would seek revenge? What would you think? What would you want to do?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is Ron Paul that has used the word "blowback". </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In a republican primary debate, he cited the blowback phenomenon. The former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani responded to Congressman Paul in that debate characterizing Paul's comments regarding the run-up to war (citing the attacks of 9-11) as absurd. Giuliani earned applause for making such a statement. You can witness the exchange here (http://youtu.be/zjQYg5RoH2s). </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Emotionalism trumps liberty. The cycle continues.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Historically, the full context of wars has not been debated with support of the principles of liberty. The rhetoric of liberty is used, but rarely are the principles applied. If so, war would be a rare occurrence indeed. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The case for most wars is weak or non-existant. To gain the support of the masses, a propaganda war must be waged. The propaganda must stir up patriotism, emotionalism and righteousness. And it works time and again. This is how the cycle continues.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Our legacy is that we have continued conflicts left to us and have created entirely new messes . But there will be blowback. And that is a liability we leave to our children.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The only way to break the cycle is to embrace liberty. We must come to understand and advocate liberty. We must act consistent with its principles. No one can guarantee there still would be no blowback in the short term. The likelihood would diminish with the passage of time and peaceful discourse. But blowback may be an unavoidable price to pay for the actions of earlier administrations. Tyrannical actions create an environment of undesirables. Unfortunately the alternative is the continuation of conflict, destruction and death. Liberty. Spread the word.</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-36638100396232761942013-03-16T10:13:00.000-07:002013-03-16T10:13:50.438-07:00The Underpinnings of the Libertarian Philosophy<h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Simply Put</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I have asserted that the libertarian philosophy is the philosophy of peace. And when peace is realized, prosperity is a swift outcome.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A <u>civilized</u> people live in such a way as to reject the use of aggressive force. In fact, it is the natural tendency of individuals to do so. They conduct their efforts in such way as to avoid conflict. And for society to survive in the long term - it must apply the example of the individual to cooperate - to its indirect associations.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is the primary reason I advocate for liberty. Let me explain...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The term - aggressive force - is used, here, with a specific intent. Aggressive force is synonymous with invasion. It is the use of force (or the threat thereof) against an innocent. It is differentiated from defensive force - that is the use of force to defend one's person or property. As an alternative, aggressive force may be considered the use of force <u>not</u> in defense of one's person or property.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Most people reject the use of aggressive force with their personal associations. On balance individuals carry out their lives attempting to cooperate; attempting to avoid conflicts with others. The tendency is to work in this way with people with which they commonly interact and even with people they rarely or singularly contact. Think of the case of a person's dealings with family and friends. The overwhelming interactions with these individuals are inviting or at least cordial (as otherwise, the friend status would be removed in short order). Even in dealing with people that are routine encounters (e.g. mail man, store clerk), chance meetings, or one time events -a cordial greeting and civilized exchange is the norm. It is infrequent that such an encounter result in conflict. It is the unusual nature of a violent encounter that is news worthy. And the underlying reason the routine encounter is peaceful; it makes life easier, more enjoyable and prosperous. It is in one's self interest. And this is seemingly understood.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But most people do not reject the use of aggressive force when engagements are indirect - through third party associations. Examples of indirect associations may include religious organizations, trade associations, gangs (including street gangs and the mafia), club associations (including informal clubs, card clubs, the country club etc.) and institutions of the state (local, state and federal governments and its affiliations, school boards, school sports associations) and the like. Most, in fact, unwittingly encourage and even advocate the use of aggressive force through a number of these associations. And this is precisely where awareness is necessary if society is to become sustainable. The good news is that "we" know how to do this. "We" already practice peace and cooperation with direct encounters.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Awareness is needed to realize "we" do in fact use aggressive force in our indirect encounters. And "we" do this in large part through the state (there are other associations that share the use of aggressive force, but the state is the focus here.) The following examples illustrate this point. Most would not inform our neighbor that we are in need of money and as a consequence - insist they turn over the desired sum or face more severe circumstances. That would be the very definition of coercion - theft in this case. However, we practice this very behavior indirectly incorporating the state for taxation and entitlements. Most would not insist a neighbor build their home using specific practices; and inform them that if they do not comply with such a demand, they face a severe penalty. That would be coercive. But "we" do just this through regulation and the enforcement of building codes. And in the most egregious example, most do not threaten to kill or in fact kill their neighbors, except in the extremely rare case. Threats of this nature are regularly avoided even in retaliation for aforementioned acts of aggression. This represents coercion at its peak. However, throughout history, innocents have been killed on a massive scale using "modern" war which is possible only through a coordinated military effort from the state. And unfortunately, there exists an almost endless list of such examples in which aggressive force is used indirectly.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Many reject the libertarian philosophy as unworkable, unrealistic or naive of the nature of human beings. I soundly reject this assertion. In fact, this assertion is utterly absurd. It is the libertarian that comprehends that most seek to exist cooperatively, peacefully and fruitfully. This is common in direct associations. Aggression is the outlier in person to person contacts. It is the libertarian that recognizes that society naturally self organizes and it does so spontaneously; with no central plan. It is the libertarian that recognizes this behavior has <u>not</u> been extended to indirect interactions and proposes this extension become practice. And it is a private law society that would deal with violators justly and effectively, reducing the potential for uncooperative behavior.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The libertarian philosophy is in fact the philosophy of peace. It recognizes the natural order. It is practiced as the norm in direct interactions. Disallowing this cooperative effort is intervention, counterproductive and worse. Intervention is the use of aggressive force. It is invasion, conflict, war, death, destruction and barbarism - it is "de-civilization".</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A civilized people live in such a way as to reject the use of aggressive force. In fact, it is the natural tendency of individuals to do so. And for society to survive in the long term - it must reject the use of aggressive force and engage peaceably in its third party associations.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Simply put, peaceable interactions are the course to long term survival and prosperity. "We" must come to understand and practice peaceful direct <u>and</u> indirect interactions. And it is the existence of the state and its interventions largely that stand in the way. Liberty. Spread the word!</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-19739725205964647152013-02-13T09:28:00.001-08:002013-02-26T18:24:41.826-08:00What Was it About this Grand Experiment?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The founding of this country has been commonly characterized as a grand experiment. But why?