Michael Wiebe

I'm an anarchist, atheist, Austrian, agorist autodidact.

 

According to standard homesteading theory, just as an individual can homestead and establish a property right in unowned land, they can also homestead and establish a pollution easement in unowned land. Whereas traditional homesteading gives a full property right, i.e. ultimate jurisdiction over land, pollution easements only give a limited property right, namely the right to pollute some land.

In his article Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution, Rothbard writes (p.145-46):

The “first ownership to first use” principle for natural resources is also popularly called the “homesteading principle.” If each man owns the land that he “mixes his labor with,” then he owns the product of that mixture, and he has the right to exchange property titles with other, similar producers. This establishes the right of free contract in the sense of transfer of property titles. It also establishes the right to give away such titles, either as a gift or bequest. Keep reading...

 

An educational strategy for achieving anarchy I’ve thought up is community conversions: teaching anarchism to specific intellectual or cultural communities, like atheists, gun nuts, 9/11 Truthers, anti-war groups, personal development gurus, spiritual teachers, cannabis activists, etc. The best communities would be ones with a distinct leader, who could directly influence their followers. Web-savvy communities would be preferred, as virtually all of the anarchist community and literature is online.

Essentially, this strategy is just one result of applying the 80/20 principle to conversions. Who would be the most profitable converts? Who could promote anarchism most efficiently? Who would have the strongest influence on the masses, or on the elites?

In terms of actually converting a community, I would follow a two-step approach. First, make the standard case that government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn’t work. Second, show how anarchism is congruent with that community. Make specific, practical links between anarchist philosophy and the community, and show why they should support anarchism. For example, anti-war groups should oppose the State because it is the institutionalization of war. Keep reading...

 

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” – Murray Rothbard

There is no question Rothbard was addressing the vast majority of humanity when he wrote the above quotation. After all, it is true: nearly everyone is completely ignorant of economic reasoning, and yet nearly everyone holds very strong opinions on economic subjects. Just think about the many, many basic economic fallacies that are accepted as common knowledge:

  • minimum wage
  • rent control
  • price controls
  • price gouging
  • drug prohibition
  • gun control
  • protectionism
  • bailouts
  • Keynesianism
  • stable price level
  • government can create jobs
  • anti-trust regulations
  • etc. ad nauseum

People just do not understand the basics of supply and demand or the price system, or the incentive structure of a tax-funded monopoly. For example, the average person is ignorant of the fact that a minimum wage will unemploy marginal workers, or that there are systematic reasons why there are long lines at the post office and not at the supermarket.

Clearly, those of us who do understand economic reasoning will have to address this widespread ignorance. But instead of having to use the unwieldy phrase “economic ignorance” over and over, I have coined the term ecognorance (e-COG-nor-ance) to designate the ignorance of economics so prevalent today. Thus, “ecognorance” as a noun means the condition of economic ignorance, while the adjective “ecognorant” designates being unaware of economic knowledge. For example, we would say that statists are ecognorant, or that they live in a state of ecognorance.

I foresee that this new term will save a lot of economists’ time in pointing out how ecognorant people are. (See? Before I would have used the clunky, longer phrase “economically ignorant”. Linguistic efficiency!)

 

Introduction

Democracy is universally held up as the sacred political ideal. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that democracy is a secular religion. Observe: We fight wars for it (“Making the world safe for democracy”). We are implored to blindly participate in it (“It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just vote”). And most tellingly, it is taboo to question it. Anyone who claims that democracy is bad is likely to be labeled a Nazi. (Even though Hitler was democratically elected and much of Nazism was promoted with democratic rhetoric.)

Nevertheless, I will attempt to prove that democracy is one of the worst political ideologies, on par with dictatorship and communism. My argument is three pronged. First, democracy is founded on initiatory violence. It is thus no more acceptable than murder or rape. Second, it can be refuted by a reductio ad absurdum; namely, that while we accept democracy for government, we would never accept it applied consistently in our lives. Third, democracy is unnecessary. What is there to vote on? All essential functions of society can be provided voluntarily and competitively on the market. Programs like the minimum wage and rent control are actually counter-productive, and can be eliminated altogether. There are many other problems with democracy: its ineffectiveness, its corruption, its total war, and its decivilization effect; but I will not address these here (see Hoppe). Last, I will address two strategies to undermine and weaken democracy: not voting and secession. Keep reading...

 

The first obvious strategy for anarchists is education: we need to teach people that government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn’t work. But how do we achieve this? Do we convert the masses or the intellectuals? Do we emphasize morality or practicality?

