Say What?

Stephan Kinsella thinks Kevin Carson and William Gillis are anti-market. Good grief! Come on, Stephan, you’re not George Reisman!

Addendum:

Happily, I misunderstood Stephan; our disagreement is smaller than I’d thought. See the comments section.

, ,

150 Responses to Say What?

  1. Micha Ghertner September 17, 2008 at 12:01 am #

    So far, Kinsella has accused me of outrageous libel, hurling false charges, making incorrect and woefully mistaken assumptions, being uncivilized and incivil. All this while refusing to discourse with me. A shame he won’t enlighten curious readers who want to know exactly what is incorrect about my statements. Putting one’s hands about one’s ears and yelling “you’re wrong, neener neener, I can’t hear you!” is an interesting argumentative strategy, especially when one doesn’t have an argument. It’s hard to defend obvious bigotry, isn’t it?

    Does Kinsella deny that Hoppe wants homosexuals physically removed from society? Does Kinsella deny that Hoppe believes homosexuals must be physically removed from society if one is to maintain a libertarian order?

    Need I remind Kinsella that in Hoppe’s own words,

    “They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”

    Does Kinsella really want to deny that Hoppe is a bigot and a homophobe, with the evidence staring him directly in the face?

    I happen not to favor the INS or state restrictions on immigration. Nor does Hoppe–he’s an anarchist, for God’s sake.

    Another obvious lie. Kinsella knows very well what Hoppe’s position on immigration is. Let’s take a look at Hoppe’s own words, again:

    What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy? The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the “nature” of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses). This means following a policy of utmost discrimination: of strict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility.

    More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between “citizens” (naturalized immigrants) and “resident aliens” and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias.

    Not only does Hoppe dislike homosexuals, but apparently can’t stand non-Europeans, either – a codeword among white supremacists for nonwhites. Elsewhere in that same article, Hoppe laments the US immigration laws of 1965 because they “eliminated all formerly existing ‘quality’ concerns and the explicit preference for European immigrants and replaced it with a policy of almost complete non-discrimination (multi-culturalism).”

    Apparently non-European immigrants are of lower “quality” than European immigrants, more likely to consist of “bums and inferior people”, unlike the “geniuses and superior people” of European racial stock.

    Again, I am not making this up. This is all right there in plain English – a language, incidentally, that must be protected by the government, according to the anarchist theorist Hans Hermann Hoppe.

  2. Sergio Méndez September 17, 2008 at 5:50 am #

    Kinsella says that:

    “Of course Hoppe is not a bigot or homophobe, and nor is this implied by what Ghertner quoted. ”

    Lets see the quote again…

    “[…]the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order”

    So for Hoppe advocates of homosexuality are in the same bag with advocates of: “parasitism” and “communism” and “will have to be PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM SOCIETY, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order”. If that is not bigotry, not to call it fascism (or do you think is “physically REMOVING somebody to presever whatever “libertarian order”), what the fuck is it Kinsella? Just courious.

  3. Stephan Kinsella September 17, 2008 at 11:35 am #

    Sergio, “advocates of alternatives lifestyles …” including homosexuality, is not the same as “homosexuals.” I have not revisited this passage in context lately but I would assume he’s probably referring to those who are hostile to and basically enemies of the cultural underpinnings of society (“thick” libertarian underpinnings, one might say). This is not anti-homosexual; at most, it’s anti-ADVOCACY of homosexuality. Obviously this does not mean advocacy of rights for or even tolerance for homosexuality. It does not mean trying to convert people to homosexuality either. So it can only be a rough phrasing that denotes those who are hostile to the underpinnings of society itself.

    Further, he does not say they are kidnapped or aggressed against–he’s referring, I believe, to shunning and to voluntary segregation, perhaps. A charitable reading indicates that he is *predicting*, not so much as advocating, that a libertarian society can only prosper in a society that has other cultural, normative, and social preconditions; and that these are incompatible with rampant, anti-social, leftist *hostility and opposition to* those preconditions; and that these include *advocacy* of “alternative” non-family-centered lifestyles and opposition to the dominant, necessary modes.