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It was precisely the idea of a strictly limited government. The constitution, the founding document of this nation provided the containment of the state using primarily two mechanisms. The first was the careful wording of the document itself. The second was the creation of the structures of government that would limit its scope and growth. These branches of government would create a system of checks and balances. Each branch had competing interests; a set of incentives that would maintain the compliance of the others; keeping them within the confines set forth in the constitution.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No other country was founded with such limitations on the state. The citizenry would be "free". They would be "allowed" to create the lives of their own making, move about, build their families, and improve their lives in virtually any way they saw fit. And they did so cooperatively.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From the outset, people used the free market to associate with those that would mutually benefit from exchange. Farmers would sell crops, animals and dairy products. With the cash raised, they would purchase seed, horses, tools and replacement parts. And if they worked efficiently and made favorable associations they would take home a profit. Other enterprises would do likewise. Businesses of many types were created fulfilling the needs of the community, the nation and beyond. Retail stores, blacksmithing shops, builders, schools, saloons and more supplied the essentials along with whatever few luxury items one could afford. People lived within their means saving as much as they could. They chose to create wealth rather than consume it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Not everything was rosy to be sure. There were significant issues with slavery, land grabbing and conflict with native peoples and more. (All which stand in opposition to liberty.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But the reach of the state was minimal as compared to today. There was local law enforcement and the postal service, but that was largely the extent of the contact of the citizen with the state. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This was the setting that ultimately created a nation that would enjoy the highest standard of living the planet has ever seen.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But how could this be? The Europeans had a thousand year head start in building their wealth, infrastructure and culture.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The European nations, before and after the founding of the United States, were dominated by central control. They saw the monarchical system as legitimate. They had to large degree accepted the legitimacy of a leader who could exercise monopolistic authority over them. Most Europeans (like the Americans of today) had accepted their subservient role to the apparatus of the state. That is not to say there wasn't an occasional coup d'etat, but these were clear exceptions to the norm.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the fledgling United States, shear size and geography added to the independence of the citizen. The state had limited contact with many of the early pioneers due to the limited scope of its authority, but also in part to the distances and difficulties associated with travel at the time. In contrast, in European states had seized a much greater authority and the population was dense. Consequently contact with the state was frequent and readily accepted.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So why is the position of the United States in the world falling? Why is the economy faultering? Why is growth limited? Why has the value of the US dollar declined? Is it because there exists room to exercise freedom? Should the country engage in ever more collectivism?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The citizenry have been led to believe that the increased actions of the state will aide in creating a stronger economy, enhance culture, improve daily lives and associations, indeed improve the standard of living benefitting society. So how is it that the wealth of this nation is in peril for the many? How is it that there is a decline in the standard of living, the culture, in the stature of the nation?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The grand experiment has been largely abandoned. The citizenry have let or even invited the state to become unlimited. Today there is no end to the reach of the state. It is ever-present. It is part and parcel to every transaction of daily life.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Today there is tremendous expertise in almost every imaginable field of science, economics, history, entertainment, art and culture. Yet there is less understanding of how society functions. The citizenry do not understand the implications of state actions. They simply do not have the interest. And further, they abandoned their responsibilities to society.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This society has, with rare exception, abandoned the principles of liberty and justice. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It has become less frequent to have a meaningful discussion with an acquaintance, a neighbor or friend. Many times neighbors don't even become acquainted. Most are lost in their daily lives, in sport and entertainment. If the topic of the state comes to the fore; it is often dismissed as there is nothing that can be done about it, the topic itself is too divisive or too controversial. We dare not speak of our political views.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, it is this limitation in the free exchange of ideas that deprives us of the understanding we so desperately need. This is the beginning of the end of civilization. Without it, this grand experiment will inevitably come to an end in tragic failure.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The discussion of renewal is commonly focused on the reorganization of the bureaucracies of the state. This is seen by the advocate for liberty as similar to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The bureaucracies, the systems of the state have failed. It is because their failure is inevitable. A more efficient state is therefore not the answer, however, freedom is.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Society rests upon the individual. It is only the individual that can take meaningful action to reverse the decline. He must become engaged. He must listen, read, think for himself and ultimately understand the concepts of liberty and justice. And if each individual takes it upon himself to act in concert with these concepts, society will enjoy a prosperity and peace not yet witnessed on the face of this earth. Liberty. Spread the word.</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-3002011320378389332013-01-23T12:21:00.001-08:002013-01-23T12:34:43.853-08:00The State: The System of Corruption<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As one who fervently supports liberty (which manifests as freedom, justice, morality, peace and free markets) the state is the opposite. That is to say, I am biased in favor of liberty. The state is servitude, force, violence and all out war. It is immoral. It stands in opposition to the non-aggression axiom. In fact it is aggression. It is the agency of disrespect for property rights. In short, the state is the master in the enslavement of the citizenry. By its very existence, it is corrupt.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To support this claim, a look at what others have had to say on the subject is warranted. Ludwig von Mises, a philosopher, Austrian School economist and classical liberal, defined the state this way.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">"The state, the power protecting the market against destructive recourse to violence, is a grim apparatus of coercion and compulsion. It is a system of orders and prohibitions, and its armed servants are always ready to enforce these laws. Whatever the state does, is done by those subject to its commands."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The words "coercion and compulsion" stand out. The word coerce defined by Webster's online is "to restrain or dominate by force". And the word compel is defined as "to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly".</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another brilliant mind, Murray Rothbard, an American economist, historian and political theorist<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"> defines the state as</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: x-small; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">"that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a prominent Austrian economist and libertarian anarcho-capitalist theorist, defines the state as</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">"a compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and jurisdiction equipped with the power to tax without unanimous consent."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hoppe has further explained that any group enjoying such a monopoly will (as a result of the incentives) provide a lower quality protection service at an ever higher price. Over time, Hoppe maintains, this monopolist will inevitably become an exploiter rather than a provider of security.