Thursday, January 29, 2009

the underwriters

For decades central banks set monetary policy according to nonsensical beliefs about credit expansion. The inability of the Fed to stop the current crisis via emergency lending to banks demonstrates that Fed policies are a failure. This movie reveals the scale of this disaster.

we've never fully paid back "to ourselves" (1) what we have borrowed "from ourselves" (2) via the fed. too much borrowing, of course, creates bubbles, which pop, which is then and only then viewed as a "crisis" or "problem." to solve that "problem" with government and the fed, more borrowing takes place. to solve it with the free-market, large corporations are allowed to fail. the latter method has been effectively used once in US history, but the recession it corrected is not in the history books.

the true "end of history," in economic terms, would therefore be the point at which we no longer create problems for "ourselves" (2) and then use government to solve them. it has nothing to do with the reality of scarcity, but instead our reaction to scarcity. a true "end of history," across the board, would therefore be the point at which we no longer create problems for ourselves at all.

it has nothing to do with reality, but instead our reaction to reality.

a hypothesis worth investigating.

this video is an ad for a website, but it will give you an idea of the magnitude of the solution to our existing crisis. it will also give you an idea of the magnitude of the next crisis which this "solution" will cause.

it should only cost them a few million to build the camps. it should only cost them a few more million to staff and operate them for long enough to flee, at which point...


they'll write history.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

the liberty manifesto

roy a. childs jr., distinguished libertarian, blessed us with many gifts in his time.

i highlight one such gift in particular, from the open letter roy wrote to ayn rand for the purpose of converting her to free-market anarchism (anarcho-capitalism). it is the manifesto of all time and human history, if i understand it right.
There is a battle shaping up in the world—a battle between the forces of archy—of statism, of political rule and authority—and its only alternative—anarchy, the absence of political rule. This battle is the necessary and logical consequence of the battle between individualism and collectivism, between liberty and the state, between freedom and slavery. As in ethics there are only two sides to any question—the good and the evil—so too are there only two logical sides to the political question of the state: either you are for it, or you are against it. Any attempt at a middle ground is doomed to failure, and the adherents of any middle course are doomed likewise to failure and frustration—or the blackness of psychological destruction, should they blank out and refuse to identify the causes of such failure, or the nature of reality as it is.

Monday, January 26, 2009

english lesson 1

please stop talking about "paying" your taxes. you don't pay your taxes; nobody pays their taxes. it's impossible to pay your taxes. "states" collect taxes like the mafia collects deposits.

you surrender your taxes: either by forfeiting conservatorship of government property (their fiat bills of credit) or by forfeiting your own property -- whether it be a gold coin or your entire house (do you really own that?) -- at the point of a gun.


Sunday, January 4, 2009

geopolitical borders

heinlein, borders and liberty, sipsey st. irregulars.
an anonymous contributor:
Truly liberty, true lack of "racism", means no national borders, no green cards, no immigration control. It also means none of this silly loyalty to the State's standing army that Heinlein is selling.

a friend of MBV replies:
Just because you are not an advocate of racist group identity doesn’t mean that you are necessarily required to advocate or adhere to international socialist collectivism, such as the “no borders, no green cards, no immigration control” crowd would have you assume.

the gist of the argument is basically here. i'm not 100% on either side, though.

it's not clear how either the presence or lack of immigration controls constitutes either collectivism or individualism.

just because a collectivist-inclined group says something is on their agenda doesn't mean that isn't good individualistic policy, too. doesn't ralph nader keep a copy of the US constitution in his pocket? it works for him.

so, maybe you don't have to listen to the tranzis, but you might still have arrived at an allegedly ideal conclusion through some other means. it isn't clear that anonymous has "transgressed" in this fashion, and the rest of the response kind of focuses on where that would go wrong. if anon thinks liberty means those things, then obviously to be free, he simply acts in accordance with his beliefs, and does not recognize race or national boundary.

i don't think customs will appreciate this, but it's not my problem or my place.

i say alleged because there's another, bigger philosophic problem with anonymous' "liberty means ____" argument. there is something to say here about the libertarian-authoritarian axis. imagine, if you will, if you were forced to live in a world as dictated by john lennon's song "imagine." perhaps anonymous could invert the spirit of those lyrics and attempt to imagine, if he will, whether he'd enjoy being forced to live in that world. surely each of us can pick one or the other they'd rather suffer. that is not the argument. that is never the argument.

but would you force others to adopt yours?

geopolitical borders do not grow out of nature, they're a human creation, and just like culture, they're tied to the land and history. they are a useful means of locating things, but they're also a boundary in law and in culture.

it takes a small act of authority (force) just to get "everyone" to agree on where they are. however, in the united states, many land boundaries were created by homesteading. this also requires an act of authority, but it is one that your neighbor -- and only your neighbor -- was not forced at gunpoint to recognize. they could take you to court if they had a complaint. it is a smaller act, still. in fact, as boundaries only have two sides, it is the smallest possible act. it then becomes capitalist when the implementation of the line is profitably made for both parties agreeing to such a line.

i was talking about land, but note that it works for ethnic recognition. hitler didn't give this option to the "jews." armenians and romanians, by the way, weren't all jewish. the nazi state murdered them, too, anyway. what boundaries did they have?

instead, note that a third party doesn't have standing in this example homesteading dispute. as i've pointed out, a boundary line only has two sides. you can't descend from above and erase it because you think you know what liberty means. that would be like descending from above to enforce it because you think you know what liberty means. note that it doesn't matter what you think; it still requires coercion for your idea to be consistent with the outside world. if you internalize your idea, you are not free.

so anonymous sounds a little bit too quixotic, like someone who would ride to the rescue and "force me to be free" by erasing the boundaries i've agreed upon with my neighbors. that's hardly libertarian, and so it cannot be anarchist.

in a free world, he'd have surely found a place where everybody thought like he did, but they would not be good neighbors to a limited constitutional republic. they would be without internal inconsistency, perhaps, but to gain this they would have to acquire a fantastic ignorance of the rest of the world, whole other nation-states that (gasp) would not be operating with the least similarity. their map would be incomplete.

but he won't find himself stuck next to them if they leave the market to its natural anarchy!

each person's duty to god is allegorical to resisting the temptation to bend the market to his or her will -- you can never know all of the victims of your avarice, but there will be a number suited to the extent of the damage you cause. since you likely will not feel their vengeance directly, you can be sure you will catch it from the lord.

the creation of earthly kingdoms, empires, nation-states, all come from a failure to uphold this duty, through the sin of politics. in time, these super-groups find themselves behaving less capitalist betwix each other -- both sets of politicians have falsely promised the end of a scarcity which does not end -- until it devolves into war, the ultimate expression of socialism, life and livelihood centrally planned.