Pockets of Pure Utopia in These United States

Did you know that in present-day America, there exist many, many isolated pockets of Utopia?

These are places wherein healthcare is 100 percent free.

Where housing is fully provided by money that pours freely in.

And food as well is provided.

In these Utopias, everyone has access to education, and education, too, is 100 percent free.

There is no such thing here as bourgeois property — also known as private property.

Property is instead shared and held in trust by a benevolent bureaucracy which oversees everything, and which grants more money to these places than to any other single place in the United States.

Do you know these Utopian pockets I’m referring to?

Informally, they’re called Indian Country. Formally they’re known as Native American Indian Reservations.

Here the leading cause of death among young men is suicide.

These Utopias also have the highest rate of poverty among ANY racial group in the country — more than twice the national average — and are often environmentally dirty and unsanitary, all of which is quite strange, when you think about it, considering their Utopian nature and the sheer amounts of money they receive.

They also have the highest unemployment rates in the country, and perhaps there is a clue there:

In 2016, the last year for which the census data is available, the average household income on reservations was approximately 70 percent below the national average of $57,617. Just over 20 percent of those households earned less than $5,000 a year. More the 25 percent of the reservation populations live below the official poverty level, compared with 13 percent of the United States as a whole.

This, reader, is socialism.

Quoting history professor Dr. Andrei Znamenski:

In the 1990s, I had a chance to travel through several reservations. Each time when I crossed their borders I was stunned by the contrast between the human landscapes outside and those within Indian reservations. As soon as I found myself within a reservation, I frequently had a taste of a world that, in appearance, reminded me of the countryside in Russia, my former homeland: the same bumpy and poorly maintained roads, worn-out shacks, rotting fences, furniture, and car carcasses, the same grim suspicious looks directed at an intruder, and frequently intoxicated individuals hanging around. So I guess my assessment of the reservation system will be a biased view from a former Soviet citizen who feels that he enters his past when crossing into Native America.

I am going to make a brief excursion into the intellectual sources of this “socialist archipelago.” Since the 1960s, the whole theme of Native America had been hijacked by Marxist scholarship and by so-called identity studies, which shaped a mainstream perception that you should treat Native Americans not as individuals but as a collection of cultural groups, eternal victims of capitalist oppression. I want to challenge this view and address this topic from a standpoint of methodological individualism. In my view, the enduring poverty on reservations is an effect of the “heavy blanket” of collectivism and state paternalism. Endorsed by the federal government in the 1930s, collectivism and state paternalism were eventually internalized by both local Native American elites and by federal bureaucrats who administer the Indians. The historical outcome of this situation was the emergence of “culture of poverty” that looks down on individual enterprise and private property. Moreover, such an attitude is frequently glorified as some ancient Indian wisdom — a life-style that is morally superior to the so-called Euro-American tradition.

Before we proceed, I will give you some statistics. Native Americans receive more federal subsides than anybody else in the United States. This includes subsidized housing, health, education, and direct food aid. Yet, despite the uninterrupted flow of federal funds, they are the poorest group in the country. The poverty level on many reservations ranges between 38 and 63 percent (up to 82 percent on some reservations),4 and half of all the jobs are usually in the public sector.5 This is before the crisis of 2008! You don’t have to have a Ph.D. in economics to figure out that one of the major sources of this situation is a systemic failure of the federal Indian policies.

These policies were set in motion during the New Deal by John Collier, a Columbia-educated social worker, community organizer, and utopian dreamer who was in charge of the Native American administration during FDR’s entire administration. English Fabian socialism, the anarchism of Peter Kropotkin, communal village reforms conducted by the Mexican socialist government, and the romantic vision of Indian cultures were the chief sources of his intellectual inspiration. Collier dreamed about building up what he called Red Atlantis, an idyllic Native American commonwealth that would bring together modernization and tribal collectivism. He expected that this experiment in collective living would not only benefit the Native Americans but would also become a social laboratory for the rest of the world. The backbone of his experiment was setting up so-called tribal governments on reservations, which received the status of public corporations. Collier envisioned them as Indian autonomies that would distribute funds, sponsor public works, and set up cooperatives. In reality, financed by the BIA, these local governments began to act as local extensions of its bureaucracy.

(Source)

If you believe — and I mean even vaguely, because politics isn’t really your bag, and you don’t particularly like thinking about boring economics (and I’m with you, I truly am) — if you believe even vaguely in “free” healthcare and education for all and other things of this nature, or if you believe bureaucracy is okay and probably good for health, safety, the environment, and so on, I vehemently urge you to spend a little time traveling through Indian Country: “Socialist Archipelagos,” as Dr. Znamenski termed them, and what I call pockets of American Utopia.

Read more

Click-click

Happy Birthday, Karl Marx!

Control the property, control the person.


Two hundred years ago, in May of 1818, Karl Marx, the father of 20th century collectivism and the towering inspiration for socialist central planning, was born in Trier, Germany.

Karl Marx continues to be lionized and admired by intellectuals and artists the wide world over, and one recent example, in addition to all the saccharin articles that you saw on May 5th — e.g. “Karl Marx: Prosperity Coach” — can be found in Raoul Peck’s new film, in which the young Karl Marx is portrayed as a man with an unquenchable thirst for justice.

It used to be that the vehement disavowing of Nazism — “NAZI,” as you know, is a kind of acronym for “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” — was the first thing that came up in conversations with socialists.

Now among socialist thinkers of every stripe, when you cite the artificial famine in Ukraine, the Soviet Gulags, the forced deportation of Lithuanians, the persecution of Christians, China’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, the killing fields of Cambodia, North Korea’s horrific prison camps and famines, the systematic impoverishment of Cuba, and now Venezuela’s collapse into starvation and mass-murder — or when you cite the child-murderer Che Guevara’s speech, in which he said (and I quote): “If the missiles had remained, we would have fired them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York, because the victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims” (Che Guevara, November 1962); and Raul Castro, the current president of Cuba: “My dream is to drop three atomic bombs on New York City” ( November 1960) — nowadays, I was saying, when you cite some of this history, the first thing that comes up is no longer disavowing Nazism, as such, but rather the hysterical insistence that it’s completely unfair and even slanderous to pin this entire atrocity exhibition on “socialism.”

Why?

Because none of these examples are really socialism, of course.

“The only real socialism is the warm, fuzzy welfare-statism of a handful of innucuous Western European countries,” as Robert Tracinski put it, not mentioning, however, that all these warm, fuzzy countries have had to quietly implement free-market principles to save them from economic collapse.

“This is a pretty obvious version of the No True Scotsman fallacy, and a good way of disavowing responsibility for the disastrous results of a system you praised just a few years earlier” ” (Ibid).

Absolutely accurate: it is the No True Scotsman fallacy — writ large.

As I’ve said many times before, the majority of socialists, certainly in America but not only in America, all across the political spectrum, don’t really know they’re socialists because they don’t really know what it is — i.e. government control over the means of production and the abolition of private property, egalitarianism the goal (this, despite the fact that humans possess varying degrees of motivation and ambition, which are the two biggest factors in determining “inequality”).

The basic tenets of socialism, in whatever happens to be the latest trend, is, into the present day, the dominant philosophy that young people grow up with and among, and so there’s rarely any thorough examination of the premises that underpin that philosophy.

This is why the majority of young people polled have a positive view of socialism today.

This is also, I’ve come to understand, the primary reason that the foundational idea of that philosophy is so insidious:

It’s taken-for-granted in some measure by virtually everyone, regardless of explicit political affiliation, and it’s treated as holy writ by poet, priest, and politician alike: the foundational idea is that it’s virtuous to force people to live for one another.

It’s why the Dalai Lama (whom I like, in certain ways) “identifies” as a Marxist.

So that when the Nazi socialist ideology was defeated, when the Berlin Wall crumbled, when Soviet Russia fell apart, when the leading socialist scholars admitted in the 1990’s the Marx was wrong and Ludwig von Mises was correct all along — the socialist ideology simply changed its masthead. But it kept its business the exact same, inculcating into the minds of the next generation of children the identical ideology that’s been responsible for a billion deaths and wrongful imprisonments, and still counting.

You can read for free right here The Black Book of Communism, published by the Fellows of Harvard (no rightwing organization, that is for sure), and I urge you to, because it is a fucking eye-opener.

But more than that, I urge you to take a look around the Museum of Communism.

Quoting the economist Ryan McMaken:

Everywhere we look and find a relatively LESS socialistic economy, the less poverty and more prosperity we find. Historically, this is obvious. The countries that embraced free trade, industrialization, and the trappings of market economies early on are the wealthiest economies today. We also find this to be the case in post-war Europe where the relatively pro-market economies such as those in Germany and the UK are wealthier and have higher standards of living than the more socialistic economies of southern Europe — such as Greece and Spain. This is even true of the Scandinavian countries like Sweden, which, as Per Bylund has noted, historically built its wealth with a relative laissez-faire system. (Real Socialism has Indeed Been Tried — and It’s Been a Disaster)

On the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx’s birth, here’s what I want you most to know:

Everything is complicated until it’s reduced — and reducing is often the most complicated part. But once it’s reduced, it becomes simple:

There are only two fundamental forms of government: freedom and non-freedom.

Freedom is the absence coercion. It simply means that you are left alone.

Most governments are a mix — but one must always remember the iron-clad law: bad principles drive out good.

The fight is a fight for principles.

All — and I mean all — non-free systems and societies are fundamentally the same.

Do you know what their common denominator is?

It is this:

The individual is subordinated to the collective.

It’s this deadly conviction that’s most responsible for all the bloodshed and injustice in human history: the notion that the group, the community, the gang, the tribe, the cult, the clique, the superior race — whatever you want to call it — the collective has primacy over the individual.

The concretes differ but the abstraction (i.e. the principle) is always the same.

And no matter how many mutations and permutations it undergoes, no matter what guise it masquerades under from one year to the next, one generation to the next, no matter what it chooses to represent it in any given era, it always plays out the same:

A select group of elite people determining for everyone else how to live.

The fatal flaw built into any and all forms of collectivism is that any and every collective consists only of the individuals who compose it.

This is why the individual — regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, color, class, or creed — is the only legitimate standard of measurement: because the individual is the smallest minority there is.

The question to always ask is this:

Who or what says that my life or your life or the life of any individual may rightfully be subordinated to any group?

