May 25, 2010

I look forward to more:

It looks like this Victorian knew more about the twenty-first century than I do.


Sexual experience

May 25, 2010

Today, Roissy says,

Sluts may know what they’re doing the first time without much prompting from you, but sexually inexperienced girls who have been allowed to blossom into full, exuberant womanhood under your caring tutelage and by your steady temperament are the true prize, the holy grail.

Approximately half of the women I’ve been with fell into the slut category, with the other half falling into the "blossom[ing] into full, exuberent womanhood under your caring tutelage . . ." category.

It’s true that the latter is the holy grail. So much so, that I get tired of the former.

The only thing I’d add to Roissy’s comments is that I don’t think I could ever have fallen in love with any of the sluts. The process of guiding a girl into "exuberant womanhood," is part of falling in love. It is irreplaceable.


May 25, 2010

A week from tomorrow, we’ll find out whether we’re having a boy or a girl. I think I’d prefer to have a boy, but reading shit like this makes me think it would be easier to have a girl. The world favors women and so it seems like having a girl would be less of struggle.

Also, coming up with names is hard. I haven’t posted a book review in a while because I’ve been reading lots of old Norse stories looking for names. For some reason, the wife isn’t too big on most of the ones I’ve come up with . . .

Quote of the day

May 25, 2010

From Professor Caplan:

Overall, I see the civil rights movement much as I see the Protestant Reformation. Both attacked blatant injustices, many of them government-imposed. But the thrust of the Protestant Reformation wasn’t separation of church and state. It was state-mandated Protestantism. Similarly, the thrust of the civil rights movement wasn’t separation of race and state. It was state-mandated group equality of result. Whether they’re quoting Martin Luther or Martin Luther King, libertarians shouldn’t forget these facts.

Random thought

May 24, 2010

People use the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 to demonstrate that libertarianism is ridiculous. Their line of reasoning is: the State was necessary to end the evils of racism, thus the State is necessary and libertarians are wrong.

(This argument is wrong for lots of reasons that have already been chronicled by libertarians.)

However, none of the people that make this argument seem to notice that it works just as well for democracy. At no point in the ’60s would a majority in the South (and probably in the country as a whole) have voted to end segregation the way the Act did (it’s possible that certain portions of the Act would have passed nation-wide votes). So, undemocratic action was necessary to end the evils of racism, thus undemocratic forms of government are necessary and democrats are wrong.

Similarly, the same logic could also be used to argue for the necessity of wars. The only reason the federal government was able to enact the Civil Rights Act was because 625,000 had died fighting a war to leave no doubt that the federal government was sovereign over the States. Thus, war (the bloodiest in US history) was necessary to end the evils of racism, thus war is necessary and pacifists are wrong.

Why are the anti-libertarians not all anti-democracy and pro-war?

More left-libertarianism . . .

May 24, 2010

. . . in which Aretae kicks the crap out of a straw man

In response to my post, Aretae writes, "if you’re lynched for your skin color/sexual preference, it doesn’t matter if it was government law (the way it was) or private individuals that did the discriminating."

That would be an interesting point if we were discussing criminalizing murder. Alas, we’re not.

Murder has always been against the law in all the states. The issue here is not whether the Federal Government should have intervened to enforce existing laws. Rand Paul said he was fine with those provisions of the Civil Rights Act (perhaps such a discussion would be interesting, as it would allow to discuss whether the Civil War transferred sovereignty to the Federal Government from the States, but, again, we’re not having that discussion now). The issue is whether non-violent discrimination based on certain defined characteristics on private property should have been newly criminalized by the Act in question.

Attacking the former is attacking a straw man, as no one is disagreeing.

The reason the issue is interesting is that it forces the left-libertarians to choose: leftist or libertarianism? Is non-discrimination more or less important that meaningful private property rights? So far, I’m hearing most of them say that non-discrimination is more important. Perhaps the new slogan for left-libertarianism can be: property rights for all – at least until they hurt a designated protected group’s feelings!

Leftist or libertarian?

May 23, 2010

You can’t be both.

Let’s again, take Rand Paul’s statements on the Civil Rights Act.

The relevant part of the law prohibits discrimination in private establishments. Let’s take a elderly white woman who is renting out a spare bedroom. The woman gets two applicants who want to live in her spare bedroom: 1) a 18 year-old black male and 2) another elderly white woman. The Civil Rights Act prohibits the woman from discriminating in this case.

It should be clear that this law is totally un-libertarian. To repeat in the simplest terms possible, it’s telling the woman who she is allowed to have live in her house! If the government can do this, there is no logically consistent limit to the government’s ability control (formerly) private property.

This law is clearly only justifiable by leftist logic. For example, “after three-plus centuries of slavery and another century of institutionalized, state-sponsored racism . . . the exclusion of blacks from public accommodations wasn’t just a series of uncoordinated private decisions by individuals exercising their freedom of association. It was part and parcel of an overall social system of racial oppression . . .Paul’s grievous error is to ignore the larger context in which individual private decisions to exclude blacks were made. In my view, at least, truly individual, idiosyncratic discrimination ought to be legally permitted . . . but the exclusion of blacks from public accommodations wasn’t like that — not even close.”

To restate this line of reasoning. Slavery and state discrimination were so bad that simply ending these forms of public discrimination was insufficient. Further, idiosyncratic discrimination against one group is tolerable, but if too many people feel this way, then the state must intervene and prohibit private association. (It’s left unstated why it’s ok to discriminate privately until money changes hands, at which case the state must step in.)

Anyway, this leftist logic comes from . . . a libertarian.

The headline at the link promises a libertarian case for the Civil Rights Act, the only one I found was a Leftist case.

If this is what “left-libertarianism” is, you can why the whole concept is bullshit. The obvious end-point of this logic is a state that controls private property and private transactions. The core tenet of libertarianism is immediately swallowed by leftism.

Update: Here’s more confusion:

We could go further than this. Why is “free association” necessarily relative to something territorial? Indeed, there seems to be some tension here between the restrictions of absolutely respecting territorial boundaries and upholding people’s personal freedom. In theory, territorialist notions of property rights (coupled with the expansion of territorial claims in a scarce world) can amount to a defense of excluding someone from the possibility of having any rights at all, since you effectively have to either own land or be invited on to someone else’s land in order to occupy a given space and associate freely. This gets us into much more general questions, but it does relate to segregation: there is good reason for believing that a rigidly territorially segregated society is inherently unfree.

Now, defending private property has become “rigidly territorial?”  As I read this, a society that strongly protects property rights might become a “rigidly territorially segregated society” would therefore be “inherently unfree.”  So, following the Civil Rights Act logic, the only way to free such a society is to have government arrest people, at gunpoint, for thinking improperly and acting on their improper thoughts.

Private property is apparently fine, until it’s misused.  At that point, its misuse must be corrected by the State.

Again, to repeat the lesson, libertarianism loses when it’s combined with Leftism.

(I should note that libertarianism becomes unworkable because society is so unlibertarian.  “Public” discrimination would not have been possible in a libertarian ideal.  Everyone can agree that ending public discrimination was good.  But the Civil Rights Act went further.  It used the power of the state to punish private discrimination that was only practiced on private property.  This action is the absolute antithesis of any meaningful libertarianism.  Hence my conclusion that left-libertarianism is not, at root, libertarian).

I can’t come back to this quote from Hoppe often enough:

The restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multicultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of the left libertarians.  In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives.

As I said in my review, “[p]rivate property, for Hoppe, means discrimination.”