I heard a segment on a local radio station where someone opposed immigration because often times immigrants are coming to the country “only” to work. Tragedy #1 no doubt. But that’s not all. The same person was saying that they are also not respectful of the government or of the state or of the laws. Tragedy #2.
Now I’ve heard it all.
Immigrants Are Not Statist Enough! Read Post »
I, for one, am sick of the Robin Hood myth and movies. Or I thought I was. On the latest episode of Mark Kermode’s BBC film review podcast, there’s a fascinating discussion with Russell Crowe and Billy Bragg about the upcoming Ridley Scott film Robin Hood, starring (and co-produced by) Crowe. 
The new movie is a departure from other versions, with Robin Hood involved in the Magna Carta and also the Forest Charter which, “In contrast to Magna Carta, it provided some real rights, privileges and protections for the common man against the abuses of the encroaching aristocracy.” One line I like from the Forest Charter:
Any archbishop, bishop, earl, or baron who crosses our forest may take one or two beasts by view of the forester, if he is present; if not, let a horn be blown so that this [hunting] may not appear to be carried on furtively.
The discussion about this with Crowe and Bragg (9:00 to about 32:10 of the podcast) goes into how the Norman aristocracy unjustly invaded the land rights of the common people, which was redressed to some degree by the Forest Charter. Sounds interesting.
Robin Hood, Magna Carta, and the Forest Charter Read Post »
“Whatever the State saith is a lie; whatever it hath is a theft.”
~ Nietzsche
There is no shortage of reporting about GM CEO Ed Whitacre’s recent series of TV ads touting GM’s ostensible early repayment of federal loan money. Fox News, or as I like to refer to it, Faux News, is all over it. A website known as Video Café – Crooks and Liars has posted a very good review of the coverage, along with a YouTube video of the actual ad, for those who have not seen it.
Here’s what shocks me about the ad: Nothing.
It strikes me as pretty obvious that GM had to expect that someone would find out about their using loan money to repay loan money at some point. Did Whiteacre, clearly a man with intelligence, credentials, and connections, think nobody would put 2-and-2 together? Of course not. He didn’t care. He knows it doesn’t matter.
Indulge me as I recount one of my favorite jokes to begin illustrating why.
A burned-out executive moves to the hills to escape the rat race. He moves into an old cabin in what he believes to be sparsely-populated woods and starts his new life. He hopes to decompress and recharge and maybe re-connect with the fast-paced life he once knew at some later point.
One day, he hears a knock on his door. In walks a man wearing nothing but a pair of tattered overalls, some old work boots, and a broad smile. “Hey there, neighbor!” exclaims the man. “My name is Enoch and I’m your neighbor!”
Initially taken aback, the executive-turned-hillbilly gathers himself and extends his hand. “Pleased to meet you, Enoch. My name is, Bill Exeter. I just moved here from the Big City.” Bill figures it is about time he got more acquainted with his new environment anyway.
Enoch begins, “Well, Bill, I just wanted to invite you to a little gathering at my house on Friday.” What great timing! Bill can relax a little and meet some of his neighbors too. Sensing Bill might be a little uneasy about coming to a strange neighbor’s house, Enoch begins to pitch the party.
“Listen Bill, I need to warn you. My parties tend to get a little wild.” Bill smiles, feeling better about his new neighborhood. Enoch continues, “I can almost guarantee that there will be massive consumption of homebrew alcohol.”
Bill thinks, “Sounds good!” and responds, “Enoch, I can hold my liquor!”
Enoch continues, “Well then, I should probably also mention that this consumption of alcohol tends to make my guests a little bawdy. As a matter of fact, things got bad enough last time that there was wild sex during the party! I expect this one to be more of the same.”
Bill has been away from the rat race for long enough that the possibility of sex sounds good. “Well, Enoch, I’m no virgin, if I must say so myself.”
Enoch continues, “OK. I should also probably mention that fights tend to break out in the aftermath of many of my gatherings, especially after the sex.”
Bill, still happily pondering the possibility of sex, confidently says, “Hey Enoch, I can handle myself.”
Enoch ends with, “Excellent! I’ll look for you around 8:00 this Friday then.” Enoch turns to leave the house.