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The terms used by these defenders and advocates of liberty are clearly not those that are associated with justice. It is precisely because the state is not a foundation for justice, but rather is the system of exploitation and injustice. By its very existence, the state is corrupt. It is the perpetrator of war, death and destruction. And no state is immune from the "blowback" that is inevitable as a result of the systematic disrespect for property rights and the continual and growing acts of aggression.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To conclude Websters defines corruption as:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">a. impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle: depravity</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">b. decay, decomposition</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">c. inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">d. a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Each definition applies directly to the state with the exception of c. The objection lies in the definition of law. It is undeniable that the imperialistic actions of the state which manifests as war (and with emphasis preemptive war), death and destruction fit the very definition of corruption. It is incumbent upon every citizen to come to understand this and further to throw off such encumbrances to freedom. Until such time; the citizenry will remain in servitude to the agency of corruption.</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-10483578536663316282013-01-08T14:00:00.000-08:002013-01-09T09:58:26.463-08:00Annoying Peasant Radio<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Monologue of 08/01/2013</span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Emotions can run high when entering the discourse of political theory or systems. As I have written previously in a recent blog post, there are many elements in play. There is of course ego (which includes national pride). There is a financial stake (in the economy in general, as well as direct payments or taxation). The control issue is in play as well in the form of status, authority and domination. But to understand the case for liberty; the willingness to learn is required. It also requires context. For many, this is simply too much work. It is too hard.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Many who aim to learn english as a second language claim that it is very difficult to learn. Those of us with english as our native language have some trouble understanding this difficulty. To us it seems inherently natural, easy in fact to communicate in english. This is how most have learned statism. This is how we have become serfs. It seems inherently natural, easy in fact.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Imagine discussing with a slave that he is intended to be free. It is understandable, to an extent, that he not comprehend the full extent of this claim. He would be hesitant as for generations his family may have been enslaved. He may clamor for a better life. And he may hate his master and his circumstance. It does not necessarily follow that he understand liberty and that he is meant to be free. He must be willing to learn the fundamentals of liberty. If he does not pursue liberty, he will remain in similar circumstances.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And he will likely not be taught liberty by his masters. He will be required to learn of liberty on his own accord - on his own initiative or he is forever doomed.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Our current circumstance finds us in a similar way. We must be willing to learn of liberty on our own accord. Our masters will not teach it to us. We must not be sidetracked with the minutiae of daily life for freedom is of ultimate importance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Should the slave be singularly focused on greater productivity for his master? Should he be working to acquire a better shovel, a hoe, a wheel barrow? This primarily serves his master. Should our society be singularly focused on obtaining the next piece of technology, of viewing the next event of entertainment, of earning that next increase of stature at work or in social life (as fleeting as that may be)? This also serves primarily our masters.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To learn, we must have the proper environment. We must listen, debate and discover. We must be willing to put forth an effort. The Annoying Peasant Radio Program is intended to provide the proper learning environment. We intend to create a spark. It is you, the listener, that must provide the other necessary elements to create freedom. If this is too much work, we are doomed to serfdom.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">You must take it upon yourself to take the next step. You must learn the basic principles upon which society rests. This is your second language.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To provide some optimism as well as a charter I close with a quote from Hoppe (from his book "Democracy The God That Failed" page 184) "To be sure, history is ultimately determined by ideas, and ideas can, at least in principle, change almost instantly. But in order for ideas to change it is not sufficient for people to see that something is wrong. At least a significant number must also be intelligent enough to recognize what it is that is wrong. That is, they must understand the basic principles upon which society - human cooperation - rests..."</span></div>
Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-23662701308525651562013-01-02T07:57:00.001-08:002013-01-02T07:58:12.779-08:00Anarchism = Optimism<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I have recently listened to an exchange between Penn Jillette and Glenn Beck. The topics varied widely. Let me openly state that I fully agree with neither party. And the reason for this is that neither party fully supports freedom. From the context of the discussion, neither party made a convincing case for liberty. They both supported the continued existence of the state and for continued action by the state.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Penn Jillette, however, spoke of an item that offered the motivation for this post. The inescapable truth is that everything the state does is unsustainable. There is an end to the injustices that are perpetrated by the state. No regime has lasted "forever". And surely this regime will end. And with the aid of technology (primarily the internet) combined with the will of the few to be free, the state will end. What will replace this regime? No one can know. But it is with the ideas, the medium to communicate those ideas and the will of a sufficient number, the future will be better for the inhabitants of this world. That is to what we must dedicate our work, as from freedom, there is peace and prosperity.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">With this thought let us look forward to the coming year and its battles with optimism! Liberty. Spread the word!</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-73106295214013964242012-12-31T10:07:00.000-08:002012-12-31T10:07:23.515-08:00What's Your Brand? (of Liberty)<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My aim is to point out that there is but one proper "brand" of justice. There is but one coherent basis for a just society. And that basis is the non-aggression axiom and a clear definition of property rights based on self ownership. And this case is devoid of value judgments and opinion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is the claim that there are multiple definitions of liberty. "Your definition just differs from mine" I am told. So am I to conclude that liberty is a matter of opinion (to which we have a difference of opinion)? Or does this mean that my position is not as rigorous and is therefore inferior?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Some take the opposite position, claiming there is no point to entering the discussion as there is universal agreement. But shortly into an exploration, differences in the understanding of the core content as well as the application of the philosophy come to light. To be sure there is not universal agreement on the definition of liberty. The political philosophy of liberty is revealed to us over time through continual refinements in our understanding, and as well, through its consistent application.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So what do I intend by liberty? Simply, it is a description of the proper use of force in society. It is a definition a system of justice; a description of law or a legal system. It is an attempt to define one's legal obligations. Notice this description does not address an individual's moral obligations. That is a distinctly separate topic. This discussion is limited to the ethics of justice.