How the State Causes Collapse

As I have explained in the past, what constitutes a “bubble” can be understood as the result of perpetuated myths or distortions of the truth. When one believes something to be true, they behave in accordance with that belief; when that belief becomes exposed as fraudulent, whatever effort they had put forward up to that point is lost and any effort they had planned on putting forth in the future needs to be redirected to some new project. The example I had previously used was a child writing letters to Santa and then finding out Santa is not real. After such information comes to light the behavior of the child changes and he no longer writes wish lists to Santa.

In the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle, distortions in the interest rate result in misallocations of capital towards less productive ends. When those ends are discovered to not be as productive as alternatives, the structure of production needs to be realigned. But as I’ve described it, the theory can be applied to a broader social context beyond just basic production.

The State is such a bubble: it is perpetuated primarily by faith in its unique legitimacy. Bubbles burst; in the case of the State, how does that occur?

Abortion Q & A

Here’s my last post on abortion. If you’re not interested, sorry. Just wanted to respond to criticism and questions on my recent post on the subject. Also, my notes on abortion may be helpful for some of my arguments below (contracts, moral consideration, etc).

Steven Handel @ Libertarian Minds

I do acknowledge that embryos/fetuses are living things. I believe I did so in the article as well. But the distinction I make is that they are not “biologically sovereign.” However, you rightfully point out:

“One thing does seem clear to me, when the fetus is viable outside the womb, abortion is equal to infanticide. If infanticide is deemed to be “murder” equal to all other murder, then late term abortion should be viewed as all other murder is.”

Okay, I can definitely understand that. Perhaps there are ways we can medically induce early births instead of relying on late-term abortions. If the baby can live, then we can put it up for adoption. If it doesn’t, then it doesn’t meet the rule. This seems compatible with my view on biological sovereignty. Although, it could be argued that early-induced births could lead to other pain and suffering for the child’s development as time goes on, which would make this another sticky solution.

The way I see it, whenever violence is ever utilized, on whatever scale, even between a hunter and a deer, there is a conflict. In fact, in a general, but not universal sort of way, economics is about that conflict. As libertarians we’re trying to decide what the proper limits on the resulting actions should be. What I’m asking from libertarians, at the very least, is to give the fetus due consideration. It’s really a balancing act trying to determine under what condition who’s interests outweigh the other’s.

Notes on Abortion

As to be expected whenever bringing up the topic of abortion, it’s going to result in a good deal of disagreement over premises, analogies, or whatever else. Here I want to add some important points. I will respond to some of the comments I’ve received on this site and elsewhere in another follow up. (Prohibition will not be discussed as I don’t think there is a good argument for it.)

Moral Consideration

Conceptually, morality really relies on the idea of intrinsic value. If something have no intrinsic value, it’s just a mass of elements and molecular bonds. But what gives something intrinsic value (moral value), making it deserving of moral consideration, is completely unknown. What we are doing in moral philosophy is nothing short of speculation -- trying to read the mind of god so to speak.

What exactly are the qualities that lend themselves to intrinsic value? Some hypotheses:

Existence -- that something exists.
Pain -- that something is sentient.
Life -- that something is living.
Interests -- that something with goals, either rational or irrational.
Rationality -- that something exhibits the capacity to think.

The Libertarian Case Against Abortion (and its Prohibition)

This is my third attempt writing on this topic with my first two attempts aimed at making slam dunk cases. But since I don’t think there is such a thing as a slam dunk case I’m here with a much more ambiguous one. I love ambiguity anyway, so why not embrace it?

The way most libertarians have looked at the issue of abortion is fairly disconcerting because it’s almost always looked at through the lens of politics and law -- once again echoing Brad Spangler’s insightful comment that “politics makes you stupid.” What we are dealing with when we discuss libertarianism and “what is” or “is not” compatible with it are ethical questions. As such, it ill behooves us to think that we can neglect that question whenever we discuss anything from that perspective. The common distinction between “ethics” and “morality” is a bunch of nonsense. As they are commonly used among libertarians, "ethics" is simply used as the more urgently "important" morality. But there is nothing that is unethical that is not immoral; there is no magic line separating what is so immoral that it must be unethical.

An Open Letter to Glenn Beck from a Radical Libertarian

Mr. Beck,

Watching you on (a rerun of) Freedom Watch this Sunday made me feel kind of bad. You see, for the past several months, I’ve been one of those libertarians who, I think rightly, have been denying your status as a “libertarian.” Some of the positions you’ve taken on various issues have been highly unlibertarian and the way you have conducted yourself in the past has reflected poorly on libertarians. I think I can speak for all libertarians when I say that we are repeatedly marginalized and have to work very hard to get our voice out and have our opinions given any kind of consideration. When, in the past, you have used sensationalist libertarian rhetoric while advocating unlibertarian things, I think it should be clear why many libertarians are so upset with you.

