Anyone who has taken the time to study in depth the wealth of scholarly literature of Austro-libertarianism cannot help but be enthralled by the intellectual treasures provided by our school of thought. Not only have we uncovered a body of knowledge which – especially in comparison to mainstream social science – is rigorous, scientific, coherent and interdisciplinary, but, as the true successors of classical liberalism, we have an inspiring vision of the future that can sweep away war, conflict, strife and poverty while propelling the human race to unheard of heights of peace and prosperity. Indeed, for many of us Austro-libertarianism has been the most joyous and rewarding discovery of our lives, providing a sheltered harbour in a world which would otherwise leave us adrift in a sea of chaos.
Unfortunately, we are forced to admit that the intellectual accomplishments of Austro-libertarians are disproportionate to our achievements in effecting real world change which, by comparison, are almost miniscule. Although most forms of direct socialism have been discredited by the disaster that was the Soviet Union, we are today living in a world of unprecedented state power which the majority of the population, buoyed by a sense of control instilled by their occasional visits to the ballot box, views as entirely legitimate. It is bad enough that the modern nation state has accreted to itself power and functions that ancient kings and emperors could only dream of; but we are confronted also by a pervasive attitude that any difficulty, problem, error, injustice or whatever that life may choose to throw at us – including our own personal foibles and failings – is always the state’s responsibility to solve. The problems of paper money, the welfare state, boom and bust, public “education”, crippling regulation, disastrous overseas wars and all of the other ills bred by the state are not going to be vanquished when the majority of the public regards this institution as the magic carpet that will whisk us all away to the land of milk and honey. Continue reading →
Democrats in the United States are now demanding war, death, and destruction in the Middle-East, in places most of them would be unable to point to on a globe. Why? Because Donald Trump is trying to reduce war, death, and destruction in the Middle-East, or at least he’s trying to reduce American involvement in such terrible things. One is of course reminded of George Orwell’s quote from Nineteen-Eighty-Four:
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.”
Once again it seems the elites have been using Mr Orwell’s dystopian novel as a guidebook for their own continuing power over the rest of us, rather than as a portentive Cassandran warning.
Personally, I would like to congratulate President Trump for withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria, and hopefully later from Afghanistan too, to reduce the destruction wrought by elite globalism. Though no doubt he’s merely serving the whims of that global puppet-master, that Emmanuel Goldstein himself, Vladimir Putin.
But what is the United States doing anyway in such places? Was it not founded on the ambition of George Washington to avoid permanent alliances and Thomas Jefferson’s wish to avoid entangling alliances? Are two oceans really not enough to defend America, plus the largest and most technologically advanced set of armed forces in the world? The American Democrats make me sick with their double-think and their hypocrisy. Keep going, Sir Donald!
Anyhow, enough of that. Here’s an excellent interview on the subject, between Jeff Deist and Dave Smith. As our American friends would say, enjoy y’all!
One of the aspects of capitalism and the free market that the typical lay person finds difficult to comprehend is the fact that the complex structure of work, production, distribution, and trade could possibly take place without some kind of centralised, directing authority in order to co-ordinate everybody’s efforts. Wouldn’t there just be chaos and mal-coordination with everyone trying to make their own, independent plans if there is nobody at the tiller to steer the giant ship?
This fallacy stems from the belief – accentuated by holistic concepts such as aggregate, pseudo-statistics like “GDP” or “the national income” – that what we refer to as “the economy” is some kind of enormous machine that has “input”, with a single operator “processing” these “inputs” into “outputs”.
In fact, rather than being one giant, amorphous blob “the economy” is made up of millions and millions of independent, unilateral acts of production and two-way trades, many of which will never have anything to do with each other. I may sell an apple to my neighbour for 10p in London; another person may sell an orange for 20p to his neighbour in Manchester. Neither of the two pairs of people has ever met, nor need any of them have any involvement with the exchange of the other pair; and yet both exchanges would be regarded as part of “the British economy” in mainstream discourse. Continue reading →
Look guys….we Christians don’t go about threatening all sorts of dire and unspecified retribution to other religions, pre-capitalist desert-survival-guides, crank hypotheses and weird belief-systems, and their strictures, saying that things they do and say are “anti-Christian”.
How about you reciprocate? Otherwise people will think, increasingly, and possibly with justification, that you lot are just humorously twisting our tails and bullying us because you know you can get away with it.