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What then forms the basis of a just legal system? Is it simply the decree of the king, premier, president or administrative body? Is a legal system defined by what some leader, council or a majority says it is? In such a case the legal system would be fleeting as leadership changes or the opinions of the majority shift. Most (I believe) would argue the correct basis is "right and wrong". <span style="color: #1e1e1e; line-height: 22px;">They see the</span></span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">law as an extension of their own moral and aesthetic preferences, and means of institutionalizing and universalizing their own lifestyle and belief systems.<span style="color: #1e1e1e; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;"> </span>And they gain this understanding from their own thinking, discussions with family, friends, church, or many other such resources. None of these sources are rooted in a strong philosophical foundation. "Right and wrong" is simply a value judgment which varies between individuals and through time.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There are additional barriers that many face in understanding the basis for a just legal system. For many, a discussion of a just legal system represents a personal attack on their belief system; an attack on the ego. But there is yet another element in play. One must be capable of overcoming indoctrination. And for many, this is an insurmountable task.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Many hold that the anarchist definition of liberty is not distinct in any significant way from the many individually held definitions. I suggest otherwise.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The underpinnings of freedom are rooted in the non-aggression axiom and a clear definition of property rights based on self ownership. This is a learned understanding and defines</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> just law as it applies equally and universally to all persons. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The non-aggression axiom is described by Murray Rothbard as </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">...no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor." And for property rights: you are the proper and sole owner of you and as such you own the fruits of your labor and further you may exchange your property with another as long as it is done voluntarily.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Upon understanding the above principles, the remaining discussion of a free society is merely their application in a consistent manner. It takes repetition and reinforcement to come to a deeper understanding of liberty. The reward is enlightenment and is well worth the effort.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A free society would be peaceful and prosperous. It may not be possible for society to attain such heights, however, it is the goal. Liberty. Spread the word!</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-50272203051571525552012-11-30T19:32:00.000-08:002012-11-30T19:33:38.148-08:00Rockwell vs. 3 State Worshipers on Secession<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As statists clash with libertarians over social policy, the end game is almost certainly a dismissal of libertarian principles. It is an amazing sight to behold. That, in my opinion, is what is depicted in the video of this secession discussion with Lew Rockwell.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Take a look at the video, make your determination and please share your comments!</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/127226.html#.ULfJkjGt5MU.blogger">Rockwell vs. 3 State Worshipers on Secession</a>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-70779102827886732862012-11-30T12:17:00.001-08:002012-11-30T16:12:31.414-08:00Failure of the Free Market?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Not! Say the Annoying Peasants.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Those inclined to the state claim that the free market is unworkable. It is pure greed, "dog eat dog" competition; animalistic survival of the fittest. They claim the free market fails in a number of industries or industry segments and in the broader market as well in which the larger firms use their size advantage to reduce or even eliminate their competition. And left to its own devices, the free market will evolve into a market dominated by only a few suppliers. As a result, the consumer will be left with few, if any, choices. Prices will rise. And the standard of living for the many will fall. The few will prosper "at the expense" of the many. So to avoid such a tragedy, a referee, a conciliator is required. The state is born.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And to deny the necessity of such an arbiter is utterly absurd to the interventionist. The assertion is made that "you just don't understand how things work in the real world".</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But the statist view is nothing if not a myriad of contradictions. The statist laments even the possibility of domination in the marketplace. However, he aggressively endorses a monopoly in the industry of the state. This endorsement extends to vital industries such as security (police and defense), courts, banking, etc. We are to conclude a monopoly in the marketplace stands in stark contrast to the best interest of the populace. Whereas a monopoly for services the state supplies is in the best interest of the populace. "These are unique services" or "these are special or dangerous times" we are told.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A monopoly in a free market is distinctly different from the monopoly enjoyed by the state. In a free market, a firm reaching the monopoly status attains it thru market dominance (devoid of coercion) and is subject to being deposed. In contrast, t</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">he state is granted a legal monopoly (by the state itself, of course). Further, anyone proposing or attempting to compete; shall be subject to sanction. And if the court (the state court, of course) finds that an accused has committed such an act, they will be found guilty of a crime, including the possibility of treason, whose sanction includes death.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The free market is almost nothing of what the statist claims. The free market is simply a collection of voluntary exchanges. Now that doesn't seem so awful, does it?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is true that, in a free market, the larger firms will attempt to limit or eliminate their competition. They attempt to do so whether in a free market or a hampered market. And smaller firms will attempt to overtake their competition by utilizing any advantage they can muster. This is the nature of a competitive market place.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, in a free market, the larger firms can only dominate their competitors by providing a more valuable product or service, or by marketing their products or services more effectively. And this domination would likely be fleeting. That is, as markets change and competitors change at varying rates over time, a large firm is unlikely to hold on to its lead over the long run. "Permanent" dominance is only possible with the aid of the state. Yes, it is the state that favors the firms who dominate for long stretches and limits the competitiveness of its rivals. Through intervention (product regulation, workplace regulation, protectionism and the like) the state creates the advantages for the more dominant firms to remain so. Of course, these actions are taken under cover of high minded moral claims. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These assertions avoid the true nature of the relationship between the chosen firms and the state. These firms provide funding to the state and its current office holders, and in exchange, the state provides protections or favors. This is done at the expense of the unfavored; the non-contributing firms and the populace.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the seas, sharks are viewed as the most feared predator. Surely the most efficient predator will dominate permanently and continue to widen its dominance in the absence of a state. This is classic animalistic survival of the fittest. But clearly a natural balance is maintained. So what is at work here?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It appears that not only do many smaller fishes survive; they thrive. The smaller fishes must have some competitive advantage that have evolved and continue to evolve in order to ensure the continuation of the species. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Without a "the high seas state" the competitive advantages of the sharks are neutralized by the adaptations (competitive nature of every specie) of the prey (thru specialization). They use a variety of techniques including prolific offspring (to compensate for losses), stealth, superior physical attributes (faster or more agile swimming ability, shear size (in the case of some whales)), or some species may have even left the sea and moved to the land. In short they use their uniqueness.