Anarchism: Utopian vs. Practical

February Market Anarchist Blog Carnival

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 10:01 pm 3 Responses »

Feb 282009

Good morning and welcome to the February, 2009 edition of the Market Anarchist Blog Carnival.

David Gross presents Like the withered stalk of a cattail posted at The Picket Line. David argues that there is growing awareness of the corruption in the central institutions of authority — government, economy, media, etc.

Andrew Q presents A Libertarian Defense of Property Redistribution posted at Capital Goods. He discusses Carson and Rothbard’s arguments on land theft and property redistribution.

Andrew Q also presents A Critique of Agorism posted at Capital Goods. Agorism is a novel strategy and merits further debate and discussion.

Scott Hughes presents What Freedom Means to Me posted at Philosophy Forums.

Francois Tremblay presents History is written by the idiots posted at Check Your Premises. He discusses the teaching of history and cautions anarchists in their choice of media.

John Petrie presents Toy lead-content regulations hurt small toy makers posted at Blagnet.net. Unsurprisingly, government regulations benefit big business while screwing the little guy.

John Petrie also presents Saving is good, not bad, for American economy posted at Blagnet.net. John discusses the ecognorance of Keynesian pump-priming and the vilification of saving.

David Z presents Legalize ALL Drugs posted at No Third Solution.

Continuing with drug prohibition, see my article The Case Against Drug Prohibition. Not only is prohibition ineffective, but it causes crime, corruption, and increases the risk of overdosing.

That’s all for this edition, which will be the last due to a lack of interest. Thanks to everyone who submitted.

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...

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...

Working paper posted on Mises!

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 10:29 pm No Responses »

Dec 012008

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!