This isn't the whole lecture, unfortunately, but it does say a bit about the Use and Occupancy condition. It is nice to hear anarcho-capitalists admit the libertarianness of it.
I could save this next topic for a different post, but I'll address it here too. Some people point to the American Indians getting run off their land by white men who quote Locke, and question why the labor-mixing standard should be used anyway. My answer is two-fold: first, if people aren't entitled to the full product of their labor, then they don't own their labor, and they are slaves. So any notion of ownership that does not regard labor is going to be an apology for enslavement (and you will have some notion of ownership). Secondly, there are only two standards for ownership: one recognizes the last receiver of a chain of voluntary transfers going back to the original appropriator (the one who mixed his labor with it) as the legitimate owner; the other does things this way.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Elinor Ostrom
I was watching this video of Sheldon Richman that makes a good summary of the "left-libertarian" side of the label debate, and I came upon this name that I'm sure I'll be paying a lot more attention to: Elinor Ostrom.
She wrote quite a few books about bottom-up management of common resources, among them Governing the Commons.
A list of a whole lot of her works can be found at her Curriculum Vitae.
She wrote quite a few books about bottom-up management of common resources, among them Governing the Commons.
A list of a whole lot of her works can be found at her Curriculum Vitae.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Three Thousand Plus and Counting...
I'm way behind in the essay that's due, so I thought I should give an update on my progress. I have been working on it, maybe too much, and as of now I'm at 3,860 words. Single-spaced and at 12-font Times New Roman on 8.5x11'' paper, it's 6 pages exact. That's about twice as long as the typical paper I did in college. The more relevant difference between this paper and the ones I wrote for college is that I actually enjoy writing this one.
I'm maybe less than half-way done with it.
I'm maybe less than half-way done with it.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
More On the Falklands
On Sunday I made this video in response to an LRC blog post by Christopher Manion, and got some comments by a couple Brits (I'm inferring they're Brits) who are noticeably concerned over my statement that the people of the U.S. have no obligation to foreign governments. Apparently, saying that the Falkland islanders are British subjects and that Argentina has no rightful claim over the islands just wasn't enough for these two.
It seems that Brits like these two want the U.S. government to, at the very least, stand up and say on behalf of every single individual who resides within the U.S. that "the people of the United States" believe the Falklands belong to the UK and not Argentina. You see, my words, as representative of the views of one single American individual, are not official enough to count. The opinions of persons are irrelevant unless they are ascribed onto everyone else and published as "the opinion" (singular) of "a people" (again, singular).
Christopher Manion posted another blog entry in which he claims that "the British press continues to go bananas" at the sudden realization that the United States government isn't exactly at the UK's beck and call. At the end of his post he excerpts a comment that Howard Baker left on the online article. The comment is pasted in its entirety below.
"The United States of America has to entertain this ‘Special Relationship,’ not approved by our senate, and which has not been put into a treaty, and not even been publicly debated, why? We have to clean up your mess, because you don’t want to let go of some distant islands? We have committed some great transgression for not wanting to wipe your bottoms with our army? Laughable!
"Don’t get me wrong; they shouldn’t necessarily go to the Argentinians. If geography dictated which land should belong to whom, Argentina would have a good claim over Chile.
"The Brits our are friends, but so are the Argentinians (or they all should be). And we side with our friends. And in case you didn’t notice, we have our own problems to deal with. There is more to the United States than that of a personal army you direct toward your enemy. We send billions of dollars to Israel while American veterans eat of dumpsters (an unfortunate reality I suspect all of Europe will soon awaken to.) Our government will only get involved if there are assets to be secured, namely oil or uranium. Certainly not because of some fabled ’special relationship.’
"'I cannot think of a move by Washington that could do more harm at this time to the Anglo-American Special Relationship'
"What special relationship? When we feel like invading yet another country in the Mideast, we will call on you as our old-world trojan horse. We are not friends; you are the dog, and we are the master. It’s not a friendly statement, and I take no pride in expressing it, but you know it’s true. Don’t pout like a child when we don’t rush to your defense. The Argentinians booting you out of the Falklands and you sitting in bewilderment with your thumbs up your 'arses' is precisely the lesson you deserve."
It seems that Brits like these two want the U.S. government to, at the very least, stand up and say on behalf of every single individual who resides within the U.S. that "the people of the United States" believe the Falklands belong to the UK and not Argentina. You see, my words, as representative of the views of one single American individual, are not official enough to count. The opinions of persons are irrelevant unless they are ascribed onto everyone else and published as "the opinion" (singular) of "a people" (again, singular).
Christopher Manion posted another blog entry in which he claims that "the British press continues to go bananas" at the sudden realization that the United States government isn't exactly at the UK's beck and call. At the end of his post he excerpts a comment that Howard Baker left on the online article. The comment is pasted in its entirety below.
"The United States of America has to entertain this ‘Special Relationship,’ not approved by our senate, and which has not been put into a treaty, and not even been publicly debated, why? We have to clean up your mess, because you don’t want to let go of some distant islands? We have committed some great transgression for not wanting to wipe your bottoms with our army? Laughable!
"Don’t get me wrong; they shouldn’t necessarily go to the Argentinians. If geography dictated which land should belong to whom, Argentina would have a good claim over Chile.
"The Brits our are friends, but so are the Argentinians (or they all should be). And we side with our friends. And in case you didn’t notice, we have our own problems to deal with. There is more to the United States than that of a personal army you direct toward your enemy. We send billions of dollars to Israel while American veterans eat of dumpsters (an unfortunate reality I suspect all of Europe will soon awaken to.) Our government will only get involved if there are assets to be secured, namely oil or uranium. Certainly not because of some fabled ’special relationship.’
"'I cannot think of a move by Washington that could do more harm at this time to the Anglo-American Special Relationship'
"What special relationship? When we feel like invading yet another country in the Mideast, we will call on you as our old-world trojan horse. We are not friends; you are the dog, and we are the master. It’s not a friendly statement, and I take no pride in expressing it, but you know it’s true. Don’t pout like a child when we don’t rush to your defense. The Argentinians booting you out of the Falklands and you sitting in bewilderment with your thumbs up your 'arses' is precisely the lesson you deserve."
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Los Presidentes Washington y Lincoln
Buenas noches Sra.,
On one of my homework sheets you asked por que no me gustan los presidentes Washington y Lincoln. The biggest reason is that I see these men as symbols of the trend to concentrate more and more power in the hands of a select few.
Washington was very influential in dumping the Articles of Confederation, which provided for no executive branch or office of Commander in Chief, and switching to the present Constitution, which does both. He knew the government provided for in the Articles was not powerful enough to protect the interests of the landed elite. Also, during the Revolution, Washington introduced a class system to the Continental Army, where officers were no longer elected by their peers but now appointed, and where officers enjoyed better pay than their subordinates.
Besides killing off a large portion of the American population, Lincoln did all sorts of other abuses of power. He suspended habeus corpus, he shut down newspapers, and he tried to arrest a Chief Justice for disagreeing with him. Just about every dubious expansion of executive power (and especially wartime power) has its precedent in Lincoln's reign.
Unfortunately, it's only "natural" that patriotic holidays tend to be celebrations of bloodshed, and it's only "natural" that national "heroes" tend to be wartime Presidents and military officials. Government is by definition institutionalized violence, and it is inevitable that almost all the liturgy of the civil religion will be war-themed celebrations that unite and define the nation through the sacralazation of organized violence. I dislike Washington and Lincoln and their holiday because they are patron saints of power, and to worship them is to worship power.
Here's an article saying a little more on Washington. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard171.html
Here's an article on Washington's orders to execute mutineers who were agitating for better pay. http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/01/27/1781-new-jersey-pennsylvania-line-mutiny/
Here's a lecture by Howard Zinn on America's three "Holy Wars". He says a few things about Washington and Lincoln, and some other figures in American history. http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2010/1/8/howard_zinn_three_holy_wars
Here's a url for a whole archive on "King Lincoln". http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html
Even if these ideas are too uncomfortably radical for you, I do hope and am confident that you will at least find them interesting.
Sinceramente,
Isaiah
On one of my homework sheets you asked por que no me gustan los presidentes Washington y Lincoln. The biggest reason is that I see these men as symbols of the trend to concentrate more and more power in the hands of a select few.
Washington was very influential in dumping the Articles of Confederation, which provided for no executive branch or office of Commander in Chief, and switching to the present Constitution, which does both. He knew the government provided for in the Articles was not powerful enough to protect the interests of the landed elite. Also, during the Revolution, Washington introduced a class system to the Continental Army, where officers were no longer elected by their peers but now appointed, and where officers enjoyed better pay than their subordinates.
Besides killing off a large portion of the American population, Lincoln did all sorts of other abuses of power. He suspended habeus corpus, he shut down newspapers, and he tried to arrest a Chief Justice for disagreeing with him. Just about every dubious expansion of executive power (and especially wartime power) has its precedent in Lincoln's reign.
Unfortunately, it's only "natural" that patriotic holidays tend to be celebrations of bloodshed, and it's only "natural" that national "heroes" tend to be wartime Presidents and military officials. Government is by definition institutionalized violence, and it is inevitable that almost all the liturgy of the civil religion will be war-themed celebrations that unite and define the nation through the sacralazation of organized violence. I dislike Washington and Lincoln and their holiday because they are patron saints of power, and to worship them is to worship power.