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Similarly, smaller firms capitalize on their advantages in a free market, adapting to changing technologies, market demands and the like. The natural order of the market is for less dominant firms to become more dominant as they capitalize on their competitive advantages providing a superior product or service. All the while the consumer benefits. And if these firms do not capitalize on their advantages they will become less dominant and may become extinct thru dissolution. In the event they do satisfy the market with considerable success as compared to their competitors, they may eventually become too large, inevitably, economic calculation becomes more difficult, complacency or other weaknesses set in. And at some point the nimbleness and eagerness of smaller firms prove too strong and the market share of dominant firms erode. A new dominant player has arrived.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The free market is not what the statist claims. It is the only moral system of rationing. It is predicated on voluntary exchange. It is a condition devoid of systemic coercion. And in the event coercion is used or threatened, it is temporary and subject to sanction.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The statist aggressively pursues intervention by the state. Intervention that is the initiation of violence against innocents. There is no countermeasure to monopoly use of invasion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The devotion to statism is borne of shortsightedness, ignorance and aggression. Liberty is rooted in peace, cooperation, voluntary exchange - enlightenment. To gain a full discourse on a defense of liberty and the free market; read Adam Smith "The Wealth of Nations" and additional works by Austrian Economists. Liberty. Spread the word.</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-57705050602218759012012-11-18T07:55:00.001-08:002012-11-18T08:07:36.187-08:00An Obligation to the State?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The commonly made case for compliance with the statist paradigm is that there is an obligation to the state - to the system - to society. How did I (or anyone else) consent to this obligation and what are its terms? Examination of this obligation begs a number of questions; chief among them: what is the form, nature and origin of this obligation? Is this obligation a contract (coerced, voluntary, assumed or implied)?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The statist has very little trouble circumventing these questions. It reminds me of the exchange from Braveheart near the end of the film after William Wallace has been captured and detained by the English. He is confronted with the charge of treason by the prosecutor/executioner.</span><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Executioner: William Wallace, you stand intained of High Treason.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">William: Against whom?</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Executioner: Against your king. Have you anything to say?</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">William: Never in my whole life did I swear allegiance to him.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Executioner: It matters not. He is your king. Confess, and you may receive</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">a quick death. Deny, and you must be purified by pain. Do you confess? Do </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">you confess? Then on the morrow you shall receive your purification.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The statist is of the same bent. The discussion of a citizen's obligation is pointless to him. Obligation to the state is inherent. It is unquestioned because it is unquestionable. And, if you dare; the common retort is "You can just leave."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Before we take a look at the nature of your obligation to the state, l</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">et's first examine the basic elements of a voluntary contract. When purchasing an automobile, for example, a typical contract would include a clear definition of the parties to the contract. A statement that the parties come to such an agreement freely is commonplace. Additionally, there may be a nullification clause in the event it becomes apparent that one or more of the parties is under the influence of any type of drug or is in an emotionally distressed state. The idea here is to provide some level of assurance that both parties are of sound mind. The purchase price would be explicitly stated. Additionally, there is a clear definition of the automobile that is to be purchased (usually a VIN, mileage (even on a "new" car), make, model, and including any accessories). In the event the automobile is purchased using a loan, a number of other terms are explicitly identified and included in the purchase agreement. The end game is this; the contract states is great detail, the parties to the contract, the item(s) subject to title transfer, and the terms of payment. Devoid of coercion (or threat thereof), the aforementioned is an example of a voluntary exchange.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Clearly, I have not entered into a voluntary contract with the state. I have not been presented with any similar document and therefore, of course, have not agreed to any such document. And in fact no document exists. And since no document exists, many argue there is an implied or implicit contract. What would the nature of this contract be? Many claim that the founding document of this country, the Constitution of the United States, obligates me to the state. If so, does it seem reasonable that I am bound to the terms defined by people that predate my existence, and to whom I am not related? If so, can I obligate the yet unborn (and therefore unknown to me) to whatever I chose? This seemingly is the very definition of servitude and not consistent with preserving liberty as was the basic charter of the Constitution.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is unlikely the statist will accept such an argument. You will likely be confronted with a barrage of twisted support for your allegiance to the state including.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The fact of your birth within the geographical limits of the state</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The possession a social security card</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The attendance of compulsory public schools</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The citation of "The Pledge of Allegiance"</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The use of roadways or any other use of "public" property</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The fact that you are here</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The fact that you have not left</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Or a combination of the above or additional items</span></span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One of the ironic elements here is that to purchase a larger material item one requires an explicit, detailed contract, however, a citizen's obligation to the state is but of implied consent. Consistency alone would dictate such an important obligation be supported by explicit consent?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The principled argument is that your property rights cannot be transferred to another or any organization without your explicit consent. I know of not one person who has consented in such a manner. And the larger point is this, if I consent to a property right transfer to the state, that in no way, of course, would have any effect on another's property right.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So to the statists: Go ahead! Transfer your property rights to the state as you wish. This binds me to nothing. No majority or minority vote, or any one person (regardless of title, uniform etc.) could bind me to any such agreement: such an attempt is totally baseless and without merit. It is the very definition of servitude.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The foundation for the case for freedom lies in self ownership.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Encroachments on one's liberty is the root cause of what ailes society. Any action by the state is by necessity an infringement on the rights of the citizenry. Any proposal contemplated by the state "to address symptoms of society's ailments" - are ailments created by the state in the first place. The antidote is liberty. And the method to administer the antidote is education. Liberty. Spread the word.</span><br />
