Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Drug-dealing welfare classes get your guns, form the army of the unemployed!

The gun restrictions in urban areas don't affect the urbanite middle classes all that much. Most of these people don't own guns, and may be afraid of them. They have never dealt with serious physical conflict in maybe their entire lives.

The people who are affected are the disaffected and policed underclass. The black or mexican 'gang banger' is the leading edge of a community that has so little investment in the state's 'defense', the political class and the economic system that they're resorting to outright black markets in broad daylight, and flaunting their paramilitary status (mostly fantasies) in their popular music. Unfortunately, most of these guys are carrying a handgun at the most. A few own larger weapons, but they're harder to conceal or carry in a car. In a more permissive legal system these 'thugs' and territorial mafias would be able to openly carry large and small arms without need to provide permit or reason. This, obviously, is not acceptable to the Congressional-Police-Prison Union Complex. One can not have organized, funded resistance on the home front!

Something similar is true of the punk crowd. Rowdy, drunken, drugged, detached from the incentives of propaganda warfare, they can cluster together. Their disregard for the law and the politeness of civil society is well known, and often genuine. Yet punks, whether they're brawling with each other or the man, are usually armed with a baseball bat - if anything. I am almost certain that at least some of these guys would have uzis, if it wasn't for the criminalization of firearms and their carry in urban areas. Again, it's not the sheltered middle class that these laws are targeting, it's the people who are able and willing to subvert the elites and their lemmings in the middle class.

Lumpenproles have the most to lose from gun control. The urban garrison state is just the beginning.


If you don't like what we tell you to believe in we'll kill ya.
- Misquotation of G. W. Bush

After 9/11 a lot of 'terrorism' think-tankery poured out of academia and media, most of which was totally garbage. Atheologians and Objectivists wrote fanatical tracts about the need to nuke Mecca to convince those crazy savages that their God couldn't protect them from science. Christian Zionists were no less enthusiastic to point out the barbaric and violent history of Islam.

There is some truth to this, but the overall historical arc of terrorism suggests that it is an actual effective means of achieving certain military and political objectives. It's not always effective, but due to its low cost and disproportionate potential reactions it can trigger it can result in an increased flow of personnel and resources to the 'terrorist' organization and similar networks. Even if terrorism fails to achieve its utopian goals - to create a caliphate, to abolish the Russian government - it can still serve the immediate interests of terrorist organizers, suppliers and the 'enemies' of terrorism who profit from fighting (and typically inspiring more) terrorism.

Terrorism is usually seen as a tactic of weak organizations faced with more powerful opponents, which makes me wonder whether or not the Jacobin models of state terrorism and the strategic terrorism of Hindu Cow Avengers should be considered to be closely related. The British terror bombings in Germany and the Soviet government's bureaucratic murder squads certainly had the upper hand in the physical battlefield, but may represent another kind of weakness - enemy military forces and totalitarian revolutionary states are by default the enemies of existing elites, and have a profound capacity for creating enemies in their occupied territories. Even forces that were initially welcoming - as certain peasants welcomed the Germans in both world wars - will find these organizations to be virtually impossible to deal with. Whether one is ruling over a resentful population with an alien religious cult or invading the ancient homelands of a rural society it's hard to create effective control of a region whose natives do not want you there.

When pointing to the ineffectual nature of terrorism the case of Ireland is often brought up. While its true that some of the political disputes were ultimately resolved by means other than a general military conflict or guerrilla war this only occured after groups like the Irish Republican army had been killing British soldiers, police and politicians for decades. Certainly if the British had been willing to negotiate with the Irish separatist movements before all this they could have. The desire of these groups to separate from the British Empire and the Church of England was well known, and supported by figures from Edmund Burke to Oswald Mosley. At any time the House of Lords could have given Ireland autonomy or independence or allowed it to secede in bits. Yet they only did so after the Irish made policing Ireland a dangerous and thankless job through campaigns of sustained, organized, armed terrorism both in Ireland and England itself. Is this a coincidence?

From Is the Use of Terrorism Rational?
The conventional wisdom of the substantive rationality of terrorism and the model itself are directly challenged, however, by a growing body of empirical evidence disproving the instrumental efficacy, and even suggesting the counter-productivity, of the use of terrorism in coercing the desired policy change outlined by the strategic goals of terrorist organisations. Challenges to the consistency of the substantive rationality of terrorism do not demand, however, that the use of terrorism should therefore be considered unconditionally irrational.
Rather, by incorporating the concept of ‘procedural rationality’, as developed by economist Herbert Simon, the use of terrorism should nonetheless be considered rational since it is the ‘outcome of appropriate deliberation’. This social scientific approach draws heavily on psychology rather than economic scholarship, aiming to incorporate the importance of cognitive effects on human decision-making in rational choice, and is concerned not with the consequences of the use of terrorism but the ‘process that generated’ the decision to strategically employ terrorism as a policy instrument.
An evaluation of the cost-benefit calculations made by terrorist organisations reveals that the decision to use terrorism, whilst generally substantively irrational, is procedurally rational. The logic of the strategic theory behind the deliberation process, and the deliberate nature of the timing, targets and substitution effects of the use of terrorism to maximise the utility of attacks on both tactical and strategic levels, suggests that whilst failing to achieve strategic goals, terrorism is nonetheless the product of a rational cost-benefit analysing thought-process. The use of terrorism is therefore best regarded as often procedurally, though not necessarily substantively, rational.