    To say that this analysis is anti-homosexual is plainly stupid, or uncharitable, or disingenuous and malicious. Clearly even the most conservative vision of the order predicted above is compatible with hippies, socialist misfits, gays, etc. living in peace in society with everyone else, with plenty of diversity and intermingling, voluntary association and disassociation, and tolerance for diversity etc. There is nothing incompatible at all with living as a homosexual, say, in the private libertarian society envisioned above. Does every homosexual have to hate and oppose the society he lives in? Most do not. Most decent, conservative normal people live near, interact with, and know homosexuals and mind their own business. Certainly this is possible. It’s just good manners and social tolerance. To assume that this analysis of how a private society would work is homophobic is to assume that every gay person is some flaming, in-your-face, rude troublemaker hostile to the dominant family-centered norms of the society he lives in. Silly.

  4. Micha Ghertner September 17, 2008 at 1:52 pm #

    Up is down. Left is right. “X and not X–you can have it all!

    Hoppe doesn’t have any beef with hedonists, parasites, nature-environment worshipers, homosexuals, or communists – Absurd! Preposterous! Uncharitable! – but only those who advocate hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism. Big difference! As long as you deny who you are, hate yourself, and keep your true identity a secret from Hoppe’s morality police, everything is kosher. Once he discovers you, though, you will be physically removed from society, magically, through “shunning and voluntary segregation,” which somehow equates to active physical removal in the bizarro world of Kinsella-speak.

    Do you actually believe your own bullshit, Kinsella? I think you have a wonderful career ahead of you working for Karl Rove.

  5. martin September 17, 2008 at 4:05 pm #

    Sergio Méndez:

    Lets see the quote again…

    “[…]the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order”

    This is taken out of context. With the sentence before it added, it reads:

    Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin. there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

  6. Micha Ghertner September 17, 2008 at 4:32 pm #

    Martin,

    The final clause in that quote – “if one is to maintain a libertarian order” – makes it clear that Hoppe believes the maintenance of a libertarian order requires intolerance towards homosexuality, on the grounds that homosexuality somehow threatens “family and kin.” The sentence prior doesn’t add any additional context that would change the meaning of the later sentence. So it is incorrect to say that the sentence I quoted was taken out of context. The meaning remains the same.

  7. Stephan Kinsella September 17, 2008 at 5:22 pm #

    Ghertner: PWNED! hahahaha

  8. martin September 18, 2008 at 3:59 am #

    Mr Ghertner,

    (Mind if I call you Micha?)

    The two sentences together state that to maintain a libertarian order, intolerance towards homosexuality (among other things) is required in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin.

    (A statement I find problematic for a number of reasons.) Take away the first sentence, and it gets the meaning you ascribe to it.

    By the way, I met Hoppe once and asked him if he would object to a homosexual living next door to him. He said he wouldn’t in a way that gave me the idea he was thinking ‘why do people keep asking me this’. It looked sincere to me. But maybe he’s a great actor…

  9. Sergio Méndez September 18, 2008 at 6:08 am #

    Kinsella:

    Well, what do your charitable reading of Hoppe statment make of the “PHYSICALLY removing homosexual advocates”? And anyways, the intial point is that he was a biggot, not that his position was necesarely uncompatible with libertarianism (which is anyways, of course) Hoppe statment is the statment of a bigot, even if a supposedly “libertarian” one

  10. Stephan Kinsella September 18, 2008 at 8:24 am #

    “Sergio,” I explained what I make of that statement–physically removed means not living near. I don’t think it means aggression at all. Rather private shunning, ostracism, or maybe even voluntary segregation and contractual regimes and restrictions. Further, I think he is referring to a tendency rather than a hard and fast, inelectuble rule. Hoppe is one of the sweetest, nicest, gentlest, most sincere, and tireless advocates of liberty that I know. These accusations are outrageous.

