I read some of his mysteries in the 90s or 80s–in fact he mailed them to me in manuscript form for a fee-that’s how it worked pre-Internet, with slim-pickings so you had to read unpublished stuff from people who later turn out to be warmongers and pretend libertarians.

In Peikoff’s podcast, http://www.peikoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/2010-6-28.118_A_01.L.mp3

he says he normally votes democrat b/c he thinks Republicans are the bigger enemy in the long term (b/c of religion) but now he will vote Republican to stop Obama — he analogizes it to the Republicans being like terrorists building a bio weapon, the greater long term danger, but that Obama is like a mugger at your house with a gun to your head–you have to deal w/ him first.

In this podcast he says that the mosque should not be built at 9/11 site even if it’s on private property–because the nation’s right to survive trumps property rights. He says if they build it the government should bomb it with no compensation paid to the owners. He then analogizes this to Howard roarks bombing of Cortlandt Homes in the Fountainhead (illustrating my view that that novel is centered around a horrible act of IP terrorism). And to make matters even worse–at the end he has his podcast minion append a message making it clear that Peikoff does not condone or suggest private action to bomb the mosque–*only governments* have the right to do this. So… basically he takes Bastiat’s idea–that that which one person can’t do, a group has no right to do–and turns it on its head. I mean, if he’s right that the mosque should be bombed, why is it wrong for private people to do it?

Roderick, if you want to claim Rand’s “legacy” for left-libertarianism–you are welcome to it. Jesus.

Now I’m starting to wonder if the self-defense angle doesn’t provide for a sort of compatibilism between anarchism and minarchism, given both the principles at play and their application to the facts of the matter as you’ve shown, even while I’m starting to wonder if my personal approach is one of pacifism.

If it’s a valid application of the right to self-defense, that allows for some sort of minarchic construct, sure. I’m not sure conceived in that way it should even be objectionable on libertarian anarchist grounds. You could say particularly, it’s a government, but especially, it isn’t. Or something. And maybe I’m down with that.

Here’s the other thing, though. I’m flirting with full-out (individualistic) pacifism. That’s what’s really been going on here.

That, and I may be nuts.

You don’t get it. No system — not even an agorist utopia — is isolated from outside systems. Playing somewhere else is no solution. Eventually those tentacles will lower into your system. You’ve already conceded that. So you’d rather be victim than defend yourself? You’ve already been attacked. Is it not just to use statism is response?

Good, I’m glad you concede that in principle, people could peacably just let it go. But, you don’t think this is ever going to happen. Alright, prolly not. Meanwhile – you think this is grounds for government? Man. Sounds like it’d be a lot easier all around to just go play somewhere else. Maybe they’ll get away with their money – I got away with myself, and it’s all I got. That’s not what you’re after?

No, the contrast isn’t between a well-behaving Pentagon answering to a single person and hedge fund managers deciding to stop playing stoopid money tricks. It’s between the well-behaving Pentagon (and all the necessary attendant appendages to enact the commands delivered by this single sage person) and enough people just getting the hell out of Dodge (wherever they may be).

(Personally, I don’t think *either* is going to happen in this world, my lifetime. That leaves me to acknowledge that there’s all sorts of shit going on that I don’t like, and all sorts of shit that I’ll never know about, and all sorts of people getting away with shit that I can’t stop. That’s no excuse for me – or anyone – to engage in criminal activity, in turn. And it’s no reason to focus on stopping evil rather than doing good.)

Again, if we were starting from scratch, I’d agree with you 100%. But we’re not. Nearly a quadrillion dollars is already captured in these markets. That’s the situation. That’s the reality. How would you stop these guys by saying, “OK, you take your quadrillion; we’re going to play somewhere else.”?

Do you think it’s impossible, in principle, for enough people to just say “Crap, that money market stuff is FRAGGED. I’m outta here.” ?

Again, in principle, the situation could be Y when in reality the situation is X. I agree with all your arguments in principle. But I’m more concerned with the intersection between principle and reality.

[...]I see little reason to think it any more utopian than the concept of a well-behaving Pentagon[...]

So it’s more utopian to imagine a Pentagon answering to commands by a single person for economic justice than it is to imagine hedge fund managers and banking executives collectively deciding that they have way too much money? Sorry dude, the latter ain’t gonna happen in this world. The former might.