Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Advocates Worker Ownership

If you hear someone yelling the phrase "property is theft," you might intuitively label him as a communist or as an economic collectivist. However, many libertarian bloggers and blog commentators challenge this assumption.

First coined by a 19th century mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, contemporary mutualists and Rothbardian market anarchists continue to repeat this motto. Even that this aphorism sounds absurd at first, they generally claim that Proudhon did not meant "property is theft" in the literal sense; they claim that Proudhon referred it to the property stolen by the state. Therefore, they claim that merely "semantics" caused this terminological conflict. A blogger called "Brainpolice," in a post titled Remembering Proudhon at Polycentric Order, postulated this:

There is also a context in which Proudhon was very much in favor of private or individual property, viewing it as an indispensible [sic] counterweight to the state.

A lot of market anarchists therefore asserted that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon favors property, and that he used "property as theft" as a rhetoric to attract readers. Andrew's post and the commentators at this blog post unanimously cited Brainpolice's assertion without even reading the primary sources.

However, if we take a closer look at what Proudhon meant by "property is theft," Brainpolice got it all wrong. In Proudhon's treatise What is Property?, he advocates the "possession" or the "use-and-occupancy" theory of property. Proudhon, therefore, as he said, rejects sticky property (Lockean property), or the perpetual ownership of property:

So that in society the only thing which could bring back the inequality of labor would be the right of occupancy, -- the right of property. (Page 124)

Therefore, Proudhon used "property is theft" to mean that "sticky property is theft."

Brainpolice probably got this idea from Brad Spangler's post on Proudhon, which Spangler in turn got it from this web page. If Brainpolice took that idea from Spangler, then he certainly did popularize Spangler's claim to misrepresent Proudhon. Brainpolice claimed that Proudhon merely opposes state privileges on property, but advocates sticky property just like how the Rothbardian market anarchists do.

Also, in contrast to the popular opinion, Proudhon actually rejected "the fruits of our labor" as a justification for property. He repeats this position in Chapter 3 of What is Property. Proudhon only justified property by "possession" or use-and-occupancy.

Furthermore, Proudhon used "property is impossible" to mean his theory of primitive accumulation. Proudhon argued that in a society ruled by sticky property, over time, a few hands will eventually concentrate nearly all property. He argued that these proprietors will then rent out their property to serfs. Therefore Proudhon actually used "property is impossible" to mean that "sticky property will lead to feudalism, with the poor propertyless (i.e. impossible for the poor to own property)." Proudhon demonstrated this in Chapter 4 in What is Property:

Every possessor of lands, houses, furniture, machinery, tools, money, &c., who lends a thing for a price exceeding the cost of repairs (the repairs being charged to the lender, and representing products which he exchanges for other products), is guilty of swindling and extortion. In short, all rent received (nominally as damages, but really as payment for a loan) is an act of property, -- a robbery. (Page 167)

Many market anarchists blindly follow Brainpolice's authority for his claims. In the past, Brainpolice, in a comment on his website, dogmatically claimed that Mikhail Bakunin actually uses the phrase "collectivist anarchism"; and that Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker actually use the phrase "individualist anarchism" to describe themselves. We have also refuted this. We have dispelled these misconceptions.

How to Spot a Naïve Ancap

We will make a quick post to list some 10 planks to distinguish a naïve ancap from a radical ancap.

Plank one. The naïve ancap estimates that labor productivity will merely double in ancapistan. Contrastingly, the radical ancap believes that ancapistan would have at least five times greater productivity than what we have now. The naïve ancap believes that taxation and inflation more-or-less cause only a 50% productivity loss, while the radical ancap knows that the state squanders at least 80% of our labor productivity.

Plank two. The naïve ancap follows mainstream supply-side celebrities like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and/or the conspiracy nut Alex Jones. The naïve ancap almost exclusively focuses on bail-outs, while avoiding all the other draconian privileges that the plutocrats loot from us. Contrastingly, the radical ancap focuses on the entire scope of state privileges, besides taxation. The radical ancap understands that state regulations, interventions, licensing, urban planning, and prohibitions more greatly impoverishes the economy besides merely taxation and inflation.

Plank three. Because the naïve ancap have a less radical view of economics than the radical ancap, they will often resort to a fetish for the past American government, in what they call "Restore the Republic." In doing so, the naïve ancap clungs to the U.S. Constitution, an obsolete document. Likewise, the naïve ancaps more likely vote for the "fiscal conservative" candidates who promises to slash the tax brackets by an only few percentage points. They will often fall into Ron Paul's traditionalist "Campaign for Liberty," the totalitarian "Free State Project," the theocratic "John Birch Society," or "Peter Schiff for Senator."

