Posts from 2013

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

Comment on The Truth About Somalia And Anarchy by Rad Geek

true anarchy', defined as 'free citizens cooperating without a government' is always subject to breaking down the way Somalia has . . .

. . . Maybe so. In this world hopes sometimes fail and things fall apart. But I notice that Somalia had a government immediately before things "broke down" into civil war, and that the present conditions of the civil war seem to have a lot to do with the concerted actions of several different governments, including at least one directly claiming the right to rule Somalia. So why is Somalia an illustration of the propensity of anarchy to break down into civil war? It seems rather like an illustration of the propensity of government to break down into civil war, since that is, you know, what happened, and what sustains conditions as they are.

[via Facebook]