  11. Sergio Méndez September 18, 2008 at 9:40 am #

    Kinsella:

    I really don´t give a damn about how Hans Herman Hoppe is in his private life. For what I know, a lot of ugly public figures are nice persons in their “everyday life”. I am judging him on the value of his public statements, statements that I find outrageous, and not on how they are in their private life..

    Now, concerning your interpretation of what he said, I fail to see how it can be accurate. First, cause in your reply you never considered the expresion “physically removing”, you didn´t even mantion it. Second, cause you fail to appreciate that Hoppe is clearly equating “advocates of homosexuality” with PARASITISM and comunism, clearly implying they are evil. That IS anti homosexual, almost by definition (at least you pretend that Hoppe doesn´t considers parasitism something awfull). And third cause I do not see how Hoppe quote is descriptive. He is not saying how things “will turn out to be”, but rather saying that all this people “WILL HAVE to be physically removed” for the sake of “mainting a libetarian order”, which for me is clear an indication he is proscribing policy, not simply anticipating events.

    So I fail to see why should I refrain calling Hoppe what he certainly is: a bigot. He deserves to be called that way by right after all.

  12. Niccolo September 18, 2008 at 2:11 pm #

    Seems Kinsilla and the rest still haven’t looked up the CimaTextiles factory.

    I would argue that it isn’t obvious one way or the other, but at the end of the day, Macy’s still passes legislation on its behalf, Macy’s still exploits workers, Macy’s still seeks to gain power coercively over others – not to survive, but to gain from their expense – and they still are criminals. If what follows from that is that a major part of society is criminal – then so be it.

  13. Niccolo September 18, 2008 at 2:23 pm #

    AB said,

    “Arguing about net loss or net gain from the state is arguing in term of property value, not property rights. If we are discussing rights, coercion, morality, we should be concerned with property rights, not the subjective value of those rights. It’s not about who benefits from whom, it’s about who owns what.”

    You’re confused.

    Net loss and net gain here means physical items, not unintact values. If the state steals a gold bar and gives that gold bar to Macy’s, then the state owes you one gold bar, this, however, does not mean that Macy’s possesses a right to that gold bar. If I take the gold bar from Macy’s, then it is a just act – or at least not an aggressive one. Obviously, Macy’s is an ally of the state. This doesn’t have to be shown too much – after all, why else would the state give Macy’s a bar of gold over everyone else?

    As far as I’m concerned, Macy’s possesses no right to that land which it has stolen, but I do possess a right to homestead it back.
    ————————————————————

    A.B. said

    “Drug smugglers strongly benefit from the state (because they essentially sell on the market their ability to dodge the state which would otherwise be worthless), Coyotes also benefit from the state. Would SEKIII argue that these are “exploiters” because they are net beneficiary from the state? Of course not, this distinction is absurd.”

    You see, this would be an example of a non-material gain. I’m not talking about non-material. I’m talking about material. Something that actually happens and can be held.

    ———————————————————–

    A.B. said

    “In terms of property right, there is no ambiguity that a government employee are thieves for example. I think the same would extend to many government contractors, but Macy’s ? Give me a break.”

    Nope, you’re just wrong about that. Macy’s is a partner in the state’s crime. Plain and simple.

  14. Bob Kaercher September 18, 2008 at 2:58 pm #

    Niccolo:

    “If I take the gold bar from Macy’s, then it is a just act – or at least not an aggressive one.”

    Assuming that the state really has given Macy’s any stolen gold bars, how do you reach the conclusion that it rightfully belongs to you and not to somebody else?

    “As far as I’m concerned, Macy’s possesses no right to that land which it has stolen, but I do possess a right to homestead it back.”

    Assuming that the land really was stolen, how did you reach the conclusion that it was stolen from you and not from somebody else?

    And surely, you’re not seriously suggesting that smashing in Macy’s window is the equivalent of retrieving stolen gold bars and homesteading, are you? Or are you?