By what legitimate authority, by what natural edict or law?

In the history of the entire world, no good answer has ever been given to this question — because no good answer for it exists:

Because the notion that the individual may legitimately be subordinated to any collective, under ANY banner, is a horribly, tragically, murderously false idea.




Read more




Click-click




The Life and Death of Alfie Evans



“Whether one likes it or not, it is a fact that the main issues of present day politics are purely economic and cannot be understood without a grasp of economic theory.”

Wrote Ludwig von Mises.

I think his words are true, unfortunately.

Like the human body, knowledge forms an indivisible unity. It’s interconnected and deeply interwoven. Knowledge is hierarchical and contextual: one part flows inevitably into another.

At the foundation of it all is philosophy.

Philosophy forms the underpinnings of all knowledge.

People don’t believe me when I say this, and yet it’s the truth: I don’t particularly care for politics and economics.

The reason — the only reason — I’ve spent so much of my life and my time writing about these subjects is that they’re inescapable, and because they affect our lives so immediately and extraordinarily:

One is either knowledgable about them, or one isn’t.

One is either informed or one isn’t.

One either buys into the easy platitudes of the day — right, left, or middle, it makes no real difference — or one considers the issues for oneself and forms non-dogmatic conclusions.

Package-deals — i.e. what right, left, and middle offer — do not work for philosophy. Philosophy is too vast and complex.

It requires independent thought, and a great deal of it.

It takes a great deal of thought and conscious effort.

It requires independent integration, which is what true apprehension consists of.

One either jumps in and swims, or one is swept along with the tides and the trends — until, in the latter case, one grows old and one day finds that he holds convictions — convictions he’s even willing to die for — the foundations of which, however, he’s never seriously thought about or questioned, but mostly grew up with or among.

This not only can happen: it happens, I think, more often than not. People grow old and die holding like grim death onto beliefs, either secular or non, it doesn’t matter, which they’ve never bothered to seriously investigate. It is a tragedy.

The unexamined life is a tragedy.

The following is for all those who think I exaggerate the dangers of socialized medicine — a very recent event and article, even though in many ways it seems like something out of the Dark Ages: a child who didn’t die when taken off his oxygen, and his fate decided by the state against the parent’s wishes.

From the online library of Law and Liberty (an excellent resource):

In the United Kingdom, a child’s fate was decided [by the government]. The boy, Alfie Evans, died on Saturday at 23 months of age. He had been hospitalized with a rare neurological condition. The doctors decided treatment was futile and recommended it be stopped. The parents went to court to continue treatment. A judge sided with the doctors, and sent the police to make sure no one would interrupt what amounted to a medical homicide. The parents, trying everything they could to save their child, saw their own powerlessness in the powerlessness of the infant even as all involved in this situation were stripped of their innocence.

The authorities removed oxygen from the boy, who, however, refused to die during the day he was left without medical care. Like all living things, the boy wished to live, even with his disease, and so the authorities put him back on life support. At that point the father went to see the Pope, who offered the boy protection in an Italian hospital. The Italian state offered the boy citizenship and to fly him to treatment. The judge refused to allow his parents to take Alfie to treatment.

It was just another event in the news, but it is also a fundamental conflict between faith and the state— between sacred law and political power. The several judges who came to be involved in the case seemed sure that the state should take the child from the family. They told his parents that he would inevitably die, and they insisted on the state’s taking responsibility for assuring death when they did not have to. The court insisted that his death en route to a hospital still willing to treat him would not be tolerated.

What does this conflict mean in terms of freedom and virtue?

The authorities thought they were doing justice. The parents thought they should be free to seek care for their child in another country. The state disagreed and insisted that it would be illegal for them to do so. Observe how each party viewed the requirements of virtue: The father thought he was doing the right thing in taking his boy to the hospital, to save his life. Everything about being a British subject was turned upside down, for he was now required to define the right thing as consenting to allow his child to die on the orders of the very authorities who were supposed to defend Alfie’s rights, starting with his right to life. This father was in the situation of a tragic hero.

What was done was done legally, with expertise, in full view of the public, all according to authorized powers to whom everyone deferred. The judges and doctors embodied a view of justice and wisdom which few seemed to be arguing against publicly—not politicians, not the high officials of the Anglican Church, not any other important organization. Nor were there massive protests over this boy’s fate. It would seem that those who represented the majority of the people of Britain decided in favor of Alder Hey Hospital, so much so that the authority of two parents over their child was denied.

This is a view of the state that would tend to make self-government impossible, for it removes the ground of the difference between freedom and obedience to authority. Theoretically, such a state cannot be legitimated by the consent of the governed, because it does not secure their rights, starting with the right to life. It is legitimated instead by its expert and orderly administration of rules of its own making. Theoretically, the state has assumed control of human life and the definition of its limits—death, ultimately. The state has secured passive consent, so that if it does not face a revolution, there’s nothing to worry about.

Kate James and Tom Evans, Alfie’s parents, argued for their freedom, and for their right to decide for their child. They obviously thought, in taking their child to the hospital, that they had certain rights as subjects of the sovereign and certain duties to their child. Had they let him die, which was what the state would later insist on doing, they might have been prosecuted for neglect. They acted freely, but at the same time compelled by necessity. They sought to match their own moral virtues with the intellectual virtues of the doctors, for the National Health Service is a public institution. This turned out to be impossible.

From Social Contract to Suicide Pact

Britons believe that the rights their government should secure for them include a right to healthcare through the National Health Service. This is the law of the land, and a man like Tom Evans is brought to his crisis because he fulfills the requirements of the laws and believes in their justice—only to find out that the community he is part of does not believe in those rights, but instead in something else.

Since it is not reasonable to expect parents—Tom Evans, other Britons who have come into conflict with the NHS over the fate of their ill children in the past, the others who will no doubt do so in the future—to respect such decisions by the government, it can make no claim to their allegiance under the right to life. Indeed the state is discovering entirely different sources of legitimacy involving not the protection of life, but the weighing and culling of lives and the decision as to what life is worth living and what life is not worth living.

This is the tragic conflict almost everyone is ignoring. We do not think any of us should be put in such a situation in any country where politics is built on human rights. We must now confront an example of one of the most prosperous, peaceful, and sophisticated countries in the world reorienting itself away from saving lives to ending them, if the life doesn’t seem worth living.

To some extent, British authority is now a suicide pact, to borrow the phrase of Justice Robert Jackson, who insisted that the U.S. Constitution was not one. Something very important has been lost if the right to life depends on circumstances ascertained by experts and decided on by judges. And if British hospital and police personnel are willing to enforce such decisions, the loss seems coextensive with the British state. It is not an exception, but the new rule.

(Link — thank you, Marti.)


It is no joke and no game when in any society the state holds this sort of power over individual lives and decisions.

The root cause of this mentality is the notion that healthcare is a right that government grants — or not.

That, in microcosm, is why I’ve spent so much of my life and my time writing about political-economic philosophy:

Because knowledge is life, and knowledge is completely interconnected.


Read more

Click-click




The Party of Science, the 1 percent, and Why Laissez Faire Triumphs

The Party of Science is, as you know, the Left, and they are quick to call out (correctly so) the knuckle-draggers on the Right who place faith above reason: the right is absurdly antiquated on any number of issues — ranging from gay marriage (which, incidentally, the left was also against, for 238 years, before, unlike those of us who believe uncompromisingly in laissez faire, they were suddenly for it, beginning about four years ago), to human sexuality, to God-in-the-Constitution, to much more.

The left, however, is hardly more scientifically enlightened.

In fact, their knuckle-dragging equals or eclipses the right in manifold areas — nuclear energy, for example, the woeful (mis)understanding of how much hard-core fossil-fuel energy goes into making and sustaining all forms of so-called renewable energy; how filthy with externalities the “clean” energy racket really is, and much more.

But it’s in the realm of economics — the science of production and exchange — that the Party of Science is found at its most knuckle-draggingly unscientific.

I’m talking about basic economics, mind you, and not the more complex theories — Marx’s thoroughly discredited Labor Theory of Value, for example, which many on the left still inexplicably cling to.

For instance, an entire nationwide movement sprung up around the shibboleth “We are the 99 percent.”

I’ve recently been criticized a little over my use of that term — it being all of seven years old now, you see — but I’m here to tell you that the mentality behind it is not only alive and well: it’s stronger than ever.

This movement persisted for over a year, and it was based entirely on an elementary misunderstanding of an economic law — a law so elementary, in fact, that the left’s misunderstanding of it makes the right-wing position on, for instance, evolution look halfway normal.

That elementary principle is this:

The so-called 1 percent is singlehandedly responsible for creating all the wealth from which the 99 percent prospers — wealth put into full use during the whole movement: televisions, cameras, computers, tablets, iPhones, Androids, social media, reliable transportation, plumbing, concrete, clean food (which was trucked in by means of fossil fuel), clean water, the infrastructures providing clean water, shelter, state-of-the-art medical facilities, and much, much, much, much more.

America, incidentally, though 50 percent socialized in medicine already, as it has been for a long time (driving up the costs astronomically via economic laws neither the Right nor the Party of Science can apprehend), is still, because of the 50 percent that hasn’t yet been socialized, the country everyone comes to for major medical procedures: all the princes and princesses and premiers and presidents and sheiks and kings and queens and movie stars and sports stars and everyone else, if they need heart or brain or spine surgery or cancer care or any one of thousands of other things, they do not go to Cuba, they do not go to Russia, they do not go to China, they do not go to England, or Australia, or Japan, or France, or Canada, or Scandinavia. They come to America for America’s technology and America’s doctors, which the so-called 1 percent created and sustains.

All these things and innumerable others besides — including most importantly any number of job markets in which the 99 percent work — are created by the capital and capital investment and the wealth of the 1 percent.

Capital and capital investment ALONE creates wealth. It creates innovations. It creates production and inventions and jobs and the division-of-labor and vastly greater transmission of knowledge and everything life-sustaining.

Equally important — and please take a moment to process this as well — the 99 percent scale is still in America not fixed.

This is crucial, and it is entirely missed by everyone within the movement to whom I’ve ever spoken.

In many ways, it’s the only thing that matters:

Through hard work, persistence, and good ideas, anyone and everyone is perfectly free to move up that scale — all the way to the 1 percent. And people do, all the time. It happens all the time in America, every single day, that people go from nothing or very little to abundance.