Just before Enoch closes the door behind himself, Bill yells, “Hey Enoch! What should I wear?”
Enoch shrugs his shoulders and says, “It don’t much matter. It’s just going to be the two of us.”
<Rim Shot>
The key point—the understanding that is manifested over and over in U.S. politics—is contained in that punch line: It doesn’t much matter anyway. GM received the TARP money, even though it is not a financial firm. One might argue that since GM used to own GMAC—its erstwhile lending mechanism—it qualifies as a financial firm. That strikes me as a stretch, but that does appear to be the partial mechanism GM used to get the cash. Certainly, the TARP money was specifically for financial firms. According to Wiki:
The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector. It is the largest component of the government’s measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.
GM mismanaged and underperformed its way into a deep financial hole. It didn’t much matter. The responsibility for GM’s problems rested with GM. It didn’t much matter. In the aftermath of all that underperforming, GM had the gall to ask the government for some cash, a huge wad of cash, and acquired that money for both GM and GMAC.
The overwhelming majority of Americans did not think any firm should be bailed out. It didn’t much matter. Congress gave money ostensibly aimed at saving the financial sector from the subprime mortgage crisis to a troubled automobile manufacturer with a management and sales crisis.
The American taxpayer was under no obligation to GM, its shareholders, or its employees. It didn’t much matter. GM got the cash. They have now paid back some of the early money with some of the later money, and have gone on TV to brag about it, despite the fact that such an obvious ruse should be found out. It didn’t much matter.
While some of this behavior initially upset me, looking back on it—particularly in context with the normal behavior of the State—I see that my anger was misplaced. The State generally and its agents in particular spew forth all manner of unmitigated, easily-identifiable equine feces on a routine basis. Think not? Here’s a recent sampling of talking points that have, inexplicably yet inexorably, fallen from the mouths of our leaders:
“They hate us for our freedoms.” (This phrase is generally uttered in regard to Islamic terrorists wanting to attack the U.S. Somehow the fact that other equally-free countries are not being similarly attacked gets obscured. Some have argued, persuasively, that such a designation as “free” for the U.S. is a little dicey anyway.)
“… too big to fail.” (What does this even mean? Can a firm be too small to fail as well? Can a firm be too big to succeed? Can a firm be too small to succeed? What does size have to do with the economic realities of losing money at business?)
“You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” (That a reasonably-intelligent representative of the species Homo sapiens could say something this insipid and not be placed in a padded room—wearing a straitjacket and a mouth guard—speaks to the awesome power of patriotism, and stupidity, but maybe not in that order.)
“Illegal immigration represents a danger to the future of the U.S.” (The U.S. didn’t even have a comprehensive set of regulations on immigration until 1952. The Constitution doesn’t even mention immigration in those terms. Hell, damned-near everyone in the U.S. except for the people who were already here when America was “discovered” is an immigrant or descended from one anyway. Here’s my question: When does an immigrant become a visitor or a guest?)
“We fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” (C’mon. Does anyone think the U.S. was in danger of being invaded by terrorists? Really? The truth of the matter is this: The U.S. military murders innocents abroad. Call me touchy, but that might upset me too.)
So Ed Whiteacre went on television, in an ad ironically entitled “Trust” and bragged about GM “putting people back to work” and how GM had “repaid their loan in full, 5 years ahead of schedule.” Don’t hate the playa! He was only doing what politicians do to the American public on a regular schedule: lie for specific gains, to an audience who wants to hear the lies, while knowing that even if the lie is found out, it won’t matter that much anyway. Consider: Since anyone who was seriously considering buying a GM car probably didn’t care about the bailout, what’s the downside of trying to rope in a few other suckers via bogus advertising? Moral hazard epitomized.
Is GM going to stop getting government bail-out money? Nope. Will any subsequent event preclude the next chronically mismanaged firm from getting a boatload of statist cash? Not likely. Will the skilled propagandists who do their best to lead rank-and-file Americans around by the nose change their tactics? Absolutely not.
It doesn’t much matter. It’s just them and our money—taken at gunpoint—anyway.
(Cross-posted at LRC.)