Plank four. The naïve ancap more likely follows stock market indices than the radical ancap. The stock-market indices, such as the Dow Jones Index, most likely measures the well-being of the most privileged firms. The 30 components of the Dow Jones Index consists of mega-corporations which gets subsidies and bailouts from the government, and regulations that cartelize them.

Plank five. The naïve ancap more likely favors gradualist and reformist polices that compromises the their goal. For example, the naïve ancap more likely praises welfare reform programs, such as FairTax, school vouchers, Health Savings Accounts, and the other of the so-called "market-based" solutions. Contrastingly, the radical ancap recognizes these schemes as simply the government as expanding out to quasi-statist firms.

Plank six. Because the naïve ancap trusts the state more, they will likely hold the status quo of legitimizing some state practices, such as immigration restriction or disallowing the "illegal" immigrants to use the bureaucratic hospitals or the state schools (indoctrination prisons).

Plank seven. The naïve ancap, in general, has greater faith in the state and its bureaucracy than the radical ancaps. We do not mean that the naïve ancap supports or even tolerates statism. We mean that they only believe that bureaucracies have 50% or so inefficiency than the so-called "private" companies. For example, the naïve ancap claims that school vouchers can more efficiently indoctrinate children than state schools. However, the naïve ancap never questions the state indoctrination centers itself. Contrastingly, the radical ancap believes that truly free market schools will have 95% more efficiency, not at indoctrinating children, but at educating them.

Plank eight. The radical ancap views the state as a criminal monster that deceptively steals at least 80% of our productivity, at least not as much as the naïve ancap does. Therefore the naïve ancap will likely vote and participate in electoral campaigns rather than education. Even if the naïve ancap wants to educate others, they will tend to use arguments justifying the status quo of our income distribution as a "natural" outcome of human nature or the economic system. Most of these arguments sound indistinguishable from what Such Limbaugh or Sean Hannity makes, that "tax cuts" benefits the economy, or "welfare" creates a spiral of dependence. They never question the state impoverishes individuals by its licenses, building codes, land-use regulations, red tape, and certification requirements which impoverishes them by wasting 90% of their productivity (the state steals 80% of the productivity from the middle class, but 90% of the productivity from the lower classes).

Plank nine. The naïve ancap will more likely get fooled by the glittering generalities and the vague words spoken by conservative politicians and radio hosts.

Plank ten. The naïve ancap still trusts mainstream media.

The Social Anarchist Assault on Ancapistan

Alex, thanks again for your criticism titled Fallacious Rejection of Anarchism.

First of all, I consistently describe myself as a "poor writer," which means that my writing often misrepresents by beliefs. For instance, I mistyped yesterday's response and it contained grammatical errors, and, as you all know, some misrepresentations. In addition, I forgot to edit, revise, and clarify my work. Therefore I will clarify my claims that I pointed out yesterday.

Alex said: This is a misrepresentation of me. What affiliation with minarchism? I had come to negatively define anarcho-capitalism after having been one myself! ... The claim that I was a minarchist while making such claims about anarcho-capitalism is false - I held the exact same position I do now upon making those claims and considered myself a market anarchist. The allusion to me as a minarchist has nothing to do with this.

Looking at Alex's old blog and his past influence from Ron Paul, I presumed that he had defined "anarcho-capitalism" that way. On his old blog, Alex had defined "anarcho-capitalism" as a system of competing private defense agencies operated by large bureaucratic firms. However, most self-described "anarcho-capitalists" disagree with Alex's narrow definition. These "anarcho-capitalists" define "anarcho-capitalism" more broadly, as a system in which its constituent individuals abide by the non-aggression principle. I hope this clarifies it up.

Alex said: My problem with anarcho-capitalism is in the assumption of a certain absolutist norm of property rights and by making a reductio ad absurdum out of what *some* anarcho-capitalists advocate. ... Anarcho-mercantalist would like to fool people into thinking that all of this is purely a semantic issue when it isn't. ... This is not merel about labels.

I agree with Alex here. I try to minimize my use of "anarcho-capitalism" because of its connotations, especially when I communicate with strangers. In general, as I mentioned before, I dislike to describe myself with one-word, two-word, or three-word labels. I also disagree with with the beliefs that some (or most) of the "anarcho-capitalists" hold. In your quote of me, I meant that some "non-vulgar" market anarchists continue to use "anarcho-capitalism" to label themselves, even if they know that some (or most) of the "anarcho-capitalists" conflate the current system with a free market.

Alex said: it is generally revolved around the concern that "sticky ownership of land" as a normative absolute can justify authoritarianism, have bad socio-economic consequences and ultimately devolve into states. The concerns about anarcho-capitalism are not merely over the term itself.

