Working paper posted on Mises!

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...

Nuclear Homesteading

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 10:10 pm 2 Responses »

Jan 132009

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...

Community Conversions

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 10:25 pm 3 Responses »

Dec 282008

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...

Ecognorance

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 4:55 pm 21 Responses »

Dec 232008

“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!)

Against Democracy

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 5:13 pm 37 Responses »

Dec 142008

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...

Anti-intellectual Intellectualism

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 11:41 pm 4 Responses »

Dec 052008

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...

Immigration II: Electric Boogaloo

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 6:20 pm 1 Response »

Dec 032008

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...