No Treason

Got inspired to post from something I read on a list, which referenced a comment from Facebook.

This is from the June 1971 edition of The Libertarian Forum.  I removed the original emphasis and added my own.

The question of whether a future free society will be “coop” or communal or capitalist brings up the most disturbing problem about the anarcho-syndicalists and communalists. This is the famous “question of Auban” – the question that “Auban”, the individualist anarchist hero of John Henry Mackay’s novel The Anarchists, put to the left-wing anarchists. In essence: would you, in your proposed anarchist society, permit those who so wished to have private property, to engage in free market transactions, to hire workers in “capitalist’ relations; etc.?[¹] The communist anarchists in Mackay’s book never answered the question clearly and lucidly, and neither do any leftwing anarchists that one may encounter today. (For the Auban speech from Mackay, see Krimerman and Perry, eds., Patterns of Anarchy (Doubleday, 1966), pp. 16-33.) Generally, the left-anarchists reply that, in their Utopian society, no one will be so base as to want to indulge in private property or in capitalist social relations. [²] But suppose they do? one persists. The answer is generally either a repeat of the Utopian answer or an evasive silence.

And when the left-anarchists can be pressed for an answer, the response is disturbing indeed. Take for example one of our most distinguished socialist-anarchists, Professor Noam Chomsky. Professor Chomsky has recently expressed a great deal of worry about the recent rise of our “right-wing” libertarian movement; apparently he is – I am afraid unrealistically – concerned that we might succeed in abolishing the State before the State has succeeded in abolishing private property! Secondly, Chomsky has written that the anarcho-capitalist society would constitute “the greatest tyranny the world has ever known”. (What, Noam? Greater than Hitler? than Ghengis Khan?) Whether or not anarcho-capitalism would be tyrannical is here irrelevant; the problem is that, in so expressing his horror at the possible results of complete freedom, Professor Chomsky reveals that he is not really an “anarchist” at all, indeed that he prefers statism to an anarcho-capitalist world. That of course is his prerogative, and scarcely unusual, but what is illegitimate is for this distinguished linguist to call himself an “anarchist”. And I very much fear that the same can be said for the other varieties of left-anarchists: communal, syndical, or whatever. Beneath a thin veneer of libertarian rhetoric there lies the same compulsory and coercive collectivist that we have encountered all too often in the last two centuries. Scratch a left-wing “anarchist” and you will find a coercive egalitarian despot who makes the true lover of freedom yearn even for Richard Nixon (Arghhl) in contrast.

If this analysis is correct, as I believe it is, then it makes all the more absurd the hankering by so many of our “left-wing” for an intimate comradely alliance with the anarcho-left. [³] Beneath superficial agreement in rhetoric, there is nothing in common between genuine libertarians and collectivist “anarchists”. Superficially, we both oppose the existing system – but so too do monarchists, Nazis, and those who hanker for a return to the Inquisition – scarcely enough for a warm and comradely dialogue. It is indeed fortunate for Liberty that the left-anarchists have about as much chance of victory as some of our Conservatives have to restore the Bourbon dynasty. For if they did, we would soon find that the embrace of left-anarchy is the embrace of Death.

1. Left-anarchists are not anarcho-capitalist fellow travelers when it comes to non-aggression.
2. Thick libero–utopian-arianism.
3. The obsession with reaching out to the statist and anarcho left as superior to the statist and anarcho right alienates a great many people through false characterizations (vulgar this, vulgar that) and partisan/adolescent clique games.

Related Blogs

• Blogs Related to anarchism
• Events – Rudolf Rocker and East End anarchism

• Blogs Related to chomsky
• Chomsky's Lectern: Turning Point? « Little Alex in Wonderland

• Blogs Related to rothbard

I have been listening to Webster Tarpley on the Alex Jones show for some time.  Tarpley is a very clever disinfo agent, who uses large amounts of doublethink to unbalance the listener.  Infowars has some great guests, but the show has really tanked in the last 6 months.

Now why Alex Jones has Tarpley on Infowars and continues to pump him up is beyond me.  Tarpley is the opposite of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin.  On economics, law, history and social policy, Tarpley is basically an ideological neocon.  Webster is as far from a Libertarian as Obama is, just in a different direction.

Continue reading Are Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley Disinfo Agents?

I did it.

Comment #29 on this blog post.

In response to this comment,

Give Him a Break

Everyone is blowing the stupid special olympics comment out of control. It is very easy for the media to ruin any interview by only showing the bad little bits and pieces of it. If anyone actually watched the interview and developed their own opinion on it rather than being spoon fed an opinion from the media im sure that the public would think that the interview was relatively succesful. Now a days you have to be so careful what you say or else some organization will be breathing down your neck. I think everone should focus on how he is trying to help our nation as opposed to constantly trying to find the flaws. As Obama said last night, we need to stop trying to point the finger and instead try and solve the problem that we we are currently faced with.

I wrote

Yeah give Obama a break

Obama deserves a fair break just like all of the Afghan children his predator missile drones murder each week.

It’s not fair to judge Obama by how he did on a talk show. The hallmark of any great American president is how many brown people they can kill in foreign countries to increase the profits of the military industrial complex.

My comment on Obama and how he deserves a break for being a great killer but a lousy talk show guest.

I’m not too much into religion, and don’t even like to discuss it much, but the “in your face” Evangelicals really irritate me, because they spend more time talking about Jesus than they do living by his lessons.

This post is brought on due to this article, which was linked at LewRockwell.com in the blog, then strangely removed.

The coming evangelical collapse

And this is the author credit,

Michael Spencer is a writer and communicator living and working in a Christian community in Kentucky. He describes himself as “a postevangelical reformation Christian in search of a Jesus-shaped spirituality.” This essay is adapted from a series on his blog, InternetMonk.com

Even if you are an atheist, you might want to give the article a read.  If you are a theist, you might want to check out the InternetMonk blog, on a quick perusal, I found it fairly interesting, considering it’s really not my cup of tea.

But back to the title of this post, the bankruptcy of evangelicals, baptists, catholics, protestants, lutherans, whatever is tied directly to the fact that as long as they tolerate a state that steals, and a state that murders, then they are bankrupt in their beliefs.  Anyone who advocates murder is not a libertarian.  That goes for your Eric Dondero Libertarian Republicans as well.  It is not acceptable to take one innocent life in a war (even to harm an innocent or their property), morality and justice does not wither under tests of scale, only weakness of character.

The democratic institutions which have harmed Christians and their values, as much as it has teased them with empowerment, are also to be rejected as being in direct conflict with the values of Jesus and the Kingdom of Heaven.

Any Christian who lectures on any social values, while supporting the corrupt, immoral, and sinful state and it’s lies, violence and theft, has no credibility at all

I’m an atheist, but I was a theist at one time.  All that changed, is that I understand that morality doesn’t have to originate with divine decree.  It can be self-evident, that the rational path, the most productive path, is peaceful, voluntary, free market relations.  The likes of which Jesus of the Bible, advocated through his disciples’ writings.

Related Blogs

• Blogs Related to christianity
• Candour: ‘Science and Christianity’ « P e r ? C r u c e m …

• Blogs Related to evangelical
• Evangelical Collapse? | WestonWilliams.com
• Got news? Evangelical crash ahead? » GetReligion