I know the consequences if we take "sticky" land ownership to the absolute. It might result in some cartelization of land, thus might devolve into a state. Nevertheless, the current system already cartelizes land.

Many "anarcho-capitalists" even favor land redistribution of past stolen land. See Rothbard's article on the Confiscation and the Homestead Principle.

Many mutualists therefore do not see much difference between mutualism and "left-Rothbardianism." However, as I described earlier in an unexpectedly famous post titled The Left-Libertarian Strategy, the "left-Rothbardians" and the mutualists differ by a lot.

Alex said: Some "anarcho-capitalists" likely dislike the term "market anarchism" precisely because it implies that they do not have a monopoly on free market ideas in anarchism. The resistance to "market anarchism" as an umbrella is a reinforcement of my own claim that "anarcho-capitalists" tend to be monocentric.

I only partially agree with you here. Let us clarify this below.

Alex said: I have never taken an absolutist anti-private-property position.

I apologize for misrepresenting you of opposing "private property" in all contexts. Anyway, I identify myself as a "poor and sloppy writer." Also, as you mentioned, I support "voluntary cooperatives" and oppose "corporations" if I follow your definitions.

I consider this sentence that I have written as unclear:

Anarcho-mercantilist said: I think Cork use 'private property' to mean the 'non-aggression principle'

So we will rephrase and clarify the above statement: Cork used "private property" to mean that "no social anarchist has the right to harm the legitimate private property of third parties." I used "legitimate private property" here to refer to the private property legitimately owned by individuals, not stolen property held by a monarch or by the state (which includes taxpayer-funded contractors).

Let us explain what Cork means below.

We find it unquestionable that all social anarchists—regardless of the anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, or anarcho-collectivist stripe—hate "capitalism" and "wage labor."

Thus, the social anarchists will invade ancapistan and attack their factory bosses, managers, landowners, and financiers—all the occupations that they consider as parasitic. Cork fears about this!

Alex might object to this claim because many social anarchists (such as Bakunin) speak of "voluntary associations." However, the social anarchists have a different conception of what "voluntary" means. As I mentioned before in another comment, the social anarchists define the expropriation of capital and land by the workers as a non-aggressive act. Therefore, because the social anarchists argue the expropriation of capital and land as "voluntary," they will invade ancapistan and attack their factory bosses, managers, landowners, and financiers.

Mike Gogulski (who describes himself as an anarcho-capitalist) has commented his thoughts on the social anarchists in his post titled Agorism and Ancap Panarchy. Mike, in one of his comments, has expressed the same fear that the social anarchists will attack ancapistan.

We hope that this clarifies Cork's thoughts on the social "anarchists."

The Left-Libertarian Strategy

The word "left-libertarian" does not mean that libertarianism should be left-wing. It is a movement with a specific strategy.

The left-libertarians usually define left-libertarianism as an egalitarian philosophy. Actually, the terms left-wing and right-wing are meaningless. The left did not always support egalitarianism, and the right did not always support the status quo more than the left. Though the left-libertarians claim that they use the term "left-wing" to refer to the seating arrangements of the French legislature, they amazingly redefine "left-wing" as the ideology of the Civil Rights Movement. 

However, the real definition of left-libertarianism is the strategy of achieving anarchy, as advocated by the left-libertarian alliance, by making alliances with mutualists, geolibertarians, green anarchists, and anarcho-collectivists. Thus, a "left-libertarian" actually means any member of the left-libertarian alliance or one who practices such strategy. The left-libertarian strategy supports making many alliances with others, even those opposing pure free markets.

However, the mutualists, geolibertarians, green anarchists, and other anarcho-collectivists, even though they support free markets, are, however, economically ignorant. For instance, the mutualists and geolibertarians advocate redistribution of capital goods and land, not because the current system is unfair, but because they believe that a strict propertarian free market will intrinsically result in an uneven distribution of wealth. Thus, the mutualists advocate the continuous redistribution of capital goods by their "use and occupancy" laws and the geolibertarians advocate a tax on land and "unproductive" use of resources.

While the Rothbardian privatization strategy of worker's homesteading the state-owned factories and land does not seem to violate the non-aggression principle because state ownership is illegitimate, and that many corporations are extensions of the state; the left-libertarians, unlike the Rothbardian philosophy once-only redistribution, advocate continuous redistribution of land. This is based on the fallacious belief that in a strict propertarian free market, income inequality will increase without redistribution of capital goods or land.

The income inequality fallacy of the free market is also believed by the contemporary social democrats. Thus, the mutualists and geolibertarians have the same economic ignorance as the contemporary social democrats, all three believing that large disparities of wealth is inherent in the market without redistribution of wealth, capital or land.