    A.B.:

    “Drug smugglers strongly benefit from the state (because they essentially sell on the market their ability to dodge the state which would otherwise be worthless)…”

    So would you say that private security companies “strongly benefit” from non-state criminals because they essentially sell in the market their ability to fend off criminals? This almost seems like a variation on the broken window fallacy to me (which seems to be a recurring theme in this thread…)

  15. Random Anarchist September 18, 2008 at 3:46 pm #

    I just wanted to comment on the percentage rule under discussion. Macy’s and most clothing and department stores enjoy a supreme amount of state protection through copyright. In terms of clothes, it’s ridiculous that nike, old navy, and the like are sold with a swoosh logo (or whatever) with no distinct high quality to distinguish them. As a result of the copyright and the state-protected brand, the shirts have these inflated outrageous prices. Then when pirated goods are sold with the same logos, the feds come and seize that property. In a real anarchist market, I would imagine, the art would be distinct and have some greater value than simple brand identification. In fact a “brand” as such would be difficult to establish. I’d say a very large share of their profits are legally guaranteed through copyright. Not only that, department stores and other big box retailers owe their large stores in quite a lot of cases to government seizure of land. Kelo anybody?

    Also, what about the Boston Tea Party? What about tarring and feathering? Maybe they can be dismissed as statist thugs, but I imagine that most right-wing anarchists have some affinity for the American Revolution.

  16. Deus X. Nihilo September 19, 2008 at 3:19 pm #

    Sergio said: “I really don´t give a damn about how Hans Herman Hoppe is in his private life. For what I know, a lot of ugly public figures are nice persons in their ‘everyday life’.”

    True. Even Hitler was kind to children and dogs.

  17. Niccolo September 19, 2008 at 11:06 pm #

    Kaercher,

    “Assuming that the state really has given Macy’s any stolen gold bars, how do you reach the conclusion that it rightfully belongs to you and not to somebody else? ”

    Well, the state has. Do you realize how many of these department stores are subsidized locally to come to their town? Do you realize that through zoning they will block off land they have not used and will just give it to a large, wealthy company?

    Christ.

    Talk about “socialism” for the rich.

    In any case, the golden bar does not belong to me. It belongs to no one – unless, the specific person can lay a claim to it first, otherwise, they merely possess a claim that must be reimbursed – which is why I am justified in homesteading it.

    Land that belongs to no one, should belong to the person that homesteads it.

    ———————————-

    “Assuming that the land really was stolen, how did you reach the conclusion that it was stolen from you and not from somebody else?

    And surely, you’re not seriously suggesting that smashing in Macy’s window is the equivalent of retrieving stolen gold bars and homesteading, are you? Or are you?”

    It doesn’t matter whether it was stolen from me or not.

    I didn’t say that it rightfully belongs to ME. I said it is not property and if I take it, it is not an act that violates somebody’s rights. That’s all that matters.

    Now, the person who possesses a claim to something that has been stolen still possesses that claim, but until he can get that particular piece of land back from the people complicit in the thievery, it remains in limbo and I can homestead it.

    This way not only do we get what the government has stolen back, but we get twice the amount.
    —————————————————–

    “So would you say that private security companies “strongly benefit” from non-state criminals because they essentially sell in the market their ability to fend off criminals? This almost seems like a variation on the broken window fallacy to me (which seems to be a recurring theme in this thread…) ”

    Huh?

  18. Bob Kaercher September 20, 2008 at 12:40 am #

    Niccolo:

    First of all, addressing me as Bob would suffice.

    Since it’s late right now, I’ll cut to the quick:

    Assuming that Macy’s is unowned property, you do not have any right to “homestead it back”, because it’s already been homesteaded—by the people who have already mixed their labor with it before you came along, i.e., Macy’s employees, the workers.

    I believe that has already been pointed out by others in this thread.

    And you still didn’t answer my question as to whether or not you equate smashing a window with “homesteading.”

    Sweet dreams.

  19. The Irrepressible Rothbard September 20, 2008 at 4:38 pm #

    Shoot the looters! (i.e. Niccolo)

  20. Darian W September 21, 2008 at 8:36 pm #

    I’m amazed this is still going on.

    “Assuming that Macy’s is unowned property, you do not have any right to “homestead it back”, because it’s already been homesteaded—by the people who have already mixed their labor with it before you came along, i.e., Macy’s employees, the workers.”

