BradSpangler.com

For your review and critique, some followup on this post — a snippet of conversation from this morning on Facebook:

A correspondent:

The whole notion of ‘rights’ is absurd — ‘ethics’ is a function of human emotion, and not of logic or reasoning or ‘truth.’

Myself:

While the matter of what people might individually value is subjective (as well as their ordinal preferences among values), whether or not a value has been attained is a yes or no question.

I want a ham sandwich. That’s a subjective preference. Do I have a ham sandwich? No. That’s a fact.

Correspondent:

Does that have anything to do with ‘rights?’

Myself:

If “good” contra “bad” is understood to mean, in a secular sense, achieving/maximising the attainment of values (not merely in a sense of literal material goods, but the goals of any goal directed action) among the population generally…

Then there *is* an empirical basis for the concept that development of a consensus on bounds of behavior that don’t overlap (spheres of free action, or “rights”) is “good”.

Either values get achieved or they don’t. That the basis of value selection is subjective has no relevance to the factual question of whether or not goals/values are being achieved.

Correspondent:

The point, though, is that ethics is still necessarily just a function of human sentiment — no meta-ethical theory can save us from this. Why? … you can’t adopt one meta-ethical theory over another … except by comparing how well they align with your own personal sentiments. A disagreement in matters of ‘ethics’ is more like a disagreement over what type of art is more beautiful than a disagreement over a question that actually has some type of logically true answer (like, say, mathematics).

Myself:

re: “you can’t adopt one meta-ethical theory over another … except by comparing how well they align with your own personal sentiments.”

I think I just sketched a basis for how you can. Perhaps you can show me my error.

Either people are achieving their values or they aren’t (i.e. either they’re free or they aren’t — although not exactly the same thing, we can treat it that way for now).

Perhaps they *are* achieving values I disapprove of.

From an evolutionary standpoint, a framework of maximising attainment of values by the species (or population of allied species) generally would seem to trump my own personal preferences for which values other people ought to be seeking.

A different correspondent:

I really don’t want to get into this debate, but then how is one to decide a sense of value based on those sentiments. For example if a group of people sincerely want to kill a set of X people for an arbitrary feature. Would you not say this desire/emotion is less valuable than a group of people who want to feed the hungry?

Myself:

Clearly the people being killed are not achieving their values.

…

It just doesn’t seem all that controversial to me that maximising value/goal attainment among a population generally is done by development of a social consensus on bounds of behavior to minimize conflicting behavior.

A third correspondent:

If I could achieve all my values by convincing others that they are objective, I would gladly do it, but that still wouldn’t make it so.

Myself:

But I’m not asserting that values are objective — only that it’s an objective fact that they have been attained or not in any given case.

“…[W]e neither intend nor desire to thrust upon our own or any other people any scheme of social organization taken from books or concocted by ourselves. We are convinced that the masses of the people carry in themselves, in their instincts (more or less developed by history), in their daily necessities, and. in their conscious or unconscious aspirations, all the elements of the future social organization. We seek this ideal in the people themselves. Every state power, every government, by its very nature places itself outside and over the people and inevitably subordinates them to an organization and to aims which are foreign to and opposed to the real needs and aspirations of the people. We declare ourselves the enemies of every government and every state power, and of governmental organization in general. We think that people can be free and happy only when organized from the bottom up in completely free and independent associations, without governmental paternalism though not without the influence of a variety of free individuals and parties.” — Mikhail Bakunin, Critique of the Marxist Theory of the State

Here’s some followup on my recent post about the marketing & product development effort revolving around Alongside Night, J. Neil Schulman’s novel of agorist revolution.

Jim Davidson of Alongside Night Entertainment, LLC has posted the latest iterations of their business plan and the screenplay’s script for prospective investors to look over! Investment units are $3,000 each.

You may or may not have been previously aware of this, but plans have been in the works for a renewed marketing push for J. Neil Schulman’s novel of agorist revolution, Alongside Night, and related products. Specifically, a movie deal of some sort is reportedly in the works. While I personally have my doubts about the commonly on-again-off-again nature of Hollywood business deals, that’s not the whole story either.

Plans I’ve seen for first producing a graphic novel version of ASN look rock-solid and serious as a heart attack. I’m convinced that, at the very least, the people behind this will pull off release of the graphic novel — bare minimum. Commercial success of the graphic novel brings the movie closer to reality. In turn, a successful major motion picture about agorism would change, well, everything.

I believe there is an opportunity, and perhaps even an essential role, here for a small third-party marketing firm or even just an informal project staffed by a swarm of independent contractors. Attracting investment requires, among other things, indications of potential good sales. Without the investment, production can’t occur and sales don’t happen.

There is one-way to break out of that chicken-vs-egg dilemna without first having capital — an organized effort to seek advance orders from local comics retailers. As I envision it, commissions would be paid from the publisher to the marketing firm on all collected orders that turn into actual sales — paid for only when the wholesale orders are later paid for by the retailer and not until.

Basically, we’re talking about potentially lots of work for perhaps uncertain and little future money. That obstacle can be overcome, though, by an ideologically motivated sales team determined to see the project succeed.

I have been in discussions of wholesale pricing and commissions with the prospective publisher of the graphic novel for that very reason. I don’t know yet whether I think such an approach is viable from the standpoint of the third-party marketing firm / sales team. I suppose it depends on the degree of interest among people that this blog’s readership is a cross-section of. Contact me very soon if you have an interest in potentially working on this.’

