Posts from March 2013

Where and When Did the Symbols “+” and “–” Originate? » A Curious Mind [via Facebook]

radgeek on What is your view of mutualism?

. . . [Yes, please, tell me more about how I've never read Proudhon because I deny that he is a communist.](http://fair-use.org/p-j-proudhon/general-idea-of-the-revolution/the-principle-of-association) As for claiming that [Shawn Wilbur](http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com/) has "clearly never read Proudhon," because he disagrees with your sweeping characterization of Proudhon, congratulations, you have uttered the most hilariously deranged and laughably ignorant sentence that I have heard all year; and it's early, I know, but I'm pretty sure that your record will last.

Free Talk Live [via Facebook]

AL Legislator Tries to Change Sex Ed Curriculum [via Facebook]

Why Did Kimani Gray Have to Die? [via Facebook]

Rad Geek People’s Daily 2013-03-15 – Cops Are Here To Protect You (Cont’d) [via Facebook]

Distro of the Libertarian Left | quality editions of anarchist classics & provocative perspectives o [via Facebook]

March 15, 2013 at 01:43PM [via Facebook]

Woman: the Old and the New (1902). By Myra Pepper in FREE SOCIETY Vol. IX. No. 28. Whole No. 370. (J [via Facebook]

Comment on From Coffin Ships to Coyotes: A Saint Patrick’s Day Reflection by Rad Geek

Hidden Author: There are literally billions of people who are poorer than the vast majority of Americans. Do you think there's room for all of them?

If you're going to claim that the decision to move is being motivated strictly by economic calculations, then of course the answer is that "room" for people to live in is not a fixed quantity (you can't find out the answer to your question by dividing the spatial volume of the United States by the number of people who could be physically packed into it). It's a good which is subject to adjustable expectations and which is produced and sold on the market. If a lot of people all want some room to live in a given place, then either (a) they can all get it at the going rates (supply is already abundant), or (b) they can all get it because their demand will encourage increased production of places to live (demand will be met through entrepreneurship), or (c) some can get it but not all because the increased demand leads to increased housing costs (demand drops to meet available supply), or, I guess, (d) some can get it but not all because some use coercive means to lock others out., or (e) everybody scrambles for it and use coercive means to fight over who gets there first, or who gets to stay.

You seem to be fixated on option (d) or option (e) as the only available options. I'm not sure why, although I guess that it's probably connected to your decision to look at a question like, "Who might opt to move to the U.S. if they were somehow transported magically for free without any consideration of housing, work opportunities or transport costs? Then, once they were magically transported, where would they go to?" rather than actually looking at this as an economic question subject to ordinary economic considerations like the law of demand. Now there are of course many obstacles besides borders to the functioning of peaceful market dynamics in land and housing right now, but as anarchists we would destroy those obstacles as readily as we would destroy borders. And even with those obstacles in place, people make do as best they can. If constraints on housing markets remained in place but "literally billions of people" were all looking to move to places in the US at roughly the same time, then what would immediately happen is that housing markets would become extremely tight, until there were no longer billions of people who considered it a feasible plan anymore.
My recent post Anarchist Communications: Ask an Anarchist! comes to Oklahoma