This, by the way, is one reason that the 1-percent-99-percent statistic is not quite accurate. It fluctuates, but the mean is more like 3-percent-97-percent. It needn’t stay there, however. It’s not locked in, and the more wealthy people there are, the more innovation and invention and progress there will be. The primary things that determines it are ambition and good ideas that people willingly pay for.

Prosperity happens under systems of freedom.

That is observable, evidence-based data — as is the fact that heavy taxation, socialization, inflation (i.e. money printing), licensing law monopolies and many other state-created things, they stifle prosperity.

In socialized countries they call this The Brain Drain.

Quoting the economist Dr. George Reisman:

“All of us, 100 percent of us, benefit from the wealth of the hated 1 percent. The protesters are literally kept alive on the foundation of the wealth of those whom they protest and hate…. For one small example, the fuel that powers the tractors and the trucks and the airplanes and the trains that power production and delivery of the food the protesters eat. The protesters and all other haters of laissez faire hate and protest the foundations of their very existence” (source).

As I’ve said before — and can never say enough — there are 5,000 arguments against laissez faire, and every single one of them is predicated upon a fraudulent premise, which is in turn usually predicated upon The Entrenchment Fallacy.

Some of the smartest people I know and some of the smartest people I’ve ever heard and read believe in total, unadulterated laissez faire, and I can absolutely assure you that any objection you might think of has been thought about and considered in great, great detail: whether economic or political, whether ethical or legal, whether environmental or civic, it’s been considered and addressed. It’s been discussed and written about so exhaustively, in fact, that the amount of data on the subject has long outstripped any one person’s ability to read it all. And it will continue to be addressed and elaborated.

You will not think of something new that will in turn justify the legal violation of person and property as a tenable social system.

You will not think of something that suddenly makes political corruption and lying and political pandering and 100,000 pages of bureaucratic legislation good government.

Dismissal, prevarication, ridicule — the most common ways the majority of people deal with laissez faire — these do not touch it. These don’t alter the facts.

Nor does ignoring and avoiding the arguments alter the facts.

Also, behind every major victory for personal liberty — legalizing gay marriage, for instance, or pot legalization, justice for Native American children, or allowing insurance companies the freedom to trade across state lines, abolishing all trade tariffs, et cetera — you will find there the bedrock principles that undergird laissez faire.

You will not find leftwing or rightwing politicians — and, make no mistake, liberal politicians have thrown as many people in jail for prostitution and pot as conservatives (probably more), who have also thrown countless thousands into jail for such non-crimes.

Ultimately, though, the reason laissez faire triumphs is not because of more skillful argumentation or polemics or debate.

Laissez faire triumphs, rather, because it is right and it is just.

Laissez faire arises naturally out of humanity itself. It is not created. It’s what happens naturally when people are left alone.

Through the inalienable right to person and property and through voluntary exchange, trade, and transactions, people are perfectly free to become wealthy — and the anger and envy of those who have not become wealthy does not negate this basic freedom.

It will always remain a fact that no one and no institution has or will ever have rightful authority over the person or property of another — no matter how dire-sounding the catastrophes, no matter how charged with punishment the religious scroll, no matter how seemingly sophisticated the counter-arguments, no matter how convoluted the equivocations, no matter how numerous and righteously indignant and hysterically irate the opponents (and I’ve dealt with plenty of them), the basic premise of laissez faire will remain true:

We are each individuated and sovereign, and we each have a property in our person, and property is an extension of person.

This is why anyone who actually cares about what’s just and good and (scientifically) right will inevitably be led back to laissez faire.


Read more




Click-click



We Are the 99 Percent



You’re part of the ninety-nine percent, you say.

What of that?

Your status isn’t fixed, and you are not stuck there.

You’re free to work your way along the spectrum — as, indeed, most people do. You’re free to run clear up to the top percent — as, indeed, many people do. Your motivation and your desire and your persistence primarily determine this. The spectrum is fluid, and you are mobile along the spectrum. For the first time in human history, the formal recognition and the advance of freedom made such mobility possible and also legally permissible. Under feudalism or any other statist regime, no such mobility exists at all. Under such regimes, your status and your class are fixed. In this way, America expunged the entire idea of class.

Please consider also that under a system of laissez faire, you are completely free to practice any form of government you want: buy your land and build your commune and set up your rules and live that way.

The opposite, however, is not true: virtually any other form of government strictly prohibits — under threat of fines, imprisonment, gulags, concentration camps, and death — its citizens from practicing true laissez faire, which is the full and inalienable right of action, use, and disposal.

That, in many ways, is all anyone ever need know.



Read more




Click-click

“My Balls Feel Like Concrete”

“I’m in bed the next day, she brings me cafe-au-lait, gives me a cigarette. My balls feel like concrete.”

— Ricky Roma, Glengary, Glenross

Ricky Roma, played by Al Pacino in one of his all-time best performances: Glengary, Glenross



Prior to the Industrial Revolution, a surveyor reported on two houses in London:

“I found the whole area of the cellars of both houses full of sewage, to the depth of three feet, which had been permitted for years to accumulate from the overflow of the cesspools … and no doubt the entire neighborhood had been infected by it.”

In Manchester:

“Many of the streets in which cases of fever are common are so deep in mire or so full of hollows and heaps of refuse that the vehicle used for conveying patients to the House of Recovery often cannot be driven along them.”

Plague, dysentery, all manner of sickness and disease — not to mention the foul stench — these were commonplace results of pollution prior to industrialization.

Here, however, is an account of early industrial pollution, which is also no joke:

“No industry has been more destructive to beauty than the petroleum industry. All about us rose derricks, squatted engine-houses and tanks, the earth about them streaked and damp with the dumplings of pumps…. If oil was found and the well flowed, every tree, every shrub, every blade of grass was coated with the black oil, and tar and oil stained everything in the vicinity. If the well went dry, oily holes were left, for nobody cleaned up in those days.”

Wealth, private property, and tort laws solve the degradation and injustices of this latter pollution.

Cronyism does not.

Technology and human progress solve the former two examples — even into the present day.

The wealth generated by successful economies is single-handedly responsible for cleaning up such horrible pollution in America, as in that latter example — including so much pristine sanitation and clean drinking water we enjoy now and which in America, as in most of the developed world, we take for granted.

Clean drinking water has been a plague on humankind for much of humankind’s history — and it still is in much of the developing world today.

Did you know that safe drinking water systems and the infrastructure that provides them are still far beyond the reach of many poor Indian and African villages, where dysentery often spreads because the simple preventative measure of installing concrete rims around the communal drinking wells are made impossible by a combination of internecine disagreements, first-world environmental groups, who believe it’s their responsibility to keep developing places from developing, and (most of all) poverty?

Did you know that reliable, lasting concrete requires mining?

Did you know that a single wind-turbine — or “bat-and-condor Cuisinart,” as the Audubon Society calls them — requires 20 MILLION tons of concrete sunk deep into the earth to anchor?

Did you know that wind-energy proponents would have us, right now in America, cover an area the size of Germany every single year with wind-turbines, despite the fact that wind power is inefficient and intermittent and requires so much hard-core industrialized mining and fossil fuel?

If you think Ricky Roma’s balls require a great deal of mining, you haven’t seen anything yet.

Do you know how much heavy-duty industrial mining and manufacturing the concrete ALONE would require for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of wind-turbines YEARLY — forget everything else (and there is much)?

If your answer is no, please don’t worry:

Most people don’t — especially the people most vehemently calling for it.

This doesn’t even touch the topic of Neodymium, which is an environmentalist tragedy that borders, in my honest opinion, on the criminal.

Nor does it touch the subject of solar cells.

Coming from a mining town, as I do, and a mining family, I can tell you with absolute authority and certitude that all the jet-setting politicians and the Hollywood elites and all the enviros and the hippy-dippies — and I have many hippy-dippy friends, I assure you, good friends, many of them — they have not the first or faintest idea how much mining is required for their day-to-day lives.

I can tell you also with great authority that the jet-setting politicians and environmental groups make up lies out of whole cloth. They’re also responsible for a great deal of environmental disasters and degradation, and they don’t want to be held liable for it.

All transportation requires mining — all of it.

“If you use any of these modes of transport — aircraft, boat, car, bus, train, motorcycle, bicycle, scooter, or segway, then you are relying on the by-products of mining for your transportation. A significant variety and quantity of minerals are required to manufacture these vehicles without even considering the fuel to power it. Now lets think about the surface most of these vehicles travel on (including you if you walk). The roads, rails and concrete paths, they’re only possible because mining companies mined the minerals used to make these surfaces for you. The same applies to the equipment used to control the flow of traffic and make it safe and reliable for you to travel. Mined minerals and more mined minerals.” (Source)

Your home or apartment is made mostly of minerals.The foundations are made mostly of concrete and steel.

“The basic services in your home (water, electricity, gas) are conducted through copper and steel wires and plastic pipes. Think about that the next time you turn on a tap or flick a [plastic] light switch on. Your bathrooms and kitchen are fitted out with essential and non essential products that also contain many minerals only made possible from mining. Yes mining provides you with the basic elements of your life — that you take for granted. You fill your home with all sorts of electronic gadgets to improve your quality of life. None of them are possible without mining the minerals that they are made from. Did you know that your television contains several rare-earth minerals? How many of us use wooden or plastic frying pans, pots, plates, cups, glasses and cutlery at home? That’s right, the majority of us use these items that are made of minerals. Minerals that have been mined.” (Ibid)

And this doesn’t even begin to capture the full extent of it, I promise you.

Neither does it touch beauty products, clothing, bedding, paint, jewelry, watches, clocks, medical equipment, office supplies, phones, computers, staples, if you still use them, and of course energy itself.

Please read more about the nature of wealth and poverty, and the indivisible link between property and person — and please celebrate the beautiful, life-sustaining industry of mining:


Click-click





Creative Destruction

Did you know that America prospered for 140 years without a Federal Reserve or a National Income Tax, both of which are barely 100 years old, though now they’re so thoroughly entrenched, as is social security, medicare and medicaid, all of which are even younger, that the overwhelming majority of American people can’t imagine life without any of those things?

Did you know that John D. Rockefeller and Henry Flagler, who founded Standard Oil, once held over 90 percent of all oil sales in the United States? This is called a non-coercive monopoly.