Another fallacy based on the income equality fallacy is the mutualistic position on abandonment. Because the mutualist thinks that income distribution is inherent in a propertarian free market, they think that the rich, who are non-existent in a free market, would abandon their useless property rather than to make a profit by selling it.

The left-libertarian strategy involves making as many allies as possible. Because the left-libertarians, by definition, ally with the mutualists and other economically ignorant libertarians, left-libertarians are thus forced to oppose capitalism. The left-libertarians, also, are forced to defend mutualism and anarcho-collectivism, since they ally with them. Making too much allies with others will degenerate the purity of libertarianism, into a philosophy of reformism, redistribution of capital and land, and end in an endless debate between the alliance members.

The left-libertarians are divided on strategy. On one side, they advocate a reformist strategy and "thick" libertarianism. These left-libertarians include Charles Johnson, Roderick T. Long and Kevin Carson. On the other side, there are left-libertarians who see agorism as more effective than "thick" libertarian propaganda, such as BrainPolice, FSK and David Z. The latter three individuals explicitly oppose labor unions and anarcho-syndicalism as a strategy, as they see it as "working within the system."

Anarcho-capitalists who advocate political reform is functionally a classical liberal, since they do the same thing. Similarly, a market-anarchist who supports syndicalism is functionally an anarcho-syndicalist. An agorist who only sells prohibited drugs is functionally the same to all of the other non-libertarian workers in the black market. Non-straightforward ways of promoting libertarianism are thus highly inefficient. Promoting or package-dealing some other values other than the core libertarianism philosophy destroys the purity of libertarianism. The only way to effectively promote libertarianism is by straightforward, non-propagandistic education.

While some kinds of counter-economic propaganda may, indeed, make others more open-minded about libertarianism, utilizing pure agorism, without spending on education, will fail to achieve anarchy.

By straightforward, non-propagandistic education, we mean by not making alliances that are incompatible with libertarianism (such as the "left-libertarian" alliance); not promoting a specific candidate or criticizing specific state policies such as Social Security, school privatization, etc.; and not advocating political compromises. We mean, is, to educate others about the free market, without any empirical arguments.

Prominent left-libertarians:

• David Z.
• FSK
• BrainPolice
• XOmniverse
• Roderick T. Long Roderick Long has wrote an article saying that the difference between anarcho-individualists and anarcho-collectivists is entirely semantic.
• Charles Johnson Charles Johnson, who wrote a "thick" libertarian strategy, advocated using non-straightforward propaganda to promote anarchy, and making alliances with ideologies such as the vulgar-libertarian pro-state feminists, anarcho-collectivists, and egalitarians. The "thick" libertarian strategy is about indirectly, and non-straightforwardly promoting libertarianism via propaganda.

Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, and John McCain are Fascists

The Myth of "Dr. No"

Even though Ron Paul is generally seen as "Dr. No," if shown his voting record, he would rarely support his votes if these are votes for the states. The reason which he votes No on the federal level because he supports quasi-federalism, and actually supports massive state bureaucracy.

For example, he supports state protection of drugs. In his ABC News interview, he said that it's the states' responsibility to protect minors from recreational drugs. Also, more apparently, in a survey of his positions, Ron Paul explicitly refused to check the "Decriminalize the possession and private use of marijuana." option but checked the "other" option. He checked "other" because he advocates prohibition, he believes in his quasi-federalism that prohibition should be the states' job in order to increase efficiency.

Ron Paul also flip flopped on his drug position in an interview on CNN. When Ron Paul is accused of his racist writings, he responded that "I am the anti-racist because I support legalization of drugs." Ron Paul is lying about that and he would lie on anything, including his racist writings.

In his slashdot interview, Ron Paul supports patents and assumed that patents are helpful in increasing technology. Software patents are actually horrible because it hurts small companies who do not have any patent portfolio and is corporate welfare.

Ron Paul supports the corporate tax, supports corporations and supports raising corporate tax. The corporate tax hurts businesses and it is corporate welfare.

Ron Paul even vote for tax incentives for companies for domestic oil drilling. This would raise the taxes from the taxpayers to pay for these companies. This is distortion of market.

Ron Paul supports federal legislation on defence infrastructure and other kinds of infrastructure. He also voted for the invasion of Afganistan. He voted for road funding.

Mainstream propaganda's potence

Ron Paul supports federal legislation such as Deleting Online Predators Act and No Parole for Sex Offenders Act. They were acts to reduce federal funding to states who do not punish the so-called "sex-offenders." This is another violation of states' rights. His advocacy is evidence that he just support states for greater efficiency. Why did not he abolish all state funding instead of abolishing states that do not confirm to the "sex offender" regulations?

Contrary to mainstream media propaganda, most "sex offenders" did not have actually offended anyone, most of them are actually charged from indecent exposure. So most of the "sex offenders" are harmless. Those who are charged for raping a girl and those who are charged for indecent exposure, the 18 year-olds who had consensual sex with a 17-year old and those who harmlessly download child pornography are all labeled the same as "sex offender." There are many falsely accused "sex offenders" and the interpretation of "sex offense" is subjective. These "offences" can be anywhere from "vulgar speech" to other victimless crimes.

Another study showed that about 87% of rapes are actually statutory rapes. Between 27 and 60 percent of rape allegations are false.

Centralism over federalism at heart

Ron Paul is not a federalist because he supports many federal legislations such as tax incentives for research and development and offshore drilling. These are corporate welfare. In some things he support county control of education, even though he support states rights. He oppose state control of education and supports county control, which contradicts state rights.

"an excellent example of this was when he spoke at the value voters debate, when he spoke on marriage, he said that it should be out of even the States' hands, and that "WE should define it", which has certain implications considering the group he was speaking to (he also stated that anyone who wanted promote gay marriage should "just look up the definition in the dictionary"). Given that Ron Paul is a believer in Christ, it should come as no surprise he holds several of these beliefs."

So he is not a federalist. In his vote smart record. he support state funding for argriculture and education. http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=296#533

He supports federal legislation of school vouchers, even though he thinks education should be county.

When he comes to federalism:

This are the levels that the laws he think should be placed:

Federal 1) Border security State 2) Civil rights enforcement Local 3) Education State 4) Environmental cleanup None 5) Job training State 6) Law enforcement None 7) Low-income housing State 8) Medicaid Federal 9) Medicare State 10) Welfare (AFDC)

He actually supports state civil rights and welfare. Why did he voted none for job training and low-income housing but not everything else? Why he did not vote none for civil rights and welfare? Because he supports state civil rights and welfare. He opposes these programs at federal level because he supports them at the state level.

His arguments against illegal immigration are based on his support for the welfare state.

Ron Paul also wants corporate taxes that are complicated that supports big corporations. He supports health care tax incentives for businesses and "tax incentives everything." He supports businesses providing healthcare. Why not individual pay? He is economically dumb. They are corporate welfare subsidies.

Federalism is fascism

States rights do not make free. States rights is shifting the populatory contest from the federal to states. It is still a popularity contest. Ron Paul does not even support states rights by the federal regulations and tax incentives which are corporate welfare.

Ron Paul supports states rights because he thinks it is practical. For example, he supports federal government to restrict abortion, but another speech he supports states rights'. He said that states rights are easier to promote pro-life. He is a utilitarian, and probably realize that states are just as monopolistic, but he likes federalism to easier.

Ron Paul, literally, is a fascist. He supports group rights over individual rights, which is the key idea of fascism. Augusto Pinochet supported corporations and regulations that benefit the capitalists. He hated left-interventionists. Ron Paul also wants to close borders because he hates left-interventionists. States' rights are also group rights.

Ron Paul is a utilitarian economist. He supports markets because they work, not because it is the moral path. Even though he is a paleolibertarian at the federal level, he is paleoconservative at the state level. All paleolibertarians are like that. The popularity contest at the states would collude and just be as uniform as the federal level. There would be no competition. Therefore, all paleolibertarians are paleoconservatives.

Paleoconservatives equal neoconservatives

The Paleoconservatives, even though they staunchly advocate "states' rights" and "anti-federalism," both referring to policies of delegating more the federal government to more local government such as the "states," actually do not support more "states' rights" than the other political parties. For example, they support the federal government delegating its cultural prohibition programs to the "states," not eliminating them entirely.

The Paleoconservatives have an authoritarian view on cultural issues. Other than their commonly held views prohibiting "nontraditional" behaviors including "drugs," premarital sex, prostitution, gambling, statutory "rape," and pornography, they have more serious views on prohibition. Chuck Baldwin stated that "One of the main reasons for marriage is to provide a safe, loving and controversy free environment in which to raise children. Growing up is hard especially in the current environment that includes messages from music, video and other media encouraging young people to involve themselves in activities that are destructive and dangerous both physically and emotionally." This implied that in addition to prohibiting "useless" activities such as "drugs" and sex, Paleoconservatives also want to ban entertainment and video games since they consider these as a waste of time and unproductive to society as a whole.

According to the platform of the Constitution Party (a paleoconservative political party), they declare that the subnational governments (the "states") should prohibit "nontraditional" behaviors. However, this view contradicts to their advocacy of "states' rights," they imply that the subnational governments cannot legalize the "nontraditional" behaviors, while advocating these subnational governments to do anything that they can.