<br />Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-24990017020230210142012-11-10T19:40:00.001-08:002012-11-10T19:40:11.195-08:00Voting from George Carlin's View<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Much has been argued for and against voting. At this point, I don't think I have much to add to the discussion. But to change the mood, George Carlin has a "colorful" rant on the topic. He does, however, make a number of salient points.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. Politicians come from society. Our "leaders" can't be in a position to lead any better than anyone else as they are a product of society over which they rule.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. Term limits would be ineffective. See point 1 above.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. Voting is meaningless. No real choice exists.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. If you vote, you have no right to complain. After all, if you engage in the process, you support it. If you don't vote, you reserve the right to complain about what others have supported.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So enjoy, but be forewarned, the language is "colorful" and not for the faint of heart or children.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/efKguI0NFek" width="420"></iframe></span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-67108808762512000332012-11-10T19:09:00.000-08:002012-11-18T08:03:27.980-08:00The Source of Our Division<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Are we just not a friendly people?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The notion of the country being divided has surfaced more frequently; likely as a result of the latest election campaigning. And the subject of divisiveness is usually accompanied with the request to end it. As many times as I have heard the statement, you would think we would just unite, right? Can't we just unite? Isn't it that simple? Reminds me of Rodney King. "Can't we all just get along?" How did that work?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Likely, most don't investigate the cause of such division. It may prove enlightening to undertake an examination.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Under our current circumstances, we find ourselves in servitude. That is, we are subject to the rule of the state. And many believe that "we" are in control of the state or "we" are in fact the state, largely because of the mechanism of voting that exists. This is fallacy, however, for another writing!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Many articles have been written on the topic of voting, but my focus here is on how voting adds to "divisiveness". "Majority rules" is a commonly used mantra. Of this I am aware, but is it in concert with liberty and is voting a cause of our division?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Voting is a zero sum game. It is very unlike the free market. Where the free market offers almost limitless variety and choice etc.; the state dispenses "one size fits all".</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let's think about majority rule using an "absurd" example. Let's assume "we" put to vote the proposition that all individuals of a certain race be subject to incarceration because many believe they present a security risk. Would a majority of people voting in favor of a such a proposition make it right? (Think NAA and property rights.) What if there was an overwhelming majority in favor of such a proposition? And to be more extreme, let's assume all but the minority group itself (the group that is subject to incarceration) voted in favor of such a measure. Does that make this measure in concert with liberty?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Voting is akin to "might makes right" and as Hans Hermann Hoppe has stated "democracy (majority rule) is incompatible with private property..." It is clear that the mechanism of voting contributes to our division.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But there are so many conflicts here. The public doesn't often vote for initiatives directly for the most part. "We" vote for individuals - Obama or Romney, democrat or republican, etc. who "we" trust to push through the initiatives supported by our vote, campaign contribution or lobbying effort.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And these laws largely have no foundation in liberty. The law is used to do what "we" individually do not have the right to do. "We" use a third party (the state) to initiate violence against our neighbor.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Most of us would not consider confiscating a portion of our neighbor's earnings. "We" use the tax code to do it. Most of us would not dictate the construction of our neighbor's home. "We" use building codes to do it. Most of us would not dictate to our neighbors the terms of their employment. "We" use labor laws to do it. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Most of us would not dictate to our neighbors that they shall not purchase a soft drink larger than 16 ounces. "We" use a city ordinance to do it.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> And "we" call these measures "protections", not infringements.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When some object to such mandates, "we" interpret their actions as "divisive". And the call to end the divisiveness grows with each objection, issue and election cycle.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The state cannot create rights. It surely, however, offers spoils to the favored. As Ludwig von Mises said "the state is force". It has only one tool at its disposal, invasion. And as such it can only infringe on the rights of others. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The message of my argument here is this. The call to end divisiveness represents naivete and a lack of understanding of the human condition. It is synonymous with one receiving a punch in the snoot immediately followed with the cry to end divisiveness by the puncher.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The natural state of man is to be free. Any infringements to one's freedoms are likely to be met with resistance. History indicates servitude will not be accepted over the long run. This lesson is often clouded by the fact that the overwhelming majority in this country unwittingly advocate tyranny. It is a case where those who object to the trampling of their rights advocate for encroachment on the rights of their political adversaries. Both "sides" are guilty of this incoherent behavior. Neither the left nor the right support liberty. They support the imposition of their moral code on each other. They both support the use of aggressive force to impose their will.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A deeper understanding and implementation of justice is likely the means to ending divisiveness. A free society would unite in voluntary cooperation like none yet witnessed. It would advance in peace and prosper to new heights.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Liberty. Spread the word.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-37327887563052412382012-07-10T18:26:00.001-07:002012-07-10T18:30:23.099-07:00The US War Machine<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So what is the libertarian take on war? You might think there is a relatively simple answer. Libertarians differ on this issue as some support the idea of a limited government and others make no exception to the right of one to his property and to be free from aggression. Obviously, the limited government point of view believes in making an exception because of the perceived importance of security.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As I generally do not enter the realm of the strictly scholastic approach to libertarian theory, I refer to the following youtube video of comedian George Carlin pointing out the absurdity in US war policy. Many will claim this video is not a serious critique of war policy. And of course it is not. A comedian can, however, provide alternate perspectives regarding important sociological issues. And I believe Mr. Carlin succeeds in doing just that in the following video.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Obviously, war is a deadly serious matter. But, in communication the point is to get the message to the audience. I believe that George Carlin succeeds in making his point.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As a caution, I am not a fan of "colorful" language and caution the listener that this video is full of it and is not for the faint of heart. So bear with the language. Get past it and consider the embedded message! Enjoy!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sDkhzHQO7jY" width="420"></iframe></span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-41692379857689735212012-07-08T20:13:00.003-07:002012-07-08T20:30:14.798-07:00The Depth of the Indoctrination<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I am continually astonished by the inability of the many to comprehend the depth of their incoherent devotion to the state or at least the idea of the state. For most, their disenchantment with the idea of a free society (synonymous with a just society) is their rationalization of some circumstance that is unclear (to them) as to how the free market would be capable of providing alternatives. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even when faced with their inevitable support of a system that is based on the use of aggressive force against innocents, they remain steadfast in their backing of the state. And they do so simply on the basis of an unclear vision of how the free market would provide services in a particular instance. They cannot envision another entity providing services that the state attempts to provide. Never mind this is the same state that brings you, the US Postal Service, the department of motor vehicles, the TSA, Amtrak and many other dismal failures of customer service. And never mind it is the entrepreneur that has brought us everything from toilet paper to instantaneous handheld communication and international air travel that has become common place.