A post on the Mises blog prompted me to notice a post on Brad DeLong’s blog and the discussion in its comments section. I then decided to re-post my own comment here.

Rockwell is a Rothbardian, and Rothbard’s conception of his radical libertarianism was that it occupied the furthest left point possible on the political spectrum, with statist conservatism on the right and Marxism in the confused middle.

To understand why, one only need understand that libertarianism is simply the more rigorously consistent application of classical liberal (in a modern context, “market liberal”) ideas.

Conservatism = statist values, statist methods
Marxism = liberal values, statist methods
Libertarianism = liberal values, liberal methods

Further context is provided by the understanding that Marxism was not the only school of socialism. Nineteenth cenury individualist anarchists, most notably Benjamin Tucker, correctly understood their pre-Rothbardian free-market anarchism as “libertarian socialism”. Despite Rothbard deciding to call his updated version of their doctrine “anarcho-capitalism” (in line with the Misesean definition of capitalism as, basically, just free exchange), his deviations from their thought do not render his ideas pro-capitalist in any more fundamental sense than Tucker with regard to definitions of capitalism used by anti-capitalist thinkers.

Reference “The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economists View”
http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_2.pdf

Lew Rockwell has a better claim on the word “liberal” than most so-called liberals do — because they’re more correctly understood as social-democrats.

ADDENDUM: I also posted additional comments in reply to commenter Neil B on how the agorist application of Rothbardian property theory in the context of Konkin’s counter-economic theory of revolution throughly addresses the land monopoly issue — but Brad DeLong appears to have now deleted those comments!

An Open Letter to Señor Joaquin Guzman

Señor Guzman,

I write to send you much respect, sir, and to thank you.

News reports indicate your business is doing very well, though you reportedly face constant risks and hazards I can not even begin to understand. What little I do know is that your struggle to overcome such reported obstacles to your productive activity shows you are a man of very rare ability, creativity and resourcefulness.

While politicians, police and their sycophants condemn you, I want to celebrate what you do that is right. You are an entrepreneur. You produce. You successfully plan and organize the productive activities of many people. You do this in spite of huge risks. While your enemies in governments economically burn the world around them for sake of their own power and the false economic theories that excuse their power, you provide what consumers want in trade. You are no doubt aware that the world economy is suffering greatly now. I want to say it is because of the banditry of those same people in government who persecute you and your business.

I am under no illusions that you are a perfect or wholly good man. All people are complex. I am not calling you a saint or a hero because I have no doubt that your circumstances lead you to do much that is not right. But you do much that is right and that deserves praise. Thank you.

I also send you an invitation, sir. I invite you to read this book and think about it.

Regards,

Brad Spangler

Text of the above follows en Español, courtesy of Maria Blanco…

“Señor Guzmán,

Le escribo para mandarle mis respetos y darle las gracias.
Las noticias informan de que su negocio va muy bien, aunque al parecer se enfrenta a constantes riesgos y peligros que no puedo ni empezar a entender. Lo poco que sé es que la lucha que usted mantiene para superar esos obstáculos a su actividad productiva le muestra como una persona con una escasa habilidad, la creatividad y el ingenio.

Mientras que los políticos, la policía y los sicofantes (aduladores) le condenan, quiero celebrar lo que hace que sea correcto.Usted es un empresario. Usted produce. Planifica y organiza las actividades productivas de mucha gente. Y lo hace a pesar de grandes riesgos. Mientras sus enemigos en los gobiernos queman económicamente el mundo que les rodea en aras de su propio poder y de teorías económicas falsas que justifican su poder, usted proporciona a los consumidores de lo que necesitan en el comercio. Sin duda usted es consciente de que la economía mundial está sufriendo mucho últimamente. Quiero decir que esto es debido al bandolerismo de las mismas personas que le atacan a usted y a su negocio.
No tengo la ilusión de que usted es perfecto o un hombre completamente bueno. Todo el mundo es complicado. No le estoy llamando santo o héroe porque no dudo de que sus circunstancias le habrán llevado a hacer cosas que no está bien. Pero usted hace muchas cosas que están bien y que merecen un elogio. Gracias.

También le mando una invitación, señor. Le invito a leer este libro. A pensar sobre él.

Saludos,

Brad Spangler”

While I’m not sure that I’ll definitely find it useful, I’ve been persuaded to try Twitter. Those interested can follow me there[RSS] or get a consolidated activity feed[Atom].

We’re in for one wild ride. See here:

Boom Without End: What The Web Knows…..

Which brings to mind a question:

Would there be interest in taking up a collection to fund a Mandarin translation of New Libertarian Manifesto?

It’s starting; just a little bit.

I understand that April is not to late in the season to plant potatoes in much of the US.

MORE: US Facing Diminishing Supplies of Rye & Wheat
As Food Prices Soar, Some Shortages Appear
Run on rice makes its way to U.S.
Era of cheap food ends as prices surge
Americans hoard food as industry seeks regs
Bay Area Shoppers Asked To Limit Rice Purchases
Wall Street Journal editorial: Time for Americans to stockpile food

The following video is said to be a demonstration of a procedure for extraction of THC-rich oil from marijuana. Please note that the apparent use of volatile solvents indicates the procedure can only be safely carried out in a well-ventilated area, presumably in a friendly jurisdiction (whatever that might be).