On economic issues, the Paleoconservatives do just the reverse. They advocate the federal government to enforce property rights and to prohibit the subnational governments setting up their own "communist state." As the Paleoconservative want to prohibit the federal regulation and funding of healthcare and education, they also want to prohibit healthcare and education even if the subnational governments set up these. However, Chuck Baldwin supports the subnational governments providing health care. This view also contradicts their advocacy of "states' rights," by actually prohibiting the "states" to have the right to establish their own healthcare or education regulations and funding.

Their statements in the last paragraph actually contradicts their views. They actually support state regulated healthcare and education. They preserve state hospitals and the state schools as one of the reasons that they oppose immigration. They dislike how the immigrants supposedly waste taxpayer money by using the "free" hospitals and the "free" schools provided by the state. They never acknowledge that the value of the medical sector and the state "education" has "negative value," and actually parasitic.

We just showed that Paleoconservatives has a very narrow view of liberty. In cultural views, they completely disrespect liberty. The Paleoconservatives speak of liberty to refer economic liberty. We should measure economic liberty by determining the amount of state intervention: less state intervention means more economic liberty. However, the Paleoconservative definition of economic liberty seems to only consider the taxation rates, without even discerning any other variable, like business regulations. They that taxation rates primarily determine the economic liberty, with more economic liberty from lower taxation rates and less liberty from higher taxation rates. Chuck Baldwin did not even include any economic sections on his platform.

Even though they view the definition of liberty as narrow, but they also determine the overall amount of taxation narrowly. For example, Paleoconservatives often view a progressive tax as less economically free than a regressive tax, even though the progressive taxation implementation has less culminative taxation. In addition, they lacked another tax: inflation, a regressive tax.

On foreign policy, they view America as similar as what the neoconservatives view it. Though on said on the platform that they officially oppose the Iraq war, they actually advocate attacking Afghanistan. Additionally they believe in punishing all countries by prohibiting free trade.

On the LewRockwell site, it officially says that they advocate: anti-war, anti-state and pro-market.

Neither applies. As proven by their support on the invasion of Afganistan, support of reducing the state and lack of awareness of the Extensions of the state, they hardly support what they claim.

LewRockwell, for example, criticized paleoconservatism primarily due to their pro-tariff stances without any criticisms on any of their other policies, such as social conservatism and parasitic sectors, implicated that paleolibertarianism equals paleoconservatism but supporting free trade.

On another article supporting "privatization" of education. he claimed:

In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with [voucher-provided] education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.

Only half the price?! Schooling has negative value, schooling laws hurts individuals. We demonstrated voucher education equals "state-controlled" education.

Bob Barr demonstrates the archetypical paleolibertarian. On his promotion website, he has a section explitly named "Spending & the Economy," which implies that he views that only cutting spending improves the economy. He did not have any deregulation plan, nothing of the extensions of the state. His other sections: namely, taxes and monetary policy, implies that he supports lowering taxes and the inflation tax without any deregulation. Though he supports federal deregulation of healthcare and education, he does not oppose these at state-level. The Constitution Party platform even opposes these at any level. The state would collude healthcare and education to reflect the federal. Multinational corporations would collude. On social issues, he jus' leave them to the states, mistaking that the de-federalization of these social programs would automatically let the states prohibit these more efficiently.

Constitutional fundamentalism

Many paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians alike, interpret the constitution as a bible. They view the constitution as a god that says always the correct thing. The constitutional fundamentalists repeat the amendments like verses in a bible. They consider amendments as "god-given" rights and seem perfectly written by the founding fathers.

The pro-gun organizations say the second amendment like a biblical verse. They view that individuals should have the "right" to own guns. They have a one-sided view.

Individuals should not have the right to possess firearms, like individuals should not have the right for quality education. Only the ones who want firearms, who can afford firearms and those who reside in a voluntary association allowing firearms should possess firearms.

Many constitutional fundamentalists, also mistakenly, see that if the state enforced the constitution, it would become smaller. However, the constitution only restrains at the federal level, not the subnational level. Once enforced, the subnational states would collude and resemble exactly as the federal level. Multinational corporations would fund the subnational states to reunite into one federal state.

One should not interpret the constitution; one should interpret the non-aggression principle.

Paleolibertarian's mercantile capitalism

Various dictionaries define a trade deficit as the a greater number of imports relative to exports. Also, these define trade surplus as a greater number of exports relative to imports. Various individuals have a false view that trade deficits harm the economy. They believe that trade deficits increase unemployment. The paleoconservative opposition to trade deficits stems from their view that trade deficits increase unemployment. Paleoconservatives including Chuck Baldwin, the nominee for the United States 2008 Presidential election, view that trade deficits cause unemployment.

However, trade deficits do not affect unemployment. Minimum wage, labor union regulations, hiring and firing costs and other regulations cause unemployment. Therefore, in a free market, we expect zero unemployment.

