Monday, December 2, 2013

The Tragedy of Riots (and Black Friday)

I just found two important videos with regards to riots and Black Friday. While I am all for commerce, capitalism, free markets, and making money (the right way, productively, not coercively), I am not for loving money, rioting (like most Black Fridays result in), and zombie-style consumption.

The first video is libertarian talk-show host, conspiracy theorist, and 9/11 truther Alex Jones's (whose websites are in my Links and Resources page) comments on Black Friday. He tells how America is no longer a free market country but rather a country of global cronyism, with the help of artificial elites and media.

The second video is a harrowing video showing riots occurring on Black Friday (warning: graphic violence).

There are more videos regarding the nightmare that is Black Friday. They are in Dave Hodges's article today on (which I read everyday). And Paul Joseph Watson, an editor at, has written several articles on this phenomenon (see here, here, here, and here).This is all part of a larger sign of economic collapse, government failure, and civil unrest. Share them with your friends and family, like them on Facebook and Twitter, share them through Google+ (my default social networking service), and through about any service one can think off. The truth needs to get out. We need the Lord Jesus Christ more than ever. But we also need truth like this too. 

Lew Rockwell Makes The Case for Anarcho-Capitalism

Lew Rockwell, the great libertarian entrepreneur, writer, economist, and scholar, makes the case for anarcho-capitalism, the branch of libertarianism that goes further than classical (limited-government) libertarianism and advocates for the complete abolition of the State in favor of the free market providing almost everything, including defense and security services.

In his recent article "Why I Am An Anarcho-Capitalist," Rockwell states:

A great many people – more than ever, probably – describe themselves as supporters of the free market today, in spite of the unrelenting propaganda against it. And that’s great. Those statements of support, however, are followed by the inevitable but: but we need government to provide physical security and dispute resolution, the most critical services of all.
Almost without a thought, people who otherwise support the market want to assign to government the production of the most important goods and services. Many favor a government or government-delegated monopoly on the production of money, and all support a government monopoly on the production of law and protection services.
This isn’t to say these folks are stupid or doltish. Nearly all of us passed through a limited-government – or “minarchist” – period, and it simply never occurred to us to examine our premises closely.
To begin with, a few basic economic principles ought to give us pause before we assume government activity is advisable:
  • Monopolies (of which government itself is a prime example) lead to higher prices and poorer service over time.
  • The free market’s price system is constantly directing resources into such a pattern that the desires of the consumers are served in a least-cost way in terms of opportunities foregone.
  • Government, by contrast, cannot be “run like a business,” as Ludwig von Mises explained in Bureaucracy. Without the profit-and-loss test, by which society ratifies allocation decisions, a government agency has no idea what to produce, in what quantities, in what location, using what methods. Their every decision is arbitrary, in a way directly analogous to the problem facing the socialist planning board (as Mises also discussed, this time in his famous essay “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”).
In other words, when it comes to government provision of anything, we have good reason to expect poor quality, high prices, and arbitrary and wasteful resource allocation.
There are plenty of other reasons that the market, the arena of voluntary interactions between individuals, deserves the benefit of the doubt over the state, and why we ought not assume the state is indispensable without first seriously investigating to what degree human ingenuity and the economic harmonies of the market can get by without it. For instance: 
  • The state acquires its revenue by aggressing against peaceful individuals.
  • The state encourages the public to believe there are two sets of moral rules: one set that we learn as children, involving the abstention from violence and theft, and another set that applies only to government, which alone may aggress against peaceful individuals in all kinds of ways.
  • The educational system, which governments invariably come to dominate, encourages the people to consider the state’s predation morally legitimate, and the world of voluntary exchange morally suspect.
  • The government sector is dominated by concentrated interests that ( I don’t think “interests” would be taken as meaning people) lobby for special benefits at the expense of the general public, while success in the private sector comes only by pleasing the general public.
  • The desire to please organized pressure groups nearly always outweighs the desire to please people who would like to see government spending reduced (and most of those people, it turns out, want it reduced only marginally anyway).
  • In the United States, the government judiciary has been churning out preposterous decisions, with little to no connection to “original intent,” for more than two centuries.
  • Governments teach their subjects to wave flags and sing songs in their honor, thereby contributing to the idea that resisting its expropriations and enormities is treason.
I am not an anarcho-capitalist yet, but still his article makes for good reading. One might object to them saying, "Without a state, we won't have order? Do we want society to collapse?" The anarcho-capitalist gives this interesting insight into libertarianism: there is a gulf between society and the state, between the productive forces exemplified by the free market and voluntary groups and institutions and the exploitative forces of the state and the political realm. He sees the state as being born out of conquest and not through some "social contract" (the only systems coming close to this were the constitutions during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries). Thus, he holds that the state is unnecessary and has a negative influence on society and proper governance (which they hold comes through voluntary action). Some prominent thinkers who held this view include Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, and many others. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a prominent anarcho-capitalist theorist, has compiled a bibliography of resources that defend this theory.

As for me, while I sympathize with anarcho-capitalism, I still wrestle with questions here and there. But I do agree that the State is prone to corruption, as it never gives up its power voluntarily and lords its power over the citizens (Matthew 20:25). Thus, I do not love the State and adore it, much less worship it. And neither did most of the classical liberals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. 

I am still reading on this issue, and I am in the process of reading Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty. I am looking at the literature of libertarianism, how it relates to Christianity, and other things. So I have yet to develop fully into an anarchist. I am not yet convinced, but some day I might become convinced fully that Christianity and anarcho-capitalist libertarianism are as fully linked to one another as classical libertarianism is to Christianity.