Did you know that there’s never been a proven case of so-called Predatory Pricing — or “cutting-to-kill” — which is another anti-laissez-faire myth, another urban legend, totally false and provably so?

Standard Oil (like Walmart today) kept its prices at rock-bottom precisely because Rockefeller understood that if he jacked up his prices, competitors would come in and he’d lose his share of the market.

Only coercive monopolies — i.e. government monopolies — can fix prices.

The real point, though, is that nobody — not John D. Rockefeller, not Henry Flagler, not anybody — could have foreseen that because of laissez-faire and the innovation it fosters, the competitor who would put the biggest hit on his oil-market was not in the oil business at all.

Do you know who it was?

Thomas Edison and his lightbulb, which abolished kerosene and other oil-burning light. (Petroleum, by the way, abolished whale oil.)

It’s called creative destruction.

In a laissez-faire system, consumers, who pay their hard-earned money for the things they want, always determine the success or failure of a given idea or product or service.

If you want to rid the world of Walmart — or whatever — you must simply do away with the consumers who choose to shop there, including, of course, all the poor people who save so much money in shopping there.

There’s a reason that America, vilified as she is by so much of the world, still gives by FAR the most foreign aid to the entire world.

There’s a reason that only America can afford such multi-trillion-dollar-per-year extravagance, decade after decade, and that reason, paradoxically, is the same reason so many people who receive America’s aid absolutely love to hate America:

She creates by far the most.

America is the most productive.

Pollution, waste disposal, externalities, these, no matter what you’re told by government-lovers of every stripe, these require technological solutions — not bureaucratic solutions — and laissez faire, with the vast technological superiority it creates, is not only the best system for such a thing: it’s the only system equipped to deal with technological problems.

Which is why you see, for instance, the utter and nonsensical waste of government-sponsored catastrophes like Yucca Mountain.

It’s why government “solutions” often lead to UNDER-environmental protection and more cronyism.

It’s why from 1950 through 1970, the amount of volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide in the air fell by more than 20 percent, even though total vehicle miles traveled increased by 120 percent — this, before the 1970 Clean Air Act and government involvement.

It was all brought about by means of better, more efficient technology. It was therefore adopted naturally, without coercion.

This is also why the level of sulfur dioxide in the air began falling as early as 1920.

And it’s why the total amount of airborne particulate matter has been reduced by 79 percent since 1940.

Technology, which comes about through wealth-creation, is why water pollution has decreased as world-wide wealth has increased.

And that’s only the beginning …


Read more






If Government Doesn’t Provide It, It Will Never Be Provided: The Entrenchment Fallacy

In response to my latest book, which is an explicit espousal of laissez-faire, I’ve already gotten a few emails and messages with the exact comments I anticipated — anticipated from the moment I first conceived the idea, in fact, because I’ve been fielding these very same questions for well over a decade now.

My main character’s name is Kristy Reed, and today I received the following:

“Let me ask you: Did Kristy use the public libraries?”

The questioner might just as well have asked:

“Did Kristy live in government-sponsored homes when he lived on the Indian Reservation?”

Because it’s exactly the same sort of question.

Or the question could also have been:

“Do the citizens of North Korea eat the food that their government provides them?”

Or:

“Did the Cambodian people live in the homes Pol Pot provided them?”

The answer is yes — because government holds a (coercive) monopoly on such things.

There’s a world of difference between political power and economic power.

It is not true, however — it is patently, provably false — that if government doesn’t provide it, it won’t be provided.

Private libraries, like private bookstores, both of which already exist, would exist more abundantly if government weren’t involved.

This illustrates perfectly the principle of entrenchment: the Entrenchment Fallacy.

It’s a well-known and well-observed phenomena that in, for instance, communist regimes, people rapidly become so accustomed to government providing for them that in virtually no time at all, it becomes inconceivable to these same people — even those who were once self-sufficient — that human life can flourish without government intervention.

The same phenomena once happened with mafia protection: people got so used to it that they couldn’t imagine life without it.

So the first, among many, questions I ask my government-loving interrogators:

Why stop at public libraries?

And where do you stop if the principle is that government doesn’t just protect but provides?

Food, clothing, and shelter are by far the most urgent human needs. Should government provide all this?

If not, why not?

And do you then regard the Indian Reservations as a successful government program — which, after all, the book is about?

There are 5,000 arguments against laissez faire — and every single one of them is demonstrably incorrect, predicated upon fraudulent premises.

Let me also note that laissez-faire proponents like me, who love animals and nature very much, we’re the only people pressed to elaborate on precisely how our proposed system will play-out.

Democrats and Republicans all across the entire spectrum, with all their jargon and easy platitudes, they’re not held to such standards — and good thing for them, because no one could ever in a million years lay out a logical argument for the elaboration of either of those systems, which are really the same system, with all its corruption and sheer waste and mushrooming bureaus and the unforeseeable red-tape-bandaids and endless fingers-in-the-dykes to plug-up the endlessly springing leaks.

Most of the questions I receive about laissez faire I’ve addressed innumerable times before.

Here are hyperlinks (the majority, though not all, by me) to the most common queries — and so if you’re about to hammer me with hostility, your task is to first read all that you see below and process it, and if your questions have still not been answered, you may then hammer away.

Climate change

Climate change and glaciers

Climate change redux

Healthcare 1

Healthcare 2

Healthcare 3

Life expectancy myths

Free-market medicine 1

Free-market medicine 2

Free-market medicine 3

Energy

Nuclear energy

Peak oil

Renewables and sustainable energy

Failed predictions

Over population

What about Roads?

Funding Roads

Public Roads and Highways: Bloodbaths and Endless Gridlock

Unions

Zoning: Houston — 4th Biggest City in America — has No Zoning Laws

Privatize the Safety Net 1

Privatize the Safety Net 2

Economic Depression

The Great Depression

Articles of the Confederation

Where Does Government Come from — and Why?

Food Production

How Human Progress and Increased Populations Have Made the World Cleaner and Better

Water

Recycling and waste disposal

Glass Recycling

Industry and the Impossibility of Centrally Planning economies

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, “Why I Left Greenpeace”

Socialism, Collectivism, Environmentalism

Deforestation

Sweatshops

Education 1

Education 2

Twentieth Century Hong Kong: a Textbook Example of Laissez-Faire Success

Socialism, Communism, and Welfare Statism: Defining the Terms

Now, then:

For the record, I love teachers — I honestly believe teaching is among the noblest of professions — and I also love countless people, men and women alike, who are government employees.

People who work in or for government, including teachers, wouldn’t be out of work without government, but just the opposite:

They’d have more and better to choose from.

Emergency medical care — open-heart surgery, renal failure, you-name-it — does not require government.

Did you know in the 19th century, they sold insurance against poverty — and it worked?

Did you know that in the 19th century, the so-called safety net was primarily private charity — like the Shriners and other lodges and organizations, religious and otherwise — and that it, too, worked well? (No, people weren’t dying in the streets for want of emergency surgeries.)

This country prospered for 140 years without a Federal Reserve or an national income tax, both of which are barely 100 years old, though now thoroughly entrenched, as is social security, medicare and medicaid, all of which are even younger.

On the subject of species extinction, which is a subject near and dear to me, I want to first note that over 99 percent of species that have ever existed on planet earth are now extinct and they went extinct before humankind was ever in the picture.

Please think about that for a long moment.

The second thing to note is that largely (though not exclusively) due to privatization and private habitat reserves and stewardship, many, many species have been pulled from the brink of extinction. Elephants, rhinos, tigers, pandas, albatross, many whale species, and countless other creatures are now flourishing. Quoting the ecologist Stuart Pimm:

“The overall rate of extinctions has been reduced by 75 percent…. A number of ecologists and paleontologists believe that the claim that humans are causing a mass extinction is hyperbolic.”

And as Stewart Brand notes:

“No end of specific wildlife problems remain to be solved, but describing them too often as ‘extinction crises’ [i.e. noble cause corruption] has led to a general panic that nature is extremely fragile or already hopelessly broken. That is not remotely the case. Nature as a whole is exactly as robust as it ever was — maybe more so.”

Here’s a fantastic article on private habitat and how it protects animals.

Freedom and laissez faire promote innovation, technology, private stewardship, and human progress — in no small measure because laissez faire promotes so much economic gain.

I know no serious government-lover, even die-hard communistic-socialists, who at this point deny that laissez faire creates vastly greater wealth (they object to laissez faire for other reasons) — and on that point, it’s critical to note that as long as the capital base of a society remains low, the means of dealing with societal issues remains proportionately low.

This is an absolutely vital principle.

I ask you to never lose sight of it.

There’s a reason that America, vilified as she is by so much of the world, still gives by FAR the most foreign aid to the entire world. There’s a reason that only America can afford such trillion-dollar extravagance, year in year out, decade after decade.

John D. Rockefeller and Henry Flagler, who founded Standard Oil, once held over 90 percent of all oil sales in the United States. This is called a non-coercive monopoly.

There’s never been a proven case of so-called Predatory Pricing — or “cutting-to-kill” — which is another anti-laissez-faire myth, another urban legend, totally false and provably so.

Standard Oil (like Walmart today) kept its prices at rock-bottom precisely because Rockefeller understood that if he jacked up his prices, competitors would come in and he’d lose his share of the market.

Only coercive monopolies — i.e. government monopolies — can fix prices.

The real point, though, is that nobody — not John D. Rockefeller, not Henry Flagler, not anybody — could have foreseen that because of laissez-faire and the innovation it fosters, the competitor who would put the biggest hit on his oil-market was not in the oil business at all.

Do you know who it was?

Thomas Edison and his lightbulb, which abolished kerosene and other oil-burning light. (Petroleum, by the way, abolished whale oil.)

It’s called creative destruction.

In a laissez-faire system, consumers, who pay their hard-earned money for the things they want, always determine the success or failure of a given idea or product or service.

If you allow people the freedom to innovate, invent, and profit from their inventions and creations, there are no limits to what will be created.

Today, Thomas Edison’s lightbulbs would perhaps not even come about because he and his staff weren’t wearing the proper government-required lab-goggles, or Thomas Edison and his employee Nikolai Tesla were in breach of labor-code for working too many consecutive hours.

Just because government currently provides it does NOT mean that without government, it won’t be provided. In fact, it’s the opposite:

Government, which by definition is an agency of force, cannot produce a SINGLE thing without first either taxing, borrowing, or printing — or all three.