    I don’t see how it has already been homesteaded. The workers would have a more legit claim than anyone else if Macy’s were unowned property, but how do they actually have control of the property now? They do what bosses tell them or they get fired.

    It is possible that the resources to replace the window will come out of supplies the homesteaders would have eventually attained. But it is equally possible that said resources will come out of the bosses’ profit and transferred so many times that the homesteading workers will not see them.

    “And you still didn’t answer my question as to whether or not you equate smashing a window with ‘homesteading.'”

    I’m gonna do a dangerous thing here and speak for another anarchist. Niccolo did address this when he essentially said that it’s not property and therefore smashing it is not aggression. At least that’s what I got. I don’t see why an act has to be either aggression or homesteading.

    And I am disgusted that “advocating homosexuality” is worthy of banishment to Hoppe, and amazed that his position is defended by other self-proclaimed libertarians. People ought to love who they want and have sex with who they want. If they want someone of the same sex, then they ought to act in a homosexual manner. There, I’ve just banished myself from the LRC Libertarian Order. Expecting voluntary removal any day now. Perhaps I’ll hang with the “vandarchists” who tolerate such an affront to human liberty as breaking a huge corporation’s window.

  21. Niccolo September 22, 2008 at 12:20 pm #

    Bob,

    You’re assuming that the workers have already homesteaded it. They haven’t. They should – which is why Agorism should be promoted as a subsidiary or companion of Anarcho-Syndicalism.

    Refer to Darian’s post.

    The question of smashing a window is inane. No, it isn’t, at least not in the context you mean.

    ———————————————————-

    As for the Irrepressible Rothbard,

    lol

  22. Bob Kaercher September 22, 2008 at 2:50 pm #

    Darian and Niccolo: I then take it you diagreed with Roderick when he wrote the following:

    “Assuming Macy’s isn’t the owner, then by 1960s Rothbardian standards it’s not unowned, it’s owned by its current users (= the workers). That would seem to make the breakage morally problematic!…”

    Roderick agrees with the Rothbardian standard that the workers, which in this particular case under discussion would be Macy’s employees, who have mixed their labor with a given resource or resources should become the de facto owners of those resources absent a state enforcing an illegitimate property title. I take it from your recent replies that you disagree with Rothbard’s theory (and Long’s own analysis)?

    “You’re assuming that the workers have already homesteaded it. They haven’t.”

    Are you impugning the work ethic of Macy’s employees, Niccolo? I don’t see how you can claim they haven’t homesteaded it otherwise.

    “The question of smashing a window is inane. No, it isn’t, at least not in the context you mean.”

    Well there’s a perfectly muddled and fuzzy answer. “[N]ot in the context that [I] mean”? Well, in what context did you THINK I “mean”? Is smashing a window the equivalent of homesteading in some OTHER context?

    Niccolo, the reason I asked if you equate the smashing of Macy’s window with homesteading is that you wrote the following:

    “If the state steals a gold bar and gives that gold bar to Macy’s, then the state owes you one gold bar, this, however, does not mean that Macy’s possesses a right to that gold bar. If I take the gold bar from Macy’s, then it is a just act – or at least not an aggressive one. Obviously, Macy’s is an ally of the state. This doesn’t have to be shown too much – after all, why else would the state give Macy’s a bar of gold over everyone else?

    “As far as I’m concerned, Macy’s possesses no right to that land which it has stolen, but I do possess a right to homestead it back.”

    Considering that the topic under discussion was the destruction of the Macy’s window, I think any reasonable person can see why I asked the question you consider “inane.” But thanks for your perfectly vague, acontextual answer.

    Which brings to mind Darian’s comment:

    “I’m gonna do a dangerous thing here and speak for another anarchist. Niccolo did address this when he essentially said that it’s not property and therefore smashing it is not aggression. At least that’s what I got. I don’t see why an act has to be either aggression or homesteading.”

    Darian, if you can’t see smashing a window as a clear cut case of agression, you seriously need to check both your premises and your principles. And thanks for reiterating Niccolo’s position, but what do YOU think???

