Nuclear Homesteading

New Article – The Case Against Gun Control

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 6:14 pm 17 Responses »

Jan 272009

I’ve uploaded a new article – The Case Against Gun Control.

Here’s the abstract:

Gun control violates the right of individuals to control their own property. It also violates economic law. Enforcement of gun control creates incentives to produce guns on the black market. Gun control causes crime and corruption, whereas gun ownership actually deters crime, and is a check against tyrannical government. In a free society, weapons can be controlled through voluntary, peaceful means.

I wrote this after reading John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime. I wasn’t impressed with his empirical approach, so my goal was to build a case against gun control based on economic principles and theoretical, a priori arguments.

New Article – The Case Against Drug Prohibition

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 11:49 am 3 Responses »

Jan 272009

I’ve uploaded another article – The Case Against Drug Prohibition.

Here’s the abstract:

Prohibition violates the right of individuals to control their own bodies, and violates economic law. Any increased enforcement of prohibition creates greater incentives to produce drugs. Prohibition causes crime and corruption. It increases the potency and reduces the quality of drugs, causing consumption-related deaths. The solution to drug abuse is not aggressive violence, but voluntary cooperation.

This article is primarily based on the arguments from Mark Thornton’s The Economics of Prohibition (PDF here). I was also inspired by Milton Friedman’s arguments in his interview on drugs. I think readers will be most surprised by the arguments that prohibition is self-defeating and increases the potency of drugs.

New Article – The Case for Free Trade

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 11:43 am No Responses »

Jan 272009

Here’s the first article from my new articles section – The Case for Free Trade.

Here’s the abstract:

Free trade is both morally and practically superior to protectionism. First, protectionism violates the right of individuals to engage in voluntary exchange. Second, specialization and trade are beneficial whenever there is absolute or comparative advantage between individuals. Finally, protectionism is a negative-sum game: it makes everyone worse off, including the “protected” industries.

For those readers familiar with the Paul Craig Roberts/capital mobility debate, I’d like to know what you think of my critique (in the “Objections” section).

New Articles page

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 6:08 am No Responses »

Jan 272009

Check out the new Articles page for “Systematic, timeless, and comprehensive expositions of libertarian philosophy.”

My goal is to create a one-stop resource where someone can learn the main tenets of libertarian anarchism. One of the problems with the libertarian movement is that it is lacking an “argument database” where a newbie can find the answer to every one of their questions. Sure there are websites like Libertarian Nation and Mises.org, or books like Human Action and Man, Economy, and State, but the reader still has to do a lot of work putting the pieces of the puzzle together. I want to present a systematic, step-by-step analysis of the premises and conclusions of both libertarian and statist arguments. By doing the heavy lifting, hopefully I can shorten the learning curve and multiply the progress of the libertarian movement (at least concerning education).

There are no comments in the Articles section, so I will make a blog post for each article, where you can comment.

My first three articles are up:

I plan to write future articles on: price controls, the case against monopoly, education, roads, health care, money, courts and police, and more.

Fallacies of the Button-Pushing Question

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 9:36 pm 2 Responses »

Jan 262009

“The true test, then, of the radical spirit, is the button-pushing test: if we could push the button for instantaneous abolition of unjust invasions of liberty, would we do it? If we would not do it, we could scarcely call ourselves libertarians, and most of us would only do it if primarily guided by a passion for justice. The genuine libertarian, then, is, in all senses of the word, an “abolitionist”; he would, if he could, abolish instantaneously all invasions of liberty, whether it be, in the original coining of the term, slavery, or whether it be the manifold other instances of State oppression. He would, in the words of another libertarian in a similar connection, ‘blister my thumb pushing that button!’” – Murray N. Rothbard, “Why Be Libertarian?“

The button-pushing question is the test of radicalism and consistency. Being an abolitionist is what it means to be a libertarian. As libertarians we must advocate the instantaneous abolition of injustice, because any form of gradualism in theory means legitimizing the continuation of injustice.

But some have objected that pushing the button would be a mistake. If people still believe government is necessary, they argue, then another government will simply take over, and the resulting chaos will negate any possible gains. Keep reading...

Humans ARE Smarter than Yeast

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 3:01 pm 6 Responses »

Jan 232009

Are humans smarter than yeast? In this interview about peak oil, Richard Heinberg tries to show us a parallel between yeast and humans:

“If we put yeast in a bottle of grape juice, they’d be eating up the sugar in the grape juice, consuming their energy source, and at the same time they’d be giving off a waste product, namely alcohol, which would be poisoning them. So their numbers would proliferate until they ate up their energy sources and poisoned themselves with their waste product, and then they’d have a die-off. Were doing exactly the same thing with fossil fuels: we’re eating up our energy source as fast as we can, and we’re polluting our environment with the waste product. So, are we smarter than yeast? That’s the question.”

Now, if humans really were like yeast, this would be a frightening scenario. Keep reading...