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Libertarians must be prepared to advocate for liberty in this environment of firmly entrenched indoctrination. This may seem defeatist in nature, however, it exposes the reality of the severity of the battle for the minds of the oppressed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The state is, as Rothbard has said, "a criminal gang of thieves" and it lacks the incentives to serve its citizens to be sure. Their is a long list of failings of the state; everything it attempts. It has, however, managed to entrench itself over time with its many strategic advantages, its rhetoric and unchecked authority.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We, in the United States, have learned arrogance, the state's version of history, and continue to embrace the indoctrination of the state at every opportunity, starting with the public "education" system. The state pervades every aspect of life. Escaping its tentacles has become, as a practical matter, impossible.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, the state exists as it is what the electorate desire. Make no mistake. The politicians are not totally to blame. They are by no means angels, but to at least some extent, they do engage in "the people's work".</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Until there is greater understanding by the oppressed, we will remain so. The only solution is for the masses to become enlightened, and to do so we must gain an interest in liberty itself. If this were to come to pass, the state, as we know it, would end and would end quickly and peacefully.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Only through the understanding of liberty can we gain peace, prosperity and the unleashing of the full human potential. The alternative is force, war, death, and theft. There will be a continual reduction in our standard of living in store for our posterity if we do not become ever more vigilant in our advocacy of liberty.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And so I continue to advocate for liberty.</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-57206687520871941122012-06-30T09:03:00.000-07:002012-06-30T09:03:49.867-07:00The Instinct to Dominate<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It appears that humans have the natural desire to dominate. This is likely a subset of the desire to improve one's condition. If you could have another execute the mundane affairs of your life; wouldn't you? You could spend your time and energy on higher order desires. (That's economic speak for leisure.) As a matter of</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> economics, wouldn't any person want to reduce the cost of labor to zero ultimately? But this is the definition of servitude.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is, however, a far more socially acceptable alternative to the despicable act of slavery. There</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> is a ready made mechanism of domination. And it draws those who wish to dominate like a high energy magnet. And as the wealth of the world increases, this mechanism becomes ever more dangerous through its capacity to widen its web to all of humanity throughout the planet and to deepen its reach from simply compelling the citizenry to hand over part of its earnings, to determining the type of light bulb that shall be available. It can determine that we shall engage in mass murder in the form of war. It further assumes jurisdiction over every aspect of the workplace and home. This mechanism is the state.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And this is the danger of the state. It is the mechanism of domination. And since it has no equal, its propensity to dominate is unchecked. History indicates that there exists but one destination for the state. And that is for it to end in catastrophe. It comes when the state destroys the society which it claims to protect and even enhance. It is like a cancer - except worse - it is usually desired by the populous. We claim we need order - rules. This argument supposes there would be no order without force. It is an age old argument. One that liberty shines its light upon and exposes it for the darkness that it is.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Who can stop such a machine? </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The concept of liberty is the only alternative. It rejects the mechanism of domination, death and destruction- the use of force. It embraces as alternatives cooperation, mutual aid, spontaneous order - voluntaryism. Libertarianism promotes the application of the free market to everything. It is the philosophy of peace and prosperity. Its implementation establishes no mechanism to dominate. The only way to "dominate" is by the creation of wealth. During which time it is impractical to be diverted by war and wealth destruction.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is the superiority of the concept of freedom which must prevail if man is to flourish. It is only this condition that makes this possible. Domination can only enhance the lives of the few at the expense of the many. And it can only achieve this in a relative sense. Domination destroys wealth and lives. So it is domination that I repel and therefore condemn the state as the ultimate domination mechanism.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But if it is true that mankind has the natural desire to dominate, to be sure it will be an arduous task to eliminate the state. What shall the dominators do? They will attempt to continue and even expand their domination at every step. And t</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">he statists have the upper hand strategically. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">They count on the mindless obedience of its citizenry. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">They use the apparatus of the state to</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> create dependence resulting in this blind obedience. They use the public education system to indoctrinate the young. They use intimidation against those who contemplate resistance.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To open humanity to its full potential, libertarians must be ever vigilant and never tire. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But, it is the superiority of the concept of liberty that provides the unending fuel necessary to fight the ultimate battle; the battle of ideas.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I believe time will prove liberty to be the only indestructible adversary of the state. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Liberty....Spread the word!</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-40599750857019187482012-05-08T18:19:00.000-07:002012-05-08T18:33:27.777-07:00Napolitano Asking Questions<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Remeber the "What If" campaign by Hewlett-Packard (I hope my memory serves me correctly)? Well, in the following video, Judge Andrew Napolitano queries a number of topics regarding our political system. And these questions are applicable to all political systems.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Unfortunately Andrew Napolitano is no longer the host of "Freedom Watch", one of the best shows on television. Yet he lives on in this Youtube. So get ready for a bunch of questions beginning with "What if...".</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fOaCemmsnNk" width="560"></iframe></span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-17567263423289180212012-05-01T19:13:00.002-07:002012-11-10T19:16:45.273-08:00Annoying Peasant Radio is on the Air<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Annoying Peasant Radio" program is broadcast on blogtalkradio.com The focus of the show is (you guessed it) liberty! To check it out, all you have to do is go to http://www.blogtalkradio.com/annoyingpeasantradio. Join us as we broadcast live every Tuesday evening at 8:30 pm central. We invite everyone to listen live or call in with a comment or question! Of course if you can't listen live, the shows are archived on our blogtalkradio site and they are available as podcasts too!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To explain the connection to the name "Annoying Peasant Radio" check out the youtube. I need not say more......</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rAaWvVFERVA" width="420"></iframe>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-16726147984916472622012-04-15T18:45:00.000-07:002012-04-26T13:37:52.372-07:00Privacy Matters: Think About it!<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Professor Daniel J. Solove has authored a book thought provokingly examining the issue of privacy. In an</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> essay </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security" </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">excerpted from the book, Dr. Solove dissects a commonly held idea; that many see a trade of privacy in exchange for increased levels of security as a valuable and necessary act. And the propensity to make this trade is, of course, greater in times of heightened alert.