Bush v. Obama

I've long considered Bush to have been far worse than Obama in terms of foreign policy. His administration was certainly far more bloody. But then, Bush didn't drag us into a proxy war with a massive nuclear power, so now I'm not so sure.

The Button Pusher Reconsidered

Outstanding analysis by Jakub Wisniewski:

"Rothbard famously claimed that a principled supporter of a voluntary society has to be "a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed". I regard this metaphor as in one sense rather unfortunate, not because of its alleged "utopianism", but because of its ambiguity, while in another sense as deeply revealing of what being a principled and effective advocate of a voluntary society really involves.

On the one hand, if the abolition in question were to involve the instantaneous incapacitation of the existing ruling class and the disappearance of the financial and military resources that sustain the institutions of power, then this would provide at best a temporary relief. The result of such an abolition would not be the emergence of a voluntary society, but the emergence of what I call "statism without the state", i.e., the situation where a territorial monopoly of violence disappears, but everything else, including the mentality that legitimizes and supports its existence, stays the same. Needless to say, under such circumstances there would appear an almost immediate push for reestablishing a ruling class and the institutions of power.

If, on the other hand, pushing the Rothbardian button were to result in making the majority of the world's population instantly and fully aware of the flagrant evils, inefficiencies, and logical inconsistencies of statism, as well as of the vast economic and moral superiority of a voluntary society, then states would be truly and permanently abolished, joining slavery, legally sanctioned racial discrimination, and the divine right of kings in the dustbin of history.

If Rothbard's claim is to be interpreted in the latter way, it becomes clear that, far from illustrating the difference between the abolitionist and the gradualist approach to creating a voluntary society, it indicates that the difference in question is actually a moot point, since a voluntary society cannot be created by starting with dismantling the institutions of power (be it revolutionarily or gradually), but only by first changing the cultural and moral preferences of the majority. In the context of this latter task, however, there is no tradeoff between the advantages and disadvantages of abolitionism and gradualism to speak of, since, presumably, every advocate of a voluntary society would agree that the quicker the relevant awareness-raising efforts could progress and succeed, the better it would be. Thus, given the right choice of pro-voluntarist tasks and goals, the difference between the abolitionist and the gradualist collapses, indicating that the relevant disputes and trade-offs may lie somewhere else entirely."

My response:

"Outstanding analysis, Jakub. I wonder if the "monopoly of force" definition of a state is really useful? Lately I've come to prefer something like "any group enjoying a privilege of legitimized aggression." Those who consider their aggression legitimate need not include literally everyone in the relevant geographic region. Thus, a gang that is attempting to achieve a monopoly of force but has not yet, is still a state, because it is still granted special legitimacy for its aggression by its adherents. So situations which are often called "anarchies" are just civil wars among geographically overlapping states."

Tased and Hauled Off To Jail for Waiting for His Kids While Black

"I haven't done anything wrong. Can somebody help me? That's my kids right there!"

<children crying>

"PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK!"

» Cop Points Gun, Threatens to Kill Citizen in Response to Cell Phone Recording - Infowars

“Turn that phone off right now.”

“No I’m not intimidated, I have rights, sir, I’m recording your ass.”

“What’s your name sir?” asks one of the men, before the cop swats the cell phone out of his hand and drags him out of the car, throwing him to the ground.

Another officer then arrives with his gun drawn before stating, “I’ll fucking, I’ll put a round in your ass so quick.” The cop then opens the passenger door with his gun drawn and the video ends.(…)

According to Katz, the men in the car were “escalating” the situation by “recording the interaction.” The officer’s actions were justified because one of the men “reached out of his window with a black object in his hand” (a cell phone). (…)

Katz asserted that the men were deemed a threat because they weren’t displaying an appropriate level of “fear” towards the officers, stating, “When I watch this video, I don’t see a car full of young men who are behaving in a manner consistent with fear of the police.”

The men had apparently done nothing to arouse suspicion in the first place apart from ‘driving while black’.

Mises Curriculum Buzz

The response to the Mises Curriculum announcement has been great! Please keep spreading the word, and the address: Mises.org/Curriculum.

Site Revamped

Let me know what you think!