Hans Hoppe has provided the answer to such questions with his strategy of “Anti-intellectual Intellectualism”. Following Boétie’s insight that governments derive their power and legitimacy from public opinion, we must recognize that it is the intellectuals who shape this public opinion. Accordingly, Hoppe calls for “anti-intellectual intellectuals” to take up the task of combating the state intellectuals, and ultimately delegitimizing, and hence destroying, the State. The two main branches of this strategy are (1) rooting one’s arguments in morality, and not mere utilitarianism, while (2) circumventing academia and reaching out to the general public. Thus, Hoppe writes, “states, as powerful and invincible as they might seem, ultimately owe their existence to ideas and, since ideas can in principle change instantaneously, states can be brought down and crumble practically overnight.” Keep reading...

 

This article is a sequel to my previous post “Root Causes and the Libertarian Immigration Debate”. Continuing the discussion on what strategy libertarians should follow with regards to immigration, I will argue that even if we accept the Hoppean argument for closed borders, the conclusion still violates libertarian principles.

Toward a Theory of Strategy for Liberty

In chapter thirty of his book “The Ethics of Liberty”, Rothbard laid down the groundwork of anarchist strategy. Basically, there are two principles libertarians must keep in mind when pursuing strategy. First, we must not violate the nonaggression principle. Second, we must be abolitionists, for advocating anything less than the immediate abolition of aggressive violence would mean the sanctioning of injustice. Keep reading...

 

My paper “A Rothbardian critique of Cuzán and Ostrowski and a Typology of Anarchy”, has been posted in the Mises Institute Working Papers. Here’s the abstract:

With his 1979 article “Do we really ever get out of anarchy?” Alfred Cuzán provides us with a wonderful insight: “Anarchy, like matter, never disappears – it only changes form.” Cuzán argues that anarchy, defined as the absence of a third party territorial monopolist of ultimate jurisdiction, is omnipresent: Regardless of what political system we live under, there will always be anarchic relationships, namely those between the actual members of government. James Ostrowski, in his article “The Myth of Democratic Peace”, extends this argument to show that there are four more anarchic relationships in current society. The omnipresence of anarchy is undeniable. However, there are problems with this analysis. It is not compatible with the root word definition of anarchy as “no rulers”, nor does it incorporate such governmental (non-anarchic) relationships as taxation and regulation. Happily, the analysis can be repaired by applying Murray Rothbard’s “typology of intervention” and creating a corresponding “typology of anarchy”.

My plan is to have this published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Academia, here I come!

 

Whenever I am arguing with someone over the merits and morality of anarchism versus the horrible tragedy of statism, I am almost always confronted with the inevitable question: “What about the poor?” These ignorant statists (I’ve yet to find one aware of economics) are operating under the assumption that the government helps the poor, and so a stateless society would therefore leave the poor worse off. This assumption is false.

First off, let’s be generous and assume that the government actually has the intention to help the poor. That is, the government is genuinely working to reduce poverty and not just padding the bank accounts of state-allied business (note that most politicians are also businessmen). However, we all know a certain road that is paved with good intentions. They key is to look at the effects of government programs, not just the intentions. Do they really help the poor? Keep reading...

 

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
- Henry David Thoreau

The libertarian immigration debate is alive and well.1 Although there is no debate over the immigration policy of a free society, there is considerable controversy over the proper immigration policy in our currently existing statist society. However, this debate has neglected to address the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion, and its solutions fail accordingly. This article will attempt to resolve the debate by addressing the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion, and by proposing solutions that address these root causes.

Before we can address the problem of immigration under statism, we must establish several premises. Keep reading...

 

Naomi Klein’s joke of a book, The Shock Doctrine, represents the typical drivel that is modern state-socialism. It is chock full of logical fallacies, with straw man arguments on almost every page. You will almost never find a term that is defined, leading to compounding errors. And when she does actually stop using ad hominem attacks and address the issues, we find her advocacy of socialism is nothing more than unsupported assertions. She does not bother to prove that a minimum wage is good or that price controls work; she just assumes they are better than the free market.

Her entire book can be easily annihilated by exposing the errors in her thesis on page twenty-two: to challenge the idea “that the triumph of deregulated capitalism has been born of freedom, that unfettered markets go hand in hand with democracy. Instead, I will show that this fundamentalist form of capitalism has consistently been midwifed by the most brutal forms of coercion inflicted on the collective body politic as well as on countless individual bodies. The history of the contemporary free market – better understood as the rise of corporatism – was written in shocks.”

Now, any person even somewhat familiar with libertarianism will think this is written as a joke. However, pathetic as it is, Klein is being serious. She really believes this. Keep reading...