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But this argument misses many aspects of privacy including how this information could be used. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dr. Solove points out that when discussing privacy, we tend to think of surveillance. But, in fact, surveillance by the government encompasses more than just audio recording (wiretapping) or collecting visually recorded images. It includes data handling. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And there exists the potential for this information to be mishandled, erroneously released, purposely withheld (so that errors cannot be corrected), misinterpreted or breached (opening individuals to the possibility of identity theft etc.).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But from a libertarian perspective, just what is the right to privacy? Is this right forfeited upon entering the public square? </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From a libertarian perspective there is no such right as to the right to privacy as commonly understood. Libertarianism simply supports the right to your property and to not have that property invaded. So wiretapping is an invasion of your property right; not a violation of a right to privacy. If my photo or likeness was used to endorse a product without my consent, that would be an invasion of my property right.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As mentioned earlier, privacy is typically seen as a liberty that must be "balanced" with security interests. This is, however, statist slight of hand. It is designed to transform the question from whether individuals have a right to privacy (property rights) to just how much privacy should be surrendered to strike the proper balance of privacy and security. It avoids the proper question of the relation of privacy and security altogether.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Many will make the argument for such invasions. They claim to do so as a practical matter. They will claim that it would be much more difficult to stop the terrorists. However, in practice systematically violating property rights creates conflict and reduces the propensity to speak and associate freely. It reduces living standards. It offers the state yet another mechanism to hold dominion over its constituency. And history indicates that the greatest invasions of privacy come from the state itself. The authors of the Constitution were well aware of this fact. Further, there is no proper recourse in the event your are a victim of government surveillance gone bad.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Many argue that to give up a some privacy in exchange for increased security is a high value trade. And there is no need for privacy when there is a lack of security. So security trumps all.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Many argue "I have nothing to hide" or "If you have something to hide, you likely have done or are contemplating doing something wrong - so you don't deserve privacy." They miss some of the core of privacy (property rights) which is centered with the determination of what, when and how to disclose. This right rests with the property holder and is properly held at his sole discretion.</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-115754818059892304.post-20283597622656351812012-02-26T10:49:00.006-08:002012-02-28T11:39:04.295-08:00I "Rothbardian"<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The concept of liberty is foreign to most. The rhetoric of liberty is, however, commonplace. And now that the election cycle is underway, one will hear the words of "liberty", "freedom", "the free market", "God given rights" and the like frequently over the coming months. But what do these words mean? What is liberty? And do these concepts have any affect on the way we go about our lives?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To undertake the pursuit of the understanding of liberty, a curious mind would begin employing a variety of means - talking to family and friends - searching for literature - reading works found in hardcopy and on the internet. And don't forget youtube!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My search for enlightenment came this way. I began by reading Dr. Walter E. Williams. Dr. Williams had substituted a number of times on the Rush Limbaugh program years ago. He had a certain cleverness and simplicity to his explanations. And whenever I am the witness of such explanations, I think mastery. It usually takes someone who has mastered a topic to break it down so that non-intellectuals can comprehend. So I was drawn to Dr. Williams and became an avid reader of his books and many syndicated columns.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">After reading many of Dr. Williams writings, I believed he made many valid points, but I had not yet been sufficiently introduced to the concept of liberty directly. I saw how government interventions did not work, or had the opposite affect in many instances, but I lacked the necessary philosophical underpinnings. I still had a void to fill.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Further reading eventually led me to <u>Socialism</u> by Ludwig von Mises. This was my first exposure to the core of the political philosophy of liberty. From this book and many other writings of Mises, I was struck by the concept of coherence. It drove home the idea of consistency. To adopt an incoherent philosophy is to be contradictory (a necessity of an incoherent philosophy). Liberty became a practical guide to evaluating the validity and affect of government actions. (Government was, after all, created to provide order and assistance to society, or so I thought). It became obvious that liberty was the only coherent political philosophy yet revealed to man.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But there is more to the picture. Being coherent or consistent was just part of the argument. It was important to be consistently "right" and therefore not consistently "wrong". This leads one to contemplate how, precisely, justice is defined. The writings of Lysander Spooner provided the foundation here. Spooner was a philosopher who revealed the science of justice. He defined private property rights in clear terms. And it is with Spooner that I credit my understanding of the foundation of liberty.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From there, the words of Murray Rothbard offered the most consistent application of the philosophy of liberty. For Rothbard, the "science of justice" originates from the same place as Spooner, natural rights theory. Natural rights are inherent in nature. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">They preexist man. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">They are of the same "stuff" as gravity and the other physical laws of nature. As the laws of physics are not created nor determined by man, they are properly revealed. To understand the laws of nature properly places one in a position to predict and anticipate outcomes resulting from government actions as well as the relationship to our fellow man. It is the proper purpose of the philosopher to reveal the laws of nature, including natural rights theory. And Rothbard, Spooner and others have brought clarity to an otherwise complex arena. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So why am I a "Rothbardian"? Let me offer some background. Murray Rothbard was a student of Ludwig von Mises. He openly credits Mises as a master. I regard, however, Rothbard's application of liberty as superior. He was coherent where others are not. He believed that the state was by definition a coercive organization and as such could not be sanctioned as it was inconsistent with liberty. Mises believed the state was, in fact, coercive by nature, but sanctioned it nonetheless. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is incoherent to use the rhetoric of liberty (promoting respect for property rights) while simultaneously sanctioning the systematic violation of property rights. That would, of course, qualify you as a politician!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The consistent support of property rights places one squarely as a "Rothbardian". It leads to the concepts of private law, private money, private roads and the like. Rothbard (and others) show how the free market is the only moral rationing system</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">; one that does not violate property rights, but in fact promotes them. Further Rothbard describes how the respect for property rights is consistent with peace and wealth creation. Statism is the opposite; consistent with war and destruction. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One therefore sees the state as a sanctioned criminal gang engaged in the systematic violation of property rights including murder on a mass scale through endless wars</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So I find myself attempting to be a consistent supporter of liberty, a "Rothbardian". There are many fine works from which to read and learn. Liberty! Spread the word.</span>Thomas Dierlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03719919472479031286noreply@blogger.com3