Government is for this reason inherently wasteful and inefficient.

Remember also that because of entrenchment, the majority of people in this country once believed that we could never successfully privatize the mail.

Now answer this honestly:

If you must mail something which absolutely, positively has to be there overnight, whom will you most trust? The U.S. Postal Service or FedEx or UPS?

And where of those places would you rather go to wait in line?

And do you want to wait in line for urgent healthcare as you wait in line at the DMV?

I’ll close with a brief quote from a book I recently read: Enlightenment Now — by left-winger Steven Pinker:

The “population bomb” defused itself. When countries get richer and better educated, they pass through what demographers call the demographic transition. Birth rates peak and then decline, for at least two reasons. Parents no longer breed large broods as insurance against some of their children dying, and women, when they become better educated, marry later and delay having children. Fertility rates have fallen most noticeably in developed regions like Europe and Japan, but they can suddenly collapse, often to demographers’ surprise, in other parts of the world. Despite the widespread belief that Muslim societies are resistant to the social changes that have transformed the West, Muslim countries have seen a 40 percent decline in fertility over the past three decades, including a 70 percent drop in Iran and 60 percent drops in Bangladesh and in seven Arab countries.

The other environmental scare from the 1960s was that the world would run out of resources. But resources just refuse to run out. The 1980s came and went without the famines that were supposed to starve tens of millions of Americans and billions of people worldwide. Then the year 1992 passed and, contrary to projections from the 1972 bestseller The Limits to Growth, the world did not exhaust its aluminum, copper, chromium, gold, nickel, tin, tungsten, or zinc. In 2013 the Atlantic ran a cover story about the fracking revolution entitled “We Will Never Run Out of Oil.” Humanity does not suck resources from the earth like a straw in a milkshake until a gurgle tells it that the container is empty. Instead, as the most easily extracted supply of a resource becomes scarcer, its price rises, encouraging people to conserve it, get at the less accessible deposits, or find cheaper and more plentiful substitutes.

This idea, that environmental protection is a problem to be solved, is commonly dismissed as the “faith that technology will save us.” In fact, it is a skepticism that the status quo will doom us — that knowledge and behavior will remain frozen in their current state for perpetuity. Indeed, a naive faith in stasis has repeatedly led to prophecies of environmental doomsdays that never happened.

(Source)


Did Kristy — my main character — use public libraries? Not really. He went to bookstores, new-and-used. He preferred them. He preferred private libraries — preferred voluntarily paying a minuscule amount ($20.00 yearly, unlimited books) for a private-library card, with money he’d saved from not having to pay compulsory taxation.

Sacred House of the Human Spirit & the Meaning of Life

Shiprock, New Mexico, on the Navajo Reservation.


She drove him six hours into a small mining town in eastern Nevada, near the Utah border. During the drive he told her what had happened. She listened intently but did not speak. A green-colored half moon hung low in the sky, the horizon beneath it a band of xanthic light which glowed like something prehistoric.

They drove in silence for a long time, and then he said something to her that she thought very strange and poignant, something which afterward she’d think a lot about, and which she’d never forget:

“Work,” he said, “what you do, the movements of your body guided by your brain — that is the meaning of life.”

She looked at him quizzically.

He told her that there’s nothing more important in life than how you work — whatever that work may be. The motions and movement of your body, he said, as dictated by your brain. He said that human ability is rooted in the human brain, and that whatever else you are and whatever else you become, it grows from this foundation. He said that nothing more fundamental than work is required for the life you want for yourself, and that no matter what moral code anyone tries to force upon you, whether secular or non-secular, the final measure of value is in the work. He told her that everything else you’ll hear is a swindle, and that competence is the only ethical code you’ll ever need — that anyone will ever need.

She listened closely but did not reply to any of this.

A long silence ensued.

“In the sacred house of the human spirit, each of us dwells alone,” he said.

“Where did you hear that?” she said.

“Something I once read, long ago.”

“Is it true?”

“Yes, it is.”

She glanced over at him but said nothing, and after that they rode in silence the rest of the way, down the long lonely road, the moon above like a giant squeeze of lime among stars winking with a cold and icy light. At last they came to the outskirts of a town she’d never been to, and he got out of her car and stared at her through the open window but did not speak. Then he said goodbye.

__________________________________________________

This is excerpted from my latest novel: Reservation Trash, which for the next five days is free on Kindle. Download it and I’m eternally grateful.

It’s the story of a young Navajo runaway named Kristy Reed, his monomanaical pursuit of life, happiness, and the sub-four-minute mile, which for him represents freedom and human ability. It’s my seventh published book?–?but it’s the one I’m most pleased with … by far.




Indian Privilege and the American Dream

The American Dream is a dream of aspiration. It is a story of striving. But it is more:

It is a dream of breaking away from the pack.

The American Dream is the freedom of each person, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, color, class or creed, free to pursue her or his own life — and ONLY her or his own life.

America is flawed, like every country, and also like every country, America is guilty of great injustices, her soil soaked with the blood of many races.

The American Constitution is flawed — most fundamentally in its failure to make explicit the indispensable link between property and person, and to explicitly state that the inalienable right to your own life must entail the right to your own property, because you cannot be free to pursue your life and happiness if you’re not also free to the corollary of that: the right to use and dispose of your property as you and you alone see fit.

But for all her flaws, America is the only country in the history of the world to formally recognize the principle and the sanctity of individual rights, and that is what, in spite of everything, makes her great and unlike any other country that’s ever existed.

It is this principle that America went to Civil War over. It is this principle that won. And it is this principle — and this principle alone — which must always be turned to if justice and the good are the goal.

The American Dream is about worth and efficacy over privilege.

An actual privilege is a benefit bestowed by one in a position of authority — as in: it is a privilege for me to speak to you today. Or: thank you for the privilege, father, of not having to milk the cows today.

But now I’m told that if growing up, I haven’t been bullied and ridiculed, I am privileged — when in reality this is purely a question of tact and friendliness and good manners, and has nothing whatsoever to do with privilege. I’m told that if I haven’t been assaulted or raped, I am privileged — when in actuality this is purely a question of respect for rights. I’m told that if my mother and father fed me regularly, I’m privileged — when in reality this is not a question of privilege at all but of parenting.

People are not all born into identical circumstances, and it is not the role of government or anyone to attempt the impossible task of equalizing everyone, which would require continual and massive applications of force and expropriation, and which even then could never be fully achieved, though you may look at Pol Pot’s Cambodia as one of the nearest successes.

I was once beneficiary of large government privilege. This is a system wherein our money is granted to us by government benevolence, or not. It is a system where we’re not allowed to own our own property. And it is a system from which there’s no way out — unless you run away, into America, which I did.

But what if all of America were like the Indian Reservations?

Where would I run to then?

On the reservations, bureaucracy cannot be battled. City hall cannot be fought.

We’re allowed to use our property only when government grants us that privilege.

You’re part of the ninety-nine percent, you say. What of that? Your status isn’t fixed, and you are not stuck there. You’re free to work your way along the spectrum — as, indeed, most people do. You’re free to run clear up to the top percent — as, indeed, many people do. Your motivation and your desire and your persistence primarily determine this. The spectrum is fluid, and you are mobile along the spectrum. For the first time in human history, the formal recognition and the advance of freedom made such mobility possible and also legally permissible. Under feudalism or any other statist regime, no such mobility exists at all. Under such regimes, your status and your class ARE fixed. In this way, America expunged the entire idea of class.

Please consider also that under a system of laissez faire, you are completely free to practice any form of government you want: buy your land and build your commune and set up your rules and live that way.

The opposite, however, is not true: virtually any other form of government strictly prohibits — under threat of fines, imprisonment, gulags, concentration camps, and death — its citizens from practicing true laissez faire, which is the full and inalienable right of action, use, and disposal.

That, in many ways, is all anyone ever need know.

Yes, we on the reservations are privileged, make no mistake. We are the epitome of privilege, in fact: because we do not exist by right.

We exist by government permission and privilege alone.




______________________________________________
Note:

This is Chapter 25.

The full book is available in bookstores everywhere.







This Earth Day, May I Suggest …

May I suggest this Earth Day you peruse Steven Pinker’s new book Enlightenment Now?

Steven Pinker is by no stretch of the imagination a conservative, right-wing, Republican blah-blah-blah-blah — if, that is, you’re still into all that nonsensical partisan meaninglessness, which I am not. (Meaningless, I say, because the left and the right are two sides of an identical penny, as I’ve stated so many times, and I am quite prepared to prove that to you.)

Pinker “identifies” as a “left-wing libertarian” — a little like his teacher Noam Chomsky, with whom, however, he deviates significantly and is far less Marxist — which, incidentally, is one of the primary reasons I don’t think the word “libertarian” has much value or explanatory power:

It’s a rubber word that can be stretched to fit almost anything and anyone. If it’s to mean anything at all, it must be qualified out of all sensible proportion: civil libertarian, leftwing libertarian, anarchist-libertarian, anarcho-capitalist libertarian, Austrian libertarian, Rothbardian libertarian, Ron Paul libertarian …

Steven Pinker, in any case, is rational inquirer enough to have seen the clear and obvious and irrefutable:

Science, technology, progress, reason — all outgrowths of the ideas behind the Enlightenment — have made the world far cleaner, healthier, and better, even as world populations have grown.

He is, unfortunately, still far too equivocal in certain of his views, unable to break out of all the frozen dogma that’s been inculcated into his head — though I have followed his writing over the years and he’s come a long way — and so if you really wanted to know for Earth Day the actual facts about planet earth, I recommend Julian Simon’s book, which remains as sound and as brilliant today as it was the day it was written, the logical power of which has persuaded many, many, many people who honestly care about the truth, Steven Pinker included.

Be forewarned, however: Julian Simon’s book is fact-filled and not for the dogmatist.

It is the book that quondam Greenpeacer Bjorn Lomborg and his students tried to refute — and ended up being persuaded by because the data is so strong, and speaks for itself.