    And I don’t understand why Agorism *should* necessarily be promoted as either subsidiary to, or a companion of, anarcho-syndicalism. That’s not clear to me at all.

  23. DarianW September 22, 2008 at 4:29 pm #

    >Roderick agrees with the Rothbardian standard that the workers, which in this particular case under discussion would be Macy’s employees, who have mixed their labor with a given resource or resources should become the de facto owners of those resources absent a state enforcing an illegitimate property title.

    They SHOULD but they are not currently owning it as they are not in control of it nor attempting to control it. They might have a legit claim, but they are neither announcing nor attempting to enforce the claim, so in reality they currently do not hold a claim. I suppose this puts me in disagreement with Rothbard and Long in this case.

    >Darian, if you can’t see smashing a window as a clear cut case of agression, you seriously need to check both your premises and your principles. And thanks for reiterating Niccolo’s position, but what do YOU think???

    If a teenager finds a window among a pile of trash in some state-claimed forest, and he smashes it, is it aggression? If another window was de facto unowned, with the only people claiming ownership of it having an illegitimate claim, I would not consider that aggression either. It’s probably not a wise use of resources nor a worthwhile tactic, but it is not a crime either. If the window of a legit entrepreneur’s store was broken, that would clearly be aggression and I would condemn it.

    And what I really think is that Macy’s benefits enough from state driven capitalism that it’s not really worth my time to research the company to determine the justice of breaking their windows. If it was an act of aggression it was a very small one of a kind that would likely diminish as property is taken from statists and other anarchists learn to respect market anarchist property theory. It’s just not that important to me. There are so many other things going on in the libertarian and anarchist movements, and I’m neither smashing windows nor securing windows. But I do think that discussion of homesteading and legitimate property claims is important strategywise, and if Macy’s is the example I guess I should care more about them specifically.

    To be honest I’ve lost track of where this thread has started. I believe my main point was “Kinsella is condemning thousands of people who actually took to the streets and stood up to the state, on the grounds that they don’t care enough that someone broke a window and they used the word “comrade” in a positive manner. ”

    >And I don’t understand why Agorism *should* necessarily be promoted as either subsidiary to, or a companion of, anarcho-syndicalism. That’s not clear to me at all.

    I personally think that attempting to harmonize the various anarchisms is useful so we can work together on revolution instead of attacking each other. There are likely parts of other theories that will expose and offer fill for gaps in agorism. An anarcho-division of labor if you will. Companion, but not subsidiary.

  24. Alex Peak September 29, 2008 at 10:16 pm #

    If a business is finding 20% of its profits from the state, its workers have the right to seize 40% of the business. If it receives 40% from the state, the workers have the right to seize 80%. If the business receives 50% or more, the workers should seize the whole thing.

    This is, of course, in keeping with the Blockian/Rothbardian support for two-teeth-for-a-tooth.

    A business or individual who benefits passively from state intervention is not acting criminally. A business or individual who petitions for state-granted benefits, or any form of state aggression, is acting criminally.

    All individuals and businesses ought to be regarded as innocent until evidence is available to convince one beyond a reasonable doubt of the individual’s or businesses’s guilt. Perhaps Macy’s is guilty, but I’ve yet to see the evidence. (I honestly haven’t looked, and am therefore not prepared to lay judgment.)

    Dr. Long writes, “Assuming Macy’s isn’t the owner, then by 1960s Rothbardian standards it’s not unowned, it’s owned by its current users (= the workers). That would seem to make the breakage morally problematic! (In any case it’s the workers who are going to have to clean it up.)”

    I’m in total agreement with this statement.

    This thread of replies is too long for me to desire reading any further. Let me know when the audiobook version is available.

    Yours,
    Alex Peak

  25. Robert Paul November 25, 2008 at 9:03 pm #

    “us libertarians are getting a bit concerned at hearing you guys”

    There’s Stephan Kinsella ever so subtly calling Kevin Carson (and who knows who else) a non-libertarian.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes