Black Bloke:

Interesting that he quotes something by Murray from his pre-anarchist days to “prove” that Murray himself knew that he wasn’t “really” and anarchist.

Brad:

Actually, if I recall correctly, Rothbard is said to have first become an anarchist in 1950 and the piece mentioned is said to be “from the 1950’s”, so it’s most likely not from before he became a complete anti-statist. That said, anarchists (like any other normal people) change their minds about stuff all of the time. By, at least, the time of the New Banner interview circa 1970(?) he was using the word anarchist to describe himself, if I recall correctly.

For what it’s worth, the article that Anarcho is citing as his critical source (“Are Libertarians ‘Anarchists’?”) is available online from Mises.org (has been for over a year now), which is almost certainly how he came across it, although, as per the usual AFAQ standards of scholarship when it comes to anarcho-capitalists, he doesn’t link to it. It’s the article in which Rothbard declares himself a “non-archist;” at the time his position was basically what Bob LeFevre was arguing for in the 1960s; that is, he had come out against the monopoly state as such (he explicitly argues against “limited government” in the article, and argues that “the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom”), but chose not to call himself an “Anarchist” because, at the time, he thought that “Anarchism” entailed either coercive collectivization, Proudhonian theories of interest, or Tolstoyan pacifism, all of which he rejected. By 1965 he had changed his mind and was speaking positively of anarchism and anarchists (see for example Liberty and the New Left, from Left and Right 1.2) as examples of libertarian politics, and by 1969 (see for example “Anarcho-Rightism” in Libertarian Forum 1.13) he was definitely using both “anarchism” simpliciter and “anarcho-capitalism” to describe his own views. Of course the big shift had partly to do with the fact that he had broken decisively from the Right and was hanging out with anarchists within the New Left; it also had partly to do with the fact that, based on the textual evidence, he seems to have read a lot more actual anarchist writing in between.

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

Tucker himself never described himself as a “mutualist.”

I don’t know off the top of my head whether or not Tucker ever specifically used the letters M-U-T-U-A-L-I-S-T as part of a description of his own views, but, just from a quick glance at materials I have on hand for electronic search, I am reminded that Tucker describes the economic principles he subscribes to (specifically, the cost principle and co-operative organization of capital) as “mutualism” and “mutualistic” in Mutualism in the Service of Capital (originally from Liberty, July 16, 1887; reprinted in Instead of a Book).

And sometime in the next week, everyone who is serious about imposing web filtering will add http://libertyfilter.com/* to their list of filters.

This may be interesting and entertaining, but it’s not a “meme.” There’s no such thing as a meme. It’s a web game that you chose to play and recommend to others, because (I take it) you found it fun.

Take responsibility for the contents of your own mind!

Even so, sometimes a difference of degree can be perceived as one of character instead if that degree is relatively large. There is such a perception with regard to the Bush administration in particular, and it’s widely held.

Sure, but I think there are clear reasons for regarding that perception as clearly mistaken. As dangerous as the Bush regime is to us, and as deadly as it has been to others, I don’t think there’s any reasonable standard of comparison by which it would compare unfavorably, in terms of degree, to the absolute depotism and overt reign of terror that reigned against American Blacks from 1788-ca. 1968. Bush is bad, but as a matter of degree he is not worse than even Woodrow Wilson or Franklin Roosevelt, let alone the slave power and Judge Lynch. At the most he represents a lurch back towards the worst elements of Cold War militarist statism.

I understand the dialectical impulse, but part of my worry is that appealing to wistfulness for the Old Republic is likely to purchase whatever insight it offers to the interlocutor only at the expense of blinding them to very important facts about American history, and thus leaving dangerous prejudices about the past untouched (in fact I think that something like this is precisely what happened with the transition from the anti-statist elements of the old liberals and the Old Right, which combined genuine libertarian insights with mythistorical Old Republic nostalgia, to the brazen Caesarism of the New Right).

gabriel: Your main problem, from a practical POV, is that the current left is doing great without you and they have their own agenda, pretty much centered on things you technically don’t like.

What is the statist Left currently doing great at? Nothing in the United States comes to mind. The dominant tone of every orthodox Leftist publication and organization at the moment seems to be a combination of outrage and despair. Even hand-wringing lefty Democrats seem to be pretty firmly convinced that the project of the Left is in a state of debilitating crisis.

On a global scale, they’ve won some a series of recent elections in South America. But in Brazil (for example) the victory has already led to a great deal of tension between the governing Left, the grassroots state socialists, and the autonomists (whose relationship to the State is ambiguous at the most, and often straightforwardly hostile) who laid much of the organizational and ideological groundwork for recent electoral wins.

That’s about the beginning and the end of what comes to mind in terms of Leftists “doing fine.” Maybe you could explain what it is that you had in mind?

It’s also worth noting that, while I can’t speak for Brad, I can say that my dialectical goals in advancing “Left Libertarianism” (and related notions) have as much to do with convincing libertarians to stop being corporate (patriarchal, etc.) tools as it does with convincing leftists to stop being state socialist tools. Whatever my opinions about the various departments of the left (and my hopes vary a lot depending on the departments in question), I am quite sure that the goal with regard to libertarians is achievable and that it will (1) get libertarians closer to the truth of matters, and (2) improve their ability to work substantial changes as libertarians, quite independently of whether the established left cooperates or not.

“The nomination of Alito is an abomination, but as Knapp points out, it is a defilement of a corpse of a constitutional Republic, which if not completely dead yet, has at least jumped the shark in my own opinion.”

I’m trying to imagine a defiled corpse jumping the shark. A zombie on water-skis? In a leather jacket?

In any case, I think that the “constitutional Republic” jumped the shark around the time folks agreed on the three-fifths compromise, and the idea that “a republican form of government” in the several states could include the absolute tyranny of the landed gentry of the South over millions of their fellow creatures. Alternatively, if you think that something has to have actually gotten started before it can be said to have “jumped the shark,” I think that the Whiskey Rebellion seems as good a time as any to call it. Certainly, to mix the metaphors again, by the War of 1812, the Creek War, etc. the corpse was already beginning to smell.

Battlepanda: What I am saying is if the government is going to subsidize transportation, it might as well do it in an across the board fashion — not just for automobiles through road building, but also through trains, trams, and other possible types of people movers.

Let’s distinguish two separate questions with regard to government getting involved in transit.

1. The subsidy question: should governments subsidize (or directly provide) infrastructure or services for transit? If so, which should it subsidize, to what degree, and in what proportions?

2. The regulation question: should governments pass laws or regulations that effectively ban other people from offering transit services or building infrastructure? If so, which sorts should it ban, by whom, and with what sorts of enforcement?

Let’s set aside the subsidy question for a moment; I’m interested in your take on the regulation question. (This isn’t idle speculation; most municipalities with substantial subsidized or government-owned mass transit, New York City especially, also have very restrictive laws or regulations that ban outright, or sharply limit, competing taxi, bus, etc. services.)

Suppose my city, state, and federal government are taking tax money and pouring it into transit services, road-building, etc., to whatever degree and in whatever proportions you think best; and suppose that I decide, nevertheless, to start a competing taxi service. Or bus service. Or start laying rails for a private train. Do you think that the city, state, or federal government should force me to stop it? Or would that be overreaching on their part?

Does this really take a lengthy post? Here’s the most important argument in twenty words or fewer: “It’s wrong to have people shot for helping folks get to work. Even if they don’t have a permission slip.”