In fact, a beautiful book was born out of Bjorn Lomborg’s attempt to refute Julian Simon — who was a true hero and genius and lover of the earth, in my opinion, and who endured and tirelessly refuted staggering amounts of hostility, harassment, hate, ridicule, and lies almost exclusively from the tolerant left, who in my personal experience are the most intolerant of any religion or group, and never lost an argument because he had facts on his side — and that book by Bjorn Lomborg is an excellent book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Julian Simon’s book is also the book that Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore often cites as a seminal influence in why he, like me, left the environmental movement long, long ago:




Happy Earth Day!

Here is Steven Pinker’s recent interview with the excellent Nick Gillespie of the excellent Reason Magazine:

“Another Form of Collective-Tribalism — Of The Most Barbaric Kind”



The Indian who visited Kristy at his work was tall and thin and handsome. He had very white teeth and a kind smile. He was middle-aged, clean-shaven. His polished shoes gleamed like obsidian. He wore a black suit-jacket and a navy-blue necktie, his thick hair cut high-and-tight.

“You’re Native,” the man said.

“Yes,” Kristy said.

“What tribe?”

“Navajo.”

“Diné,” the man said.

“Yes,” Kristy said.

“What does that word mean? I’ve never known.”

“It means ‘The People.’ Some say it means ‘Children of the Chosen People.’”

“Very interesting. Thank you.”

Kristy didn’t reply.

“You’re a minority,” the man said.

“What do you mean?”

“You’re part of a subordinate group whose members have significantly less control and power over their lives than members of a majority group.”

“I’m a human being.”

“You’re part of a group that experiences a narrowing of opportunities — by which I mean, success, education, wealth, and so forth — which is disproportionately low compared to your group’s numbers in the society.”

“I’m an individual. That is the smallest minority there is.”

“Young man, you should have an awareness of subordination and a stronger sense of group solidarity, if you’ll permit me to say. You are a victim of privilege.”

“I don’t feel like a victim. I feel like an individual human being.”

“And yet you might be entitled to certain — you know — reparations which are owed to you.”

“I don’t want them,” Kristy said.

“No? Why?”

“Because you cannot correct injustice with more injustice. The only way to correct injustice is to allow equality before the law. You cannot correct racism with more racism.”

“What I’m describing is hardly racism. I frankly find it a little offensive that you imply this.”

“I imply no such thing,” Kristy said.

“I’m sorry. That’s how it sounded.”

“Like an implication?”

“Yes.”

“Then I haven’t made myself clear: I’m stating very explicitly that what you’re espousing is racism.”

The tall slender man raised his eyebrows and unconsciously stepped back one pace.

“Racism,” Kristy said, “in addition to being another deterministic philosophy, is also another form of collective-tribalism — of the most barbaric kind. It is a primitive ideology that tries to grant moral-sociological significance to one’s DNA code. It holds that human character is at least to some extent the result of one’s genetic chemistry. It ascribes moral worth to racial pedigree and the genes we’ve inherited. But that’s the opposite of what’s actually true: our rational faculty determines our character. Race is unchosen. Moral worth and character apply only to the realm of choice. Humans are the rational animal. And rationality is a choice. Thinking is a choice. We are born with the rational faculty, yes, which is biological and genetic, but the convictions and thoughts and ideas which shape our minds which in turn shape our actions which in turn shape our character — this is not inherited. This is chosen. Racism is a desire to achieve virtue merely by virtue of one’s genetic inheritance. It’s not so easy or simplistic: Virtue — by definition — must be chosen, or it falls outside the realm of morality. Now please leave me alone.”


______________________________________________
Note:

This is Chapter 7.

The full book is available in bookstores everywhere.





You disparage wealth who have never known poverty. You disparage cleanliness and health from a tower of health and cleanliness. Let me tell you something:



You disparage wealth who have never known poverty. You disparage cleanliness and health from a tower of health and cleanliness. Let me tell you something:

Poverty which is neither sin nor vice is also neither noble nor good.

Poverty is hardship.

Poverty is sickness.

Poverty is misery.

Poverty is death.

The words well, weal, and wealth are etymologically related.

Wealth, in a fundamental sense, is that which humans need to survive and prosper.

Wealth is agriculture. It is clothing. It is carpentry. It is masonry. It is mining. It is fishing. It is transportation. It is technology. It is art, banking, finance, accounting, service industry. It is everything humans need in order to flourish.

Wealth is created. Resources are created.

Wealth is not a finite pool from which we draw and which will one day dry up. It is the opposite:

Like intelligence — and for the exact same reason — neither wealth nor resources are finite or static but developed. They are limitless, just as the human capacity for producing them is limitless.

For all of human history, oil was not a resource, until recently, in the late 1800’s, when human ingenuity created the resource, created this wealth.

New wealth awaits. It always awaits. New resources await.

The source of human progress is human ability, which means above all intellectual ability, and then the physical counterpart of carrying that through.

This process is work.

Liberating human beings — unshackling the brain and the body by allowing humans to innovate and invent and grow and produce and become limitlessly wealthy — this is how you enrich all of society. This is how wealth is created.

It is not trickle-down.

It’s a never-ending deluge, an explosion, an interminable torrent of creativity and wealth.

New wealth arises when someone discovers a new method by means of which humans might better prosper, whether it’s the microscope, the microchip, or the potential energy at the nucleus of an atom. It is in this sense — the literal sense — that wealth is inexhaustible: because the human mind is inexhaustible.

Wealth brings progress.

Wealth brings health.

Wealth brings cleanliness: clean food and clean water and medicine.

Wealth brings homes that are warm in winter and cool in summer.

Wealth brings better methods of travel, more security, more comfort, more peace of mind, greater happiness.

And what brings wealth?

Production brings wealth.

What is production?

Production is work. It is labor — and nothing more fundamental than labor is required for the production of wealth.

What brings this about? What creates production? The answer will surprise you:

Private property, which includes money, which is only a medium.

This and this alone is ultimately what creates production which creates wealth, which creates health and food and shelter and clean water and medicine and comfort and better human life.

The abundance that you’ve always had and that you take for granted — the abundance you enjoy that so many of you want to deprive others of — it was created by the freedom to act and work and the right to own and enjoy the fruits of your acts and your work.

That is private property. It is as much the right to an act as it is to a thing.

Property is an extension of person — we each have a property in our person — and you cannot in any meaningful sense be said to have the right to your own life but not your own property. That is a contradiction in terms.

Property is freedom.

Property is privacy.

Control the property, control the person.

The only alternative to private property is government or communal ownership of property, both of which amount to the same thing in the end: an elite bureau determining for the rest of us what we can do with our actions and the things our actions produce.

I come from exactly such a place. It is a nightmare.

We’re told that no matter how poor we are, we’ll become rich if we but give. Give freely, we’re told, give gladly. Yes, if you choose. But before you can give, you must first have something to give.

Production comes before giving.

And what comes before producing?

The freedom to produce.

Why are some countries so much poorer than others?

The Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto on property and capital, wealth and poverty:

“Many of the poorest countries in the world possess enormous amounts of capital, but their ownership is insecure because of faulty or nonexistent property law or property rights protection. The value of private savings in the ‘poor’ countries of the world is forty times the amount of foreign aid they have received since 1945. [The citizens of poorer countries] hold these resources in defective forms: houses built on land whose ownership rights are not adequately recorded, unincorporated businesses with undefined liability, industries located where financiers and investors cannot see them. Because the rights to these possessions are not adequately documented, these assets cannot readily be turned into capital, cannot be traded outside of narrow local circles, cannot be used as collateral.”

This is why in so much of the world poverty runs rampant.

The greatest environmental degradation and disasters have occurred under regimes with the greatest government control.

True freedom promotes healthy clean environments because true freedom promotes private stewardship and taking care of what’s yours, which among other things increases value.

True laissez faire promotes conservation because it seeks innovation and invention which fosters gain at the lowest expense, which is why developed countries went from using, for instance, expensive copper to less expensive silicon to even less expensive satellite signals and so on.

Freedom promotes better environments because it promotes the constant pursuit of more efficient technology.

You hear endlessly about conditions during the industrial revolution, but you never hear how much worse the conditions were before industrialization. You never hear how nobody forced people, including children, off the farms and into the factories — because they went willingly, because it was a far better alternative to working all day and night on the farms and still starving to death. Or selling their teeth. Or selling themselves or their children into prostitution or even sex slavery.

You never hear how it was only a relatively short time before technology progressed beyond those early working conditions. So that the new inventions and technologies which freedom fosters have lifted us in less than a hundred years to the state-of-the-art place we find ourselves today — and it’s just the beginning. It will only keep going — provided humans are left free and the right to person and property are held sacrosanct.

As long as a society remains poor, the means of dealing with societal issues and externalities, like pollution, necessarily remains poor.

Which is why freer, wealthier countries are cleaner by far than poverty-stricken, statist regimes.

Pollution, waste disposal, externalities, these, no matter what you’re told by government-lovers of every stripe, require technological solutions — not bureaucratic solutions — and laissez faire, with the vast technological superiority it fosters, is not only the best system for such a thing: it’s the ONLY system equipped to deal with technological problems.

Which is why you see, for instance, the utter and nonsensical waste of government-sponsored catastrophes like Yucca Mountain.

It’s why government “solutions” often lead to under-environmental protection, and more cronyism.

It’s why from 1950 through 1970, the amount of volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide in the air fell by more than 20 percent, even though total vehicle miles traveled increased by 120 percent — this before the 1970 Clean Air Act and government involvement.

This was all brought about by means of better, more efficient technology. It was therefore adopted naturally, without coercion.

This is also why the level of sulfur dioxide in the air began falling as early as 1920.

And it’s why the total amount of airborne particulate matter has been reduced by 79 percent since 1940.

Technology, which comes about through wealth-creation, is why water pollution has decreased as world-wide wealth has increased.

When will the monstrous ideology that’s been exalted to the status of God and religion among universities and humans the wide world over — right, left, or middle — when will this ideology be held accountable at last for creating so much misery, so much poverty, so much destruction and death? The ideology that says it’s virtuous to force people to live for one another — through taxation, through the gulag, through the whip, through whatever means necessary?

When?

Because, I promise you, it is an ideology as dangerous and as dogmatic as any religion — and for identical reasons: they’re both predicated upon a policy of pure, unadulterated blind belief.
______________________________________________
Note:

This is Chapter 18 of my latest novel: Reservation Trash.

Which is now available in bookstores everywhere.