What’s the Real Message from Those GM Ads? Read Post »
First of all, I found the title of the movie to be redundant from the get-go. The action scenes are mostly way over the top. The gore insanely so. Swords and other blades slice through body parts, even cutting men in half at the waist, as if they were hot knives slicing through butter. Ninja stars fly from hands like they are being fired from a machine gun. They even have chemtrails. Blood fountains and splatters by the bucket load. Our ninja hero takes dozens of lethal wounds, losing gallons of blood, and not only lives to tell about it but keeps on fighting. There is a bit of super-speed blurred movement and mind-over-body self-healing, so the movie is something of a fantasy action thriller. We’re treated to the cliché of the hero being down for the count, about to be killed, when someone he cares about is attacked and suddenly he discovers renewed vitality and determination and, inexplicably, an unbelievable (that’s saying a lot for this movie) leap in skill level.
For all that, I found Ninja Assassin to be entertaining. The action scenes are well-done and stylish. And I particularly liked the parkour–inspired sequences. The plot is interesting and tightly executed. The story even has a couple of elements of interest to libertarians. There are a number of ninja clans that kidnap orphan children and train them to be assassins, indoctrinating them with the belief that the lives of individuals are valueless compared to that of the clan, which is one big family to which they owe unquestioning and unwavering loyalty and obedience. The ninja clans apparently act as secret private contractors for governments around the world, assassinating targets for 100 lbs. of gold. Our ninja hero is one particularly promising pupil of the Ozunu clan. He buys into the propaganda at first, but falls for a pretty young girl, a fellow trainee, who does not. She attempts to escape, and is recaptured and executed in front of all the ninjas-in-training as an example. When he is later faced with killing another girl, whom he is told has similarly betrayed the clan, as the final requirement of becoming a full member of the clan, he refuses and is nearly killed. The bulk of the movie is about his quest for revenge against the Ozunu clan with the help of a female government agent.
Though it is a classic revenge tale, the negative portrayal of coercive and aggressive collectivism is a nice touch. The notion that the individual should be subservient to and acquires his value and ultimate end from The Collective, whatever it be named (the Family, the Clan, the Tribe, the Race, the Nation or State), is an insidious sickness. It that permeates the communitarian classical republicanism of Rome (as I explain in my working paper “Roman Virtue, Liberty, and Imperialism: The Murder-Suicide of Classical Civilization” (pdf)), which, along with classical liberalism, with which it is in tension due to the conflict with the latter’s inherent individualism, was one of the major influences on the so-called Founding Fathers of the United States of America. It is also inherent in nationalism and, of course, the modern collectivist political movements of our age. At the risk of being redundant, a truly libertarian and civilized society exists for each and every individual’s own well-being – not the other way round.
Cross-posted at Is-Ought GAP.
Movie Review: Ninja Assassin Read Post »
One of my goals when debating the truth of libertarian political philosophy is getting my opponent to realize that he is an advocate of aggression. That is, I want my opponent to realize that his policies necessarily require that the State not only threaten innocent people with physical violence but also that State agents must beat, jail, and even kill those who are unwilling to obey State dictates. My hope is that my opponent will see the wanton immorality of his position and rethink his political philosophy. The reason I think that such recognition will lead to an epiphany is because the people I debate claim to be peaceful people who abhor violence. In my mind, I imagine my opponent realizing that he cannot claim to value peace and abhor violence while defending an institution that is inherently aggressive and violent. This moral contradiction would lead him to see the error of his ways and instantly renounce violence. He then reads Mises.org and LewRockwell.com regularly and begins the long process of learning true history and true economics. But this has yet to happen in my experience.
Instead some of my opponents cling to the notion that we must have a monopoly of violence to prevent even more violence. In one recent debate my opponent conceded that the State does indeed reduce material wealth, but he was fine with this because the State also reduces wealth inequality. Why income inequality should be a moral concern was not addressed in this debate. But what really disappointed me in this exchange was that my opponent also claimed to value peace and nonviolence as I do. This is simply false; libertarians are the only people who value peace and nonviolence. We are the only ones who apply the same moral standards to both private and government actors. Theft is theft; murder is murder; fraud is fraud. It does not matter if the thief is a petty-pickpocket or an IRS agent. If both parties did not consent to the exchange, this is theft. …
When the “Gotcha” Moment Disappoints Read Post »