Here's an article saying a little more on Washington. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard171.html
Here's an article on Washington's orders to execute mutineers who were agitating for better pay. http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/01/27/1781-new-jersey-pennsylvania-line-mutiny/
Here's a lecture by Howard Zinn on America's three "Holy Wars". He says a few things about Washington and Lincoln, and some other figures in American history. http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2010/1/8/howard_zinn_three_holy_wars
Here's a url for a whole archive on "King Lincoln". http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html
Even if these ideas are too uncomfortably radical for you, I do hope and am confident that you will at least find them interesting.
Sinceramente,
Isaiah
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Floor Fees
The new word on the street is that the Libertarian Party - yes, the LIBERTARIAN PARTY - might decide to charge fees for seats at its 2010 national convention. If you want a more substantial reaction to this than I'm going to give, Gary Chartier gives a good summary of the "thick" response.
Now, I could totally understand someone steeped in free market economics giving a supply-demand defense of floor fees. Seats on the floor are a scarce resource for which there is much demand, and it is right and equitable that these seats be offered at a price that reflects the demand for and scarcity of these seats, so as to avoid the effects of distributing goods at a price lower than their demand and scarcity, which in this case would be overcrowding. The fee might also help pay for the hall.
My knee-jerk reaction is that charging money for access to a political decision-making process smears the distinction that Classical Liberalism has traditionally made between the public and private sphere. I imagine that the LP is still officially minarchist, and as such they at least nominally hold to the public-private distinction. Only the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists want everything privatized and allocated through market exchange. I'm an anarchist, but even I recognize some distinction between public and private spheres. Part of "the democratic ideal" is everyone's entitlement to a say in the decisions that affect them. Charging money for that say is essentially charging people for something that they should already have by reason of their rightful autonomy.
I'm not really someone to talk, though, because - well - I'm an anarchist, and even though I do vote I've more or less given up hope on party politics.
I have to say, though - what's next, renting pews in church? Oh wait, we've already had that. Some people have even been sued for not paying their pew rent.
Now, I could totally understand someone steeped in free market economics giving a supply-demand defense of floor fees. Seats on the floor are a scarce resource for which there is much demand, and it is right and equitable that these seats be offered at a price that reflects the demand for and scarcity of these seats, so as to avoid the effects of distributing goods at a price lower than their demand and scarcity, which in this case would be overcrowding. The fee might also help pay for the hall.
My knee-jerk reaction is that charging money for access to a political decision-making process smears the distinction that Classical Liberalism has traditionally made between the public and private sphere. I imagine that the LP is still officially minarchist, and as such they at least nominally hold to the public-private distinction. Only the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists want everything privatized and allocated through market exchange. I'm an anarchist, but even I recognize some distinction between public and private spheres. Part of "the democratic ideal" is everyone's entitlement to a say in the decisions that affect them. Charging money for that say is essentially charging people for something that they should already have by reason of their rightful autonomy.
I'm not really someone to talk, though, because - well - I'm an anarchist, and even though I do vote I've more or less given up hope on party politics.
I have to say, though - what's next, renting pews in church? Oh wait, we've already had that. Some people have even been sued for not paying their pew rent.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Reforming Baptist
William Dudding wrote a response to my very first blog entry, and posted it at his own blog. My response is definitely not going to be any shorter than his. Go ahead and trek over to his blog and read his response, cause you might be lost reading my response to his if you don't, and it's a lot of reading.
Go ahead and click around and read some other entries in his blog, because they'll give an idea of where he comes from and of the "zeitgeist" that I'm writing about (I promise I'm not going to use that word in my response). Some of what he writes is actually fun and interesting, too. Or at least I find it fun and interesting.
I can't say when my response is going to be finished, but I can say that a response is due, so keep an eye out for it. It's going to be entitled "From Biblical Fundamentalism to Fundamentalist Individualism and Here to Stay". I just finished the intro (the intro!) and I'm at 1,400 words.
Go ahead and click around and read some other entries in his blog, because they'll give an idea of where he comes from and of the "zeitgeist" that I'm writing about (I promise I'm not going to use that word in my response). Some of what he writes is actually fun and interesting, too. Or at least I find it fun and interesting.
I can't say when my response is going to be finished, but I can say that a response is due, so keep an eye out for it. It's going to be entitled "From Biblical Fundamentalism to Fundamentalist Individualism and Here to Stay". I just finished the intro (the intro!) and I'm at 1,400 words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Isaiah
- I am a part-time philosopher and a former immigration paralegal with a BA in philosophy and a paralegal certificate from UC San Diego.