Still, I personally try to remain amiable to anyone whether or not they advocate for liberty. I just don’t want anyone trying to pass themselves off as something they are not. However, I’ve been hearing some decent things about you and from you. Though maybe not libertarians, and if so, definitely not radical ones, my parents like you. Plus, you’ve recommended some books, not my favorites, but good starts -- The Road to Serfdom and Atlas Shrugged -- and seem to have taken meaningful steps in the right direction especially when it comes to civil liberties and foreign policy. I took special note as I heard you say the “people” would provide for education, heath care, etc. That’s exactly the truth and I would like to hear similar things from you more often.

The Problem With Molyneux - or - Why Mysticism Always Wins

There are a couple of people out there who I follow quite closely. Stefan Molyneux is one of them. While I may have only read one or two of his essays, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen most, if not all, of his YouTube videos that have come out in the last six months or so. While I find some flaws in his presentation method, his spontaneous emotionalism for example, I think he is quite a brilliant theoretician. And even though I might have some slight differences of opinion, Molyneux makes a great holistic case for liberty that incorporates biology, economics, psychology, and sociology. His contribution, in my honest opinion, is very important. But no one is perfect. The problem I have with Molyneux is fundamentally the same as the problem I have with Ayn Rand and by-the-book objectivists as well as a variety of other atheist proponents of liberty or ethical norms: they are inconsistent and overly absolutist on the face of it.

Moral Nihilism and Libertarian Anarchism

I’ve discussed on here a couple times some of my ideas on amoralism and moral nihilism, most notably in The Snake. The Mouse. The Crown. Jessica Geary has written on the subject as it relates to anarchism and I find myself either very much in agreement or very much opposed to what she’s arguing -- there’s no ambiguity as to how I respond to this piece -- it’s largely hit or miss. So I thought I’d do a bit by bit critique.

I recently had a conversation about ethical, or moral, nihilism with a friend of mine. He called himself an “ethical nihilist” and a “mutualist anarchist”. I asked why he wished to end the state? Was it because of its monopoly on violence and use of coercion? His answer was yes. I then informed him that he couldn’t be an ethical nihilist because he took a ethical objection to the state. He said he was pragmatic. I asked if he would want to grasp the power of the state to meet his own objectives; if this was an idea he was comfortable with. He said no. I told him then that he wasn’t a pragmatist since pragmatism is, politically speaking, a statist view.

Her friend is clearly being inconsistent here unless he finds there to be something aesthetically unappealing about power. If there is nothing objectionable about any means or any ends, there’s no reason to not use those means to achieve whatever ends he has found subjective value in. But this isn’t unpragmatic. Pragmatism has to do with a way of looking at problems and their solutions. It’s wholly compatible with both anarchism and statism.

The State Is A Glass Ceiling

Trying to explain the State to people is a difficult task and it’s not a task made any easier by the usual conflation of State with government. Perhaps this is another trick of Statists since, by equating the State to government, they can argue that the necessity of government requires a State. But what is a State if it is not “government?” The simplest definition I can give would be: “a State is a fiction reinforced by law.” Allow me to explain.

There exists a natural hierarchy of sorts. Within various fields of study and professions, some are more apt than others. This is even more true of inter-professional relationships. This seem to be fairly indisputable. My background in economics surely makes me a relative authority in the field when compared to someone just starting to think about the subject. But when compared to even a college freshman physics major, I’d be the relative novice having forgotten virtually everything except for a couple laws and equations from high school. Accepting the hierarchy is really just about accepting the diversity of aptitudes among humans. Ascension up the hierarchy is dependent on perhaps various factors that are arguable, but might generally include intelligence, physical strength, amount of effort or time spent practicing, and knowledgeability. That is to say that there are some people who are the “best” and some who are the “worst” at whatever it is we are talking about -- everyone is categorically “unequal” because they all have unequal genetics and experiences (even if they may largely be very similar).

Guns and Dogs

Generally, criticisms of libertarianism are shallow and stupid, attacking a version of “libertarianism” that few, if any, libertarians adhere to. That doesn’t mean that libertarianism is perfect, in fact, far from it. But knowing the weaknesses of your own philosophy helps you defend it better -- by knowing when to stop.

A week or two back, I saw a dog sticking its head out of the back window of someone’s car. It was wearing a plastic cone around its head (likely to prevent it from licking a recently acquired scar). Seems rather innocuous doesn’t it? To me, however, it brought to mind some important ethical considerations, particularly as they pertain to libertarianism.

The cone on the dog’s head is administered without the dog’s consent to prevent it from causing harm to itself. The “owner,” being principally concerned for the welfare of the dog, made a decision to physically restrain the animal for its own benefit. Technically, we could argue about whether the cone actually is in the best interest of the dog, but let’s just take it as given that the dog, without the cone, would harm itself. From both the “owner’s” standpoint and from mine, this seems like a perfectly reasonable abrogation of the dog’s liberty. Very few people would object. Most extreme animal liberationists would likely fail to object as well. The reason is simple: from the human perspective, we each generally understand that we are smarter than these other animals and capable of making more optimal decisions on their behalf.