Plastic Strawmen and Noble Cause Corruption



As a bartender, the latest wave of environmental misinformation and exaggeration struck particularly close to home. I’m referring, of course, to the environmental push to outlaw plastic straws in bars, with, additionally, the threat of steep fines.

Have you ever heard of “noble cause corruption”?

It’s when you’re so convinced that your argument is on the side of right and good and just and true that you believe there’s nothing wrong with lying or exaggerating in order to prove your case:

The ends justify the means, in other words.

The term “noble cause corruption” was originally coined by the American police force. It referred to those cops who “know” that a suspect is guilty and so feel totally justified in breaking the rules by, for instance, planting evidence or forcing confessions.

Of course, if you had to force a confession or plant evidence, how then did you “know” guilt in the first place?

The “noble-cause-corruption” principle is illustrated perfectly, over and over again, and is perfectly analogous with any number of environmental claims — and when people ask me, as they often do, why I’m critical of environmentalism as a worldview and (Neo-Marxist) philosophy, this is among the first reasons I give:

Because if you must lie to the public about the urgent problem of climate, or deforestation, or plastic waste, or acid rain, or rising oceans, or the ozone layer, or pollution, or species extinction, or CO2, or recycling, et cetera ad infinitum, then how do you know you’re not also lying to yourself about how big the problem is and how certain you are about it?

Have you heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, for instance?

Did you know that it doesn’t actually exist?

Quoting Tom Hartsfield at RealClearScience:

Have you heard of the giant plastic island in the Pacific Ocean? Several times in casual conversation, I’ve been told that mankind is ruining the oceans to such an extent that there are now entire islands of plastic waste. Daily Kos tells us that this “island” is twice the size of Texas!

First, we can do a quick feasibility calculation. The mass of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the plastic from which most water bottles are made, required to create a two-Texas-sized island just one foot thick is 9 trillion pounds. That’s 15 times more than the world’s annual production of plastic. Even if a year’s worth of the world’s spent plastic bottles could be airlifted out over the ocean and directly dropped in one spot, this island could not be made.

So, here are the facts. Much of the ocean contains little to no plastic at all. In the smaller ocean gyres, there is roughly one bottle cap of plastic per 50 Olympic swimming pools’ worth of water. In the worst spot on earth, there is about two plastic caps’ worth of plastic per swimming pool of ocean. The majority of the plastic is ground into tiny grains or small thin films, interspersed with occasional fishing debris such as monofilament line or netting. Nothing remotely like a large island exists. Clearly, the scale and magnitude of this problem is vastly exaggerated by environmental groups and media reports.

(I recommend you read the full article — especially if you belong to the Party of Science.)

And from the left-leaning US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

“While ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’ is a term often used by the media, it does not paint an accurate picture of the marine debris problem in the North Pacific Ocean. The name ‘Pacific Garbage Patch’ has led many to believe that this area is a large and continuous patch of easily visible marine debris items such as bottles and other litter — akin to a literal island of trash that should be visible with satellite or aerial photographs. This is not the case.”

— Ocean Facts, National Ocean Service

The following, from Slate Magazine, was written Daniel Engber — a journalist and environmentalist who, in a rare moment of candor wrote:

“There Is No Island of Trash in the Pacific. But the cause of clean oceans needed a good story. Our warming planet could use another one.”

The actual Pacific-Garbage-Patch story couldn’t haven been scripted any better.

It begins with an oil-heir on his way back from a yacht race(!) This oil-heir, in the picture at the top of my article here, is the poster child of the so-called limousine liberal: the person seeking to atone for his father’s money (while not actually having to part with it) by creating a cause and rallying cry for the environmentalist philosophy.

Daniel Engber, of Slate, makes explicit that the garbage patch was indeed just a rallying cry — and declares furthermore that this is completely acceptable [emphasis mine] because the cause is so very necessary that truth is irrelevant.

“In early August 1997, Charles Moore found himself floating through the North Pacific in his Tasmanian-built catamaran. Moore, an oil heir, activist, and yachting captain, had just finished up a two-week race and was heading back from Honolulu to Santa Barbara, California, through what’s called a “gyre”—an area of the ocean like the Sargasso Sea, wrapped inside a giant weather spiral, that serves as a reservoir for flotsam. As he described it in a 2003 article for Natural History, the thousand-mile journey took him through an endless field of plastic—3 million tons of it in all, he guessed, in an area about the size of Texas. Everywhere he looked he saw debris: bottles, bottle caps, wrappers, fragments. And when he returned to this “Garbage Patch” a year later, he found a vast “plastic-plankton soup” and a litany of bigger objects: a volleyball, a cathode-ray tube for a 19-inch TV, a truck tire mounted on a steel rim, and a gallon bleach bottle so brittle that it crumbled in his hands. Moore’s Garbage Patch would grow in size and fame in the years that followed.

“It was this false appraisal—this projection of collective guilt as a trash archipelago—that brought the problem of marine debris back into the public eye. It gave us all a way to comprehend, or at least hallucinate, what was otherwise a widespread, microscopic devastation.”

(Link)

Comprehension, hallucination … it’s all the same.

None of this is to say that we shouldn’t be concerned about litter and pollution. It is, however, to say that lying is always unacceptable — no matter the “cause” — and that if at this point you still put wholesale trust in the environmental movement, you’re putting your trust in dangerous hands: the hands of proven prevaricators, with a specific agenda that is not as benign as you’ve been led to believe.

Here’s climatologist Stephen Schneider admitting in no uncertain terms that it’s okay to lie to the public:

“On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means we must include all the doubts, caveats, and ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to off up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical blind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.”

– Stephen Schneider, quoted in Jonathan Schell, “Our Fragile Earth,” Discover Magazine.

And the man who kicked it all off, James Hansen of NASA, apparently feeling some compunction:

“Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue…. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.”

– James Hansen, “Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb?”

Yet here he was before:

“We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.”

– Jim Hansen, “The Threat to the Planet,” The New York Review of Books, July 13, 2006, 12–16, at 16.

“In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are” — Albert Gore, Grist Magazine.

These quotes go on and on and on (and on).

Here’s the real point:

Waste is an inescapable by-product of all sentient things — humans included.

Externalities and pollution are inescapable.

The actual question, then, is this:

What’s the most efficient way to clean-up and to solve waste and pollution problems?

More and ever-more laws, regulations, red-tape, bureaus, bureaucrats, blind dogma, and the crony capitalists that this system fosters in full — cronies who often are not held accountable for polluting?

Or human progress and technology, which has done more for the environment in a shorter span of time than 50,000 pages of legislation, over the span of 40 years, in the Federal Register?

Private property and holding people fully accountable, via tort laws, for polluting?

Or crony capitalism and lobbyists and so-called public property for which no one is fully accountable?

The shocking, propagandistic photos the enviros never tire of showing us — whether of garbage, glaciers, drowning islands or anything else — are EXACTLY the left-wing equivalent of religious right-to-lifers showing us on the street corner gruesome abortion photos as if it’s some kind of argument.

It’s a non-argument.

A picture is not an argument.

On top of it all, there’s nothing that will make a person want to get behind a cause more than being lectured about one’s use of petroleum and plastic by an oil-heir in his plastic sunglasses and plastic bike helmet on a bike or boat or scooter made largely of plastic and petroleum.

Now leave me and my fucking straws alone.





Covert Cannibalism and My Wild Plea




The over-population scare that was once all the rage has in the last decade or so been supplanted by food fastidiousness.

The over-population faddists, as you may or may not know, are also the folks who brought us the offshoot peak-oil scare. Both of those, while not quite completely out-of-fashion (yet), have been bunked many, many times, and largely for this reason, I believe, they’ve given way to locavorism and the organics-only trend.

It nevertheless remains true, as it has been true for well over a century, that the amount of crops humans can grow is an unnatural phenomenon — by which I mean:

What humans grow and have for a long time grown is FAR beyond the capacity of the raw nutrients in the land.

Those raw nutrients cannot come near to nourishing our current vast crops in a single growing season, let alone season-after-seaon, and so the discovery of manure as fertilizer represents a technological breakthrough which, by increasing the amount of nitrogen that plants can absorb, began growing crops at this “unnatural” level.

This breakthrough — the use of manure and other organic matter to fertilize — increased populations.

As populations grew, manure became scarce.

Bat guano, harvested off the coasts of South America and South Africa, was therefore, for some time, used instead — until the supply of that grew scarce as well.

Thus Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch discovered a way to create fertilizer by using large amounts of methane, which is the main component of natural gas.

This is now known as synthetic fertilizer, and, though it went far in saving large sections of the world from famine, it is almost universally criticized by the locavore as “industrial farming,” which to the locavore usually equals “bad farming.”

Irrigated land also increased crop yields — on average three times more the yield than rain-fed areas alone. And when irrigation doesn’t occur by means of gravity — and it usually doesn’t — energy (electricity or diesel) is required to move the water.

All of this is industrial, technological, innovative, and often labeled as “unnatural.”

Of course also there was the famous achievements of Nobel-Prize winner Norman Borlaug and other likeminded food scientists who created an agricultural revolution the likes of which the world has never seen, and which prevented more famine and mass starvation than any one person could easily quantify.

It is a great irony indeed, therefore, that the brilliant women and men who defused the population bomb — i.e. the professional plant breeders, the manufacturers of agricultural equipment and packaging, the logistics-industry workers, and especially those such as the previously mentioned who found ways to harness methane and use it as fertilizer — they are now vilified by many of the very people who panicked the world about starvation!

And I do mean many of the very people.

Such is the nature of fads.

Journalism-professor-turned-propagandist Michael Pollan is another example.

Michael Pollan and his disciples will sometimes grudgingly admit that technology and industrialization saved the world from mass starvation and famine.

They will sometimes admit also that because of human innovation and technology, food is now more abundant, consistent, and less expensive than ever before.

But this matters only very little when food has been elevated to the level of religion, which it has by Michael Pollan and his disciples, and with whom I’ve had more than a couple of run-ins, usually with them as semi-anonymous hecklers.

The solution to the very thing these folks decried in the 1960’s and 70’s — running out of food and widespread famine — is now the very thing they lament.

In order to solve the world’s problems now, “consumers need to pay more and eat less,” go completely “plough-to-plate,” and cultivate “regional food economies” thereby “putting to death big agriculture.”

The faddists call this SOLE, which stand for: sustainable, organic, local, and ethical.

(Each one of those words, incidentally, as used in this context can without a lot of effort be analyzed into nothingness.)