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Philosophy and Austrian Economics

I can think of no other school of economic theory that is so obsessed with philosophical grounding and logical validity.

The Philosophical Background of Austrian Economics

The Philosophical Origins of Austrian Economics by David Gordon
Second Thoughts On The Philosophical Origins of Austrian Economics by David Gordon
Aristotle, Menger, Mises: An Essay in the Metaphysics of Economics by Barry Smith
The Philosophy of Austrian Economics by Barry Smith
Carl Menger: Pioneer of "Empirical Theory" by Jörg Guido Hülsmann
Carl Menger's Aristotelian Methodology in Economics by Edward W.Younkins
Philosophical Foundations of Carl Menger
Austrian Philosophy: The Legacy of Franz Brentano by Barry Smith

Methodology, Theory and History
The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science by Ludwig von Mises
Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution by Ludwig von Mises
Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action by Roderick T. Long

More Thoughts on the Green Machine

The Federal Reserve along with the vast regulatory bureaucracy that controls the financial sector create distortions in the specific distribution of resources. Certain people who get the money early on (and reliably) will aggregate real resources over time.
Another effect is that the swings in asset prices create a mismatch between the method of economic calculation (investment-profit forecasting) and the real demand for consumer goods. Capital, and thus physical resources, will be taken away from products that match the non-inflationary demand of the retail end and into long-term projects that suit the regulatory structure better.
The ongoing effect of this is concentration of wealth and influence into certain sectors and interest blocs in society, specifically those clustered around the financial nexus. Meanwhile, resources are pulled away from places where ordinary people actually want them and pushed into the pet projects of MIC suppliers and hedge fund managers.

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Two TradCats and a ProtestCat

Banksters: The Green Heart of Leviathan

"I don’t know that the role of the bankers has changed much since the 19th century. "
- Keith Preston

In the nineteenth century both commerce and politics were conducted on a smaller scale and in a more conservative manner. Though you can see similar outlines of big money to be made, state-subsidized at times, opportunistic at others; companies with no apparent product being valued at exorbitant prices before imploding. But the sheer scale of production and degree of international economic integration (add the fact that both private and state banks around the world hold each others' debt - and private debt) creates situations where these asinine political bids in Washington can make or break thousands or millions of people every year around the world.

It has undergone a qualitative shift by nature of SCALE. The total and proportional amount of monetized production in the 21st century is leagues beyond anything in history. The monetization of assets, including some political assets, has proceeded nonstop since the mid-nineteenth century.
On the one hand this is a good thing, in that it's certainly convenient and useful to have a highly reactive market, and these prices are really what make rational market activity through investment patterns possible. The unfortunate side effect is that this is all done in state-denominated, taxed, regulated and inflated currency. The use of easy credit and inflation as a means of state finance and state-favored commerce has presented the banks with absolutely unprecedented amounts of influence and power, the vast majority of which must be squandered just to keep this credit scheme going.

The importance of banks, and the mere existence of fiat money, is almost inestimable given the extreme expense and need for easy credit and a quick turnover of resources the modern state (and economy more generally) requires. The jerry-rigged dollar system is powerful, obviously broken at certain points, and in no historical empire has money - medium of exchange, currency - been so peculiarly vital as in the modern US and general world-system. One may argue that this is something of the dual power of money, that a widespread trade and medium of exchange allows the very possibility of the sort of wealth that can produce the Chinese Peoples Republic or the US Empire. Under no historical economic system could such blood sucking parasites have been possible. The amount of people killed in WW2 and the Communist revolutions is comparable to entire nations in classical or even medieval history.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

States' Rights 19th Century Style Constitution

The Bill of Rights is the law of the Federal Government. States are under no obligation to obey it (though all of the states also have a "Bill of Rights" type of manifesto in their constitutions).

Much of the state-level gun control may be viewed as legal, or not, depending on state constitutions and statutes. States should, however, be able to consitute any form of army, navy, air force, militia, mercenary or police force they please without the interference of the Federal Government. They might be obligated to somehow contribute to the national defense in the event of a war.

States can not go to war with each other, or enforce law without the invitation of other states unless it is an explicitly Federal responsibility - in which case the Federal Government is responsible for enforcing it on the state, if it can.

States can't have tariffs, and taxes have to be opportioned among the states (though not necessarily per capita, the STATES pay taxes to the Federal Government and are responsible for collecting the revenue. It does not seem to imply an obligation of individuals to report and pay taxes to the Federal Government. The income tax (16th Amendment) is highly problematic for this reason.

States can definitely have state religion, religious education, blasphemy laws and all manner of nutty cultist stuff. The Feds aren't obliged or allowed to take this into account when dealing with the states or individuals from the states of the union. But the States are obviously regarded to have largely been religiously indifferent or some denomination of Christian, by European Protestant tradition.

States are not allowed to impede the travel of American citizens (free movement over public roads and commonwealth territory that isn't private land), but they can obviously try people for various crimes under local laws (this could perhaps be a Federal matter if they came to dispute over the facts of a case and legal gridlock).

The Constitution does not apply to people in other countries - American or otherwise. It does often apply to anyone, foreigner or otherwise, who happens to be in the United States - insofar as it deals with individuals at all.

In general, when it says 'congress' it means congress. The House and Senate can not pass laws doing such-and-such. The various assemblies and authorities of the state government are not even under consideration, much less constrