1. 07:01 29th Aug 2014

    Notes: 359

    Reblogged from antinwo

    image: Download

    (Source: kv96ic28)

     
  2. 07:01 28th Aug 2014

    Notes: 5

    Reblogged from c4ss

    c4ss:

    While reading the symposium on Kevin Carson’s book, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, in the latest Journal of Libertarian Studies, I was struck by how upset people can get when someone uses a term differently from how they use it — even if he makes his usage perfectly clear and explicitly draws on legitimate historical precedent. This comes up on at least two occasions in the commentary on Carson. I’ve read Carson’s book, and I had no trouble seeing how he uses the word “capitalism.” Much of the book is devoted to showing that historical capitalism — the real-life mercantilist political-economic system that most people attach that word to — bears only superficial resemblance to the laissez-faire free market, which he favors. Indeed anyone who does not quickly see this in Carson’s work is not paying attention. It is not some obscure point buried under other material. It is the point! Moreover, Carson shows the historical precedent — in the work of Thomas Hodgskin and Benjamin Tucker, for example — for such usage. It shouldn’t be hard to grasp.

    Yet two critics can’t or won’t see it. Drs. Walter Block and George Reisman go for Carson’s jugular in retaliation for his alleged confusion of laissez faire with (state) capitalism. Carson handily disposes of the criticism and needs no help from me, but I can’t restrain myself from jumping into the fray. …

     
  3. 07:01 27th Aug 2014

    Notes: 20

    Reblogged from laliberty

    Lobby groups in Washington get special-interest legislation passed that transfers wealth away from disorganized voters, taxpayers, and future generations. These transfers dwarf criminal activity in the economy. The problem is that the public purse is a commons that invites a feeding frenzy by organized lobbies. The result is collective irresponsibility manifested by federal budget deficits for 53 out of the past 60 years.
    — Stephen Magee (via laliberty)
     
  4. 07:01 26th Aug 2014

    Notes: 3

    image: Download

     
  5. 07:01 25th Aug 2014

    Notes: 24

    Reblogged from libertariancontrarian

    Let’s start with a number: 262 million. That’s the number of unarmed people the late Prof. R. J. Rummel estimated governments murdered in mass killings he termed “democide” during the 20th century. “This democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century,” he wrote.

    Unsurprisingly, the bloodiest body count was run up by totalitarian regimes, though authoritarians were busy stacking up the corpses, too, if in smaller piles. Democracies were also responsible for unjustifiable deaths, especially in subduing resistance in their colonial possessions (think: Belgian Congo) and in indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets during wars (think: Hiroshima), but to a far lesser degree than Communists, Nazis, and overdecorated generalissimos.

     
  6. 07:01 24th Aug 2014

    Notes: 19

    image: Download

     
  7. 07:01 23rd Aug 2014

    Notes: 4

    Reblogged from paleolibertarian

    Is there really someone who, searching for a group of wise and sensitive persons to regulate him for his own good, would choose that group of people that constitute the membership of both houses of Congress?
    — Robert Nozick (via paleolibertarian)
     
  8. 07:01 22nd Aug 2014

    Notes: 11

    Reblogged from c4ss

    c4ss:

    … As Jim says, it’s a messed-up state that systematically creates poverty through the enforcement of special privilege, and then uses welfare programs to ameliorate a small part of the poverty and inequality caused by its own policies. “But it’s a messed-up libertarianism that looks at that situation and says, ‘Man, first thing we gotta do is get rid of that welfare!‘” Or as I once put it,

    If the privilege remains, statist “corrective” action will be the inevitable result. That’s why I don’t get too bent out of shape about the statism of the minimum wage or overtime laws–in my list of statist evils, the guys who are breaking legs rank considerably higher than the ones handing out government crutches. All too many libertarians could care less about the statism that causes the problems of income disparity, but go ballistic over the statism intended to alleviate it. It’s another example of the general rule that statism that helps the rich is kinda sorta bad, maybe, I guess, but statism that helps the poor is flaming red ruin on wheels. …

     
  9. 07:01 21st Aug 2014

    Notes: 11

    Reblogged from c4ss

    The most famous expression of this third solution may be found in Mutual Aid, published in 1902 by the Russian revolutionary anarchist Petr Kropotkin. (We must shed the old stereotype of anarchists as bearded bomb throwers furtively stalking about city streets at night. Kropotkin was a genial man, almost saintly according to some, who promoted a vision of small communities setting their own standards by consensus for the benefit of all, thereby eliminating the need for most functions of a central government.) Kropotkin, a Russian nobleman, lived in English exile for political reasons. He wrote Mutual Aid (in English) as a direct response to the essay of Huxley quoted above, “The Struggle for Existence in Human Society,” published in The Nineteenth Century, in February 1888. Kropotkin responded to Huxley with a series of articles, also printed in The Nineteenth Century and eventually collected together as the book Mutual Aid.
    — Stephen Jay Gould, Kropotkin Was No Crackpot (via c4ss)
     
  10.  
  11. 07:21 19th Aug 2014

    Notes: 15

    image: Download

    If you don’t already follow this user, I highly recommend it.

    If you don’t already follow this user, I highly recommend it.

     
  12. 07:01

    Notes: 3

     
  13. 07:01 18th Aug 2014

    Notes: 239

    Reblogged from paleolibertarian

    image: Download

    (Source: hatredismymuse)

     
  14. 07:01 17th Aug 2014

    Notes: 16

    Reblogged from c4ss

    The individualist anarchists were sticklers about consistency; if labor was made to come under the law of competition, of supply and demand, then so too should capital. As Schuster points out, the “scientific anarchism” of people like Benjamin Tucker thus “did not appeal to the Capitalist because it demand not ‘rugged individualism’ but universal individualism”
     
  15. 07:01 16th Aug 2014

    Notes: 2