Let it be noted and reiterated here that the fad a mere five decades ago was that we have on our hands a secular armageddon, because we could never feed the world by means of SOLE.

Which, actually, is true: SOLE couldn’t begin to feed 7.5 billion people.

But when unbound and left free, the ingenuity of the human mind is limitless, and one of the countless testaments to that is the inventions and technologies which now feed the world.

Remember please — and never forget — that it was less than five decades back that the dystopian novel Make Room! Make Room! was made into a famous movie about human starvation via human ineptitude and depleted agriculture and thus covert cannibalism: Soylent Green.

And so it comes full circle, as most things do.

This particular thing, however, came full circle much faster than most.

This is my wild plea for culinary sanity

For approximately two million years — right up until the twentieth century — the earth contained vast tracts of rich, arable farmland which, however, sat untouched and dormant, and do you know why?

Because these vast tracts of arable farmland, even though they were so rich and fertile, were too far removed to efficiently transport away from: 

When humans travel by foot or by horse or other animal, the cost of transporting starts to rapidly exceed the value of the products. 

But just over a century ago, something changed all that.

You know, of course, what that something is, because it is the thing almost everybody today loves to hate — even as everybody’s lives are immeasurably enriched by it:

Industrialization.

Human progress.

Industrialization and human progress created modern farming as we know it, including so much of the organic-and-artisanal food we now have the luxury of choosing from.

Before the advent of industrialization, when agricultural work was not mechanized but done by draft animals and human muscle, over ninety percent of populations were necessarily devoted to farming.
 
The ramifications of this were, among many other things, an almost non-existent division-of-labor, which in turn meant relatively few new inventions and discoveries in other fields, like medicine or dentistry or art or science. Life spans were thus much shorter, and economies, local in the extreme, were by and large stagnant and dismal.

Today, a basic combine harvester, operated by one person, can reap enough in a single afternoon to make half-a-million bread loaves.

Today, even your smallest, most humble local farm, co-op, or farmer’s market is filled to the brim with electricity, metal, concrete, plastic, computers, phones — in short, fossil fuel and its beneficent by-products — and that doesn’t take into account all the transportation required to get the goods (and consumers) to and from.

Do you like coffee, chocolate, orange juice, tobacco, tea, edible undies?

If so, do you only buy any or all of these things if they’re locally sourced?

If not, why not?

This good farmer has begun to glimpse the vastness:

I’m a permaculture farmer. My goal is to develop natural ecosystems that produce food… I share that dream with a lot of people who call themselves permaculturalists, natural farmers, plantsmen, or foodies. I fear, however, that this doughty lot of green thumbs and stock-folk and food advocates is succumbing to tribalism; forgetting that saving the world means saving all of the people in it; even the ones that love cheap burgers and Coke.

 

Unfortunately, they done succumbed long ago, friend — or, rather, “tribalism” (as you call it) is an inherent characteristic of this particular set, and so succumbing wasn’t even necessary. It’s part-and-parcel.

A little later in that same article:

I sat on a panel with representatives from Timbercreek Market and Local Food Hub in front of an audience of about sixty people. We were all asked a question about the accessibility of Local food. They came to me last, after my co-panelists delivered answers in line with the bullets above; the same answers I certainly would have offered two years ago.

I blurted out, irritated, “our food is not accessible. It’s just not. It’s beyond the wallets of damn near everybody, it’s the biggest problem with sustainable food systems, and we’re criminally unserious about being leaders in sustainability until we propose solutions beyond economic relativism, wishful thinking, and see-sawing between charity on one hand and insisting that vulnerable, distracted people do all the heavy lifting of finding a way to afford our food on the other. And until we do start talking about those solutions… all this “save the world” stuff? It’s all bullshit.”

(Source — which is well worth reading in full.)

What he and so many others sense but still, I’m afraid, don’t quite fully see is that only industrialization makes possible today’s artisanal farming:

On some level, your farm must profit or it goes away.

Even if you’re just offering classes on organic farming, which I think is a legitimate and fantastic service, and which has become popular as a way of augmenting farm incomes in today’s ultra-competitive food market, it still must profit. This means, among other things, that people must have the money to pay you for your products or services.

Regressing to agriculture as it once was, prior to industrialization, is more than just misguided and romantically naive: it’s a kind of dangerous blindness.

In a world without industrialization, the entire infrastructure — from mechanization, to irrigation, to electricity, to running water, to all other plumbing, to transportation, to roads, highways and byways, to communication, to computing, to energy itself— would collapse in a matter of days.

So that not only would you not easily be able to produce good clean artisanal food: you wouldn’t have a market that could afford to purchase it even if you were able to produce it, because the industrial infrastructure which has created the division-of-labor which has created modern medicine, machines, computers, cars, bicycles, airplanes, bridges, buildings, and a billion other things besides, lengthening and improving beyond measure our lives thereby, as well as creating the wealth necessary to purchase artisanal foods and services (and everything else) — it would no longer exist.

Every discrete part of every vehicle, machine, or tool, down to hammer-and-nail, down to pick-and-shovel, down to pocket-knife and machete, down to the ladle for your soup, the pan in which you prepare that soup, as well as the stovetop upon which you prepare it (forget, for now, all the discrete parts that make up each of those things) are the product of human progress, technology — in short, the industrial society.
 
Even the metal and wood for your old rusty shovel had to at one time be mined, milled, manufactured, transported, and sold. 

This industrial society, which, to speak plainly, should be bowed down to, is in the developed world today the thing most shamelessly vilified and taken-for-granted. It’s mischaracterized. It’s trashed. It’s completely misunderstood.

In fact, the world has never been cleaner, safer, and more climate-proof than it is right now, thanks entirely to industrialization, human progress, and technology.
 
The conclusion is inescapable: 

Industrialization has thrown the doors wide open for an incalculable number of new markets — as well as information about those markets, and the transmission of that information — and it’s brought the world healthier, cleaner, more abundant food than the world has ever seen before. 

And yet industrialization is anathematized and demonized by some of the very people who profit most from it — on both ends: seller and buyer.

Here’s another ineluctable fact:

Organic farming, in any of its multifarious forms, could not come close to feeding the world’s population.

The truth is that the overwhelming majority of organic-only foodists and clean-food advocates — certainly the ones I’ve spoken to over the years, some of whom have attacked me otherwise unprovoked but for my refusal to support legal bans on, for instance, pasteurized milk — have no conception at all what goes into feeding a world population of 7.5 billion, to say nothing of the sheer magnitude of industry involved in the entire process, not just food production, I mean, but all the energy and transportation and all the other thousands upon thousands of facets involved, down to the metal fork you finish it with.

Quoting Tanzania’s Doctor Michael Mbwille, of the non-profit Food Security Network:

“Greenpeace prints and circulates lies faster than the Code Red virus infected the world’s computers. If we were to apply Greenpeace’s scientifically illiterate standards universally, there would be nothing left on our tables.”

He’s right: the developing world, precisely because it’s already poor (which is to say, non-industrialized), suffers most tragically from the elitist call to “de-industrialize” the world — a call invariably made from the clean comfort of industrialized society.
 
A non-industrial society is not remotely able or equipped to feed 7.5 billion people.

It’s technology that got us to this point, and it’s only technology — not retrogression — that can get us beyond.

Build your farm, yes, by all means — I’m being sincere — build it and populate it with free-range chickens and hogs and cattle and fish in the pond. Grow your fruit and fungi and vegetables in whatever manner you wish, and trade the fruits of your labor with anyone willing to trade with you. I admire the endeavor — I applaud and support it, I truly do — and perhaps one day I’ll do the same myself. But please, I beseech you, don’t make it out to be something that it’s not (i.e. completely independent of industrial society), and certainly do not try to force the lifestyle upon others.
 
Let people choose.

Let the relevant data be presented, including all the beautiful benefits of industrialization and progress and technology which you and I enjoy, and then let people choose.

Tasty clean food “without externalities,” as it’s often expressed, is neither possible nor a “basic human right.” Everything has a by-product — which is to say, an externality — including wind-power, solar energy, organic pesticides, beaver dams, and so on. 

Externalities are law.

Most important of all, nobody has the right to the life or labor or property of another — and that includes the food which others produce.

A voluntary exchange is not the same thing as a right.

You have the right to your own property and person, and you have the right to try and produce your own food on that property, and if you succeed in producing it, that food is yours by right, and that right is inalienable. But I repeat: 

Nobody has the right to somebody else’s production.

Incontrovertibly, the process of industrialization — fossil fuel in particular — has improved billions upon billions of lives, including yours, who are reading this right now via your phone, computer, or tablet made largely of plastics and metals which are powered entirely by the industrial world. 

Also messed up: a foodie telling some poor little boy that he can’t eat a 99 cent fast food cheeseburger because it doesn’t have integrity. Telling him how easy it is instead to save his ducketts and maybe he can have a grass-fed house burger at the end of the month as a reward, but in the meantime get your protein from these canned beans that you can’t actually bake because you don’t have a stove and, even if you did, your mom works two jobs and moonlights as an Uber driver so she doesn’t have time to heat that shit up anyway. There’s no overstating how coarse it is for a person of means to have that attitude toward the poor (ibid).

What I propose here is a simple solution — one which I guarantee you will work: 

Get lobby groups and governments out of all food production — subsidies for meat as well as corn, sugarcane, and everything else — and let consumer demand determine supply.
 
I propose this: 

Let us leave people the hell alone.

Let each person choose what she or he wants to eat and drink and whether or not to shop at Whole Foods, Trader Joes, King Sooper, Sprouts, the co-op, the farmer’s market, or WalMart.

Because one of the most pervasive and wrongheaded notions about laissez-faire is that it’s CREATED.

It is not. 

It arises naturally when humans are left free. 

Laissez-faire is a system that evolves spontaneously through human interaction, discovery, and ingenuity, and the reason this is so is that humans are conceptual beings. 

We therefore have, as Adam Smith put it, “a natural tendency to truck, barter, and exchange.”

Laws are required to protect laissez-faire — protect it from all manner of despotism, whether proletarian, agrarian, or anything else — but make no mistake: laissez-faire, unlike any and all forms of socialism, succeeds precisely because it arises naturally out of humanity itself.

Laissez-faire is the freedom to create, produce, and trade.

And that’s the end of it.