Demonstration Report from UT-Austin on August 9, 2010

Anti-Statism, The Left, Victimless Crimes
By / / 4 minutes of reading
Share

On August 9, 2010 President Obama came to the University of Texas at Austin to give a talk on the future of higher education. But while he and his adoring public had their little state-worship service in Gregory Gym, protesters outside had quite a time trying to deal with the restrictions put upon their freedom of speech.

…

Demonstration Report from UT-Austin on August 9, 2010Read More »

Demonstration Report from UT-Austin on August 9, 2010 Read Post »

Separate Oil and State, says Greenpeace

Anti-Statism, Environment, Imperialism, Mercantilism, Taxation, The Left, War
By / / 1 Comment / 1 minute of reading
Share

From the Edmonton Journal comes news that some Greenpeace members rappelled off the top of Calgary Tower to hang a banner that read “Separate Oil and State.”

Scott Blasken got this shot from his office window Tuesday morning after Greenpeace unfurled a banner from the Calgary Tower.

Hey, I’m all in favor of separating oil and state. But that means no strategic oil reserves; no taxes, including carbon taxes; no cap-and-trade; no regulations; no moratoriums or bans on offshore or other drilling; no special protections of any kind, including caps on liability for actual damages to private property caused by oil companies;1 no eminent domain (ab)use; and no mercantilistic and imperialistic wars to make the world safe for domestic consumption of foreign oil. But somehow I don’t expect all of this is what the Greenpeace activists confusedly mean by “separate oil and state.” Alas and alack.

Cross-posted at Is-Ought GAP.

  1. I’m not talking about limited liability for shareholders here. I’m referring to caps like the $75 million liability cap that has received so much attention in the wake of the BP oil spill, enacted in 1990 as part of the Oil Pollution Act following the Exxon Valdez spill. ↩

Separate Oil and State, says Greenpeace Read Post »

How one should *not* write a FAQ (Capitalism.org)

Anti-Statism, Business, Libertarian Theory, Private Security & Law, War
By / / 3 minutes of reading
Share

On the Capitalism.org FAQ we find this jewel of an answer:

Why is “anarcho-capitalism” a contradiction in terms?

Those who attempt to combine anarchism with capitalism, make the error of confusing the peaceful form of competition of capitalism — trade, ideas, and dollars — with the brutal “jungle” form of competition of anarchism — brutality, whims, and bombs.

Have you ever thought what happens when one ‘corporate protection agency’ disagrees with another? By what method do they solve their dispute? They do it by competition not with dollars, but with guns. They seek to solve their dispute by resorting to force against each other, i.e., a perpetual state of civil war. Under such a system, which gang wins? The one that is the most brutal.

Ok let us add the precision it lacks to this sloppy argument. …

How one should *not* write a FAQ (Capitalism.org)Read More »

How one should *not* write a FAQ (Capitalism.org) Read Post »

Tom Palmer on “The Case for Ordered Liberty Without States”

Anti-Statism, Private Security & Law
By / / 1 minute of reading
Share

Tom Palmer links to the written version of his 5 minute opening remarks at Mark Skousen’s FreedomFest earlier this month, “The Case for Ordered Liberty Without States.” Although he doesn’t like to use the term “anarchist” (see also Gil Guillory, Libertarians or Anarchists?), this is a nice short argument for the anarcho-libertarian position.

Tom Palmer on “The Case for Ordered Liberty Without States” Read Post »

Scroll to Top