Many paleolibertarian economists, like the paleolibertarians, also believe that trade deficits hurt the economy. Unlike the paleoconservatives, the paleolibertarians do not think that tariffs would benefit the economy.

Many paleolibertarians have a mistaken view that the federal reserve and less economic liberty, per se, causes a trade deficit.

Foreign investment may cause trade deficits. Attractive places to invest will have a trade deficit, since these compel foreign investment. For example, strong economic liberty, inflation and intellectual "property" may increase foreign investment, which increases the trade deficit. Although libertarians should oppose intellectual property as privileges, intellectual property encourages foreigners to "invest" domestically in entertainment. A small advantage of a nation attracting foreign investment may result in a huge trade deficit. For example, if the average foreigner invests his property in a nation with 15% rate of return per year, the imports may equal seventeen times the exports. A huge deficit may result in just little increased foreign investment, for example.Â

Inflation may increase foreign speculation. Inflation encourages borrowing at negative real interest rates.

Also, we should look whether a trade deficit actually exists. Inaccuracies on calculating the balance of trade may induce a trade deficit. The state may actually conclude that a trade deficit exists when this does not. The state estimates a nation's GDP and the balance of trade. The state estimates the GDP and the balance of trade by collecting the tax statistics, such as the tariffs on imports and exports. For example, if the state collects a greater amount of tariffs from imports, it would increase the total number of imports. Non-state firms (private firms) cannot give an accurate estimate of GDP. Non-state firms lack the taxation data which can also deduce the amount of imports and exports. Individuals overwhelmingly cite the state's estimate of GDP and balance of trade over GDP estimates by non-state estimated GDP. The state estimates inaccurate statistics, since the state lacks any economic incentives to provide accurate statistics. For example, if the state left out the additional exports in the process of estimating the balance of trade, it may result in a trade deficit. The state may underestimate e-commerce and software exports, because the state does not tax the Internet. Underrecording Internet purchases from individuals in other nations yields in a trade deficit.

The Democrats and Republicans

Political positions contradict itself

We should not mistakenly divide the mainstream politics into two groups---The Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Parties mean nothing, as there exist various differences of viewpoints within each party. We should not stereotype each party. Not all Democrats support one policy and not all Republican support one policy either. For example, just because an individual supports Universal Healthcare, this does not imply that he or she would more likely oppose the War in Iraq. Just because an individual supports abortion, it does not imply that he or she would more likely to oppose taxes. Political positions among various individuals do not have any correlation with one another. However, as we see in a two-party system, one party may have a set of highly correlated political positions and the other may have opposite positions. The political positions often contradict each other within each party. Due to the two-party system, no political party have a consistent, ideological belief. In order to succeed in the two-party system, politicians must possess contradictory viewpoints in order to win an election. Politicians often lie to hold these contradictory beliefs to win. Honest politicians usually support positions incompatible to the political parties, and thus will lose.

No stereotypes

As two-party systems results in mergers which ultimately reduces to two available options, individuals who does not prefer only the two available candidates would not join any of the two dominant parties. We see many individuals in independent and third parties form because both of the parties may not match the individual's positions. Over 30% of the voters in the United States subscribe to the "Independent Party" as a result. This also reinforces the view that political positions do not correlate with each other, and shows that political parties often hold contradictory political positions and often group similar candidates.

Differences of Democrat Party and Republican Party political platforms, which more libertarian?

As repetitively proved in the last section, individuals have a diverse array of political positions that do not correlate with each other nor do they correlate with the positions on political parties. However, if one wants to compare the political party platforms just for fun, I will prove that no party, Democrat or Republican advocates a smaller state than the other.

Many paleoconservatives and those who support the Mises Institute often view that the Republican Party as smaller government. However, they have a mistaken view. The view refers to the perceived lesser taxation rates of the Republican Party platform. The Republican Party platform proposes only cutting taxes on the already privileged corporations and the upper class, at the expense of the lower class. The platform advocates a flat tax, therefore increasing the income of the working class to decrease taxes on the already privileged. Nothing libertarian about it. In fact, they actually advocate a regressive tax, funded by the regressive inflation.

In the economic issues, the Republican Platform just advocates taxation meddling and state-regulated privatization. No deregulation plans. Though they oppose healthcare subsidies, they favor the same regulations. They 100% support big-pharma, ironic for their opposition to less harmful drugs. On education, the Republican platform supports "voucher" provided education, though we disproved that voucher-provided education improves "state-managed education." Their platform supporting the parasitic No Child Left Behind Act implies that they also want standardized testing of all schools, including homeschool. They want to regulate the homeschooling curricula for standaridized testing and homeschooling teaching methods to revert into an outdated teaching method.

Another view occurs in the perceived reduction in "pork-barrel spending." The Republican Party platform, even though just as pro-war as the Democrats, advocates significant increases in the military, which may offset the combined Democrat Party welfare expenditure. McCain proposes to greatly increase military spending. McCain also approves of healthcare subsidies $2500 to each and every individual. McCain voted along with Bush 95% of the time and Obama voted along the Democrats 97% of the time.

On family values and culture, the Republican Party platform supports the death penalty for those individuals over age 18 who voluntarily had sex with a 17-year old, from their opposition to statutory "rape." The Republican Party platform wants to sentence to death those who voluntary sell "illegal" drugs and the non-violent prostitution services, similar to the Constitution Party platform. Democrat platform also, supports prohibiting non-violent "crimes," but not as extreme as the Republican Party platform.

John McCain wants to set up a cap n' trade system, equivalent to the Democratic platform. John McCain supports the bailout, wants to regulate Wall Street, supports "alternative energy" funding, and the bureaucratic deployment of solar panels, dams, biofuels, and windmills. The Republican platform supports increased state infrasture, a prelude of their larger macroeconomicplan of "free" trade, including the murdering machine that kills tens of thousands of individuals per year: roads.

On trade issues, McCain supports the WTO and other trade agreements. We do not need any trade agreements to lower tarrifs, since most countries have low tarrifs before implementing trade agreements. Also, the WTO enforces intellectual protectionism (not intellectual "property"), enforcement of envorinmental regulations and colludes all the "food and drug administrations" in the world in the disguise of "safty" standards.

The Republicans also want the NAFTA highway

The Fascist Republican Party

Is Chuck Baldwin "More Libertarian" Than Bob Barr?

An article suggests that the state tries to pass a bill that requires manufacturers to do expensive testing.

The bill requires compulsory testing of clothing, furniture, toys, games, shoes, books, CDs, and other merchandise designed for children. The tests requires all businesses to purchase expensive testing, so it would affect small businesses the most.

We will show a couple of quotes about the expensive testing process:

However, Jacobsen told WND that lead testing is estimated to cost $100 to $400 for each of her used children's books because she does not buy in bulk, and each batch of merchandise is required to be tested.

There's a big difference between me and Wal-Mart or Toys 'R' Us," she said. "They'll have a batch of 50,000. Everything I have is a batch of one because I don't know its history. I'm looking at a testing cost of about $1.2 million. I would normally sell my full inventory of all children's products for probably $15,000. So, it's effectively a ban.

All children's toys and furniture also fall under strict requirements for independent lead and phthalate testing. Some small toy businesses say lead testing alone costs more than $4,000 per item - a price some say only large companies like Mattel and Fisher Price can afford to pay.

[The retailer] estimates testing for each of her clothing articles to run between $300 and $1,500. The Consumer Product Safety Commission said it may consider exempting clothing and toys made from natural materials such as wool or wood, but paint and dyes on the products are still required to be tested.

But they are talking about $100,000 fines and jail terms of up to five years. I'm not comfortable operating with that law on the books.

The Socialist Fiscal-Conservatives

In the House of Representatives, 424 members voted yes and only one member, Ron Paul, voted against it.

The three Senate Republicans, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, and Jon Kyl, who voted against the bill did not really oppose it. They only oppose the way the state implemented it, and in this case they might oppose it on the federal level. If the state-level legislatures introduced the bill, however, all of the three Republicans will vote for it.1

All of the three Republican Senators want to impose their cultural and social conservative views on others. They oppose profanity, support the murderers,2 compulsory indoctrination of the English language, No Child Left Behind Act, and the so-called sex "offender" laws. By sex "offenders," we mean that the majority of sex "offenders" did victimless "crimes" but coerced to register as sex "offenders." We consider it collective punishment to conflate both the aggressive and victimless types of "sex offenders" to the Orwellian term "sex offenders." Even Ron Paul supports the sex "offender" laws.

In fact, one of the three Senate Republicans has voted for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, (a.k.a. the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act) which some studies show that the Act costs $1.4 trillion in regulatory compliance. The other two Republicans did not sit at Senate when Congress passed the Act, but they would probably vote for it if they had gone there at that time. The Congress unanimously passed the bill at that time.

Even though the general population might view these Republicans as the top three fiscal conservatives in the Senate, they always had voted for farm subsidies and other massive subsidies.

References

• 1 Tom Coburn, one of the three Republicans, at his page, endorsed state's rights. The two other Republicans, Jim DeMint and Jon Kyl, support state's rights also on the discredited "greater say" argument.
• 2 Look at Jim DeMint's and Tom Cobrin's "respecting" the mass murderers pages. All of the Congressman, including Ron Paul, unanimously support the murderers as much as these Republicans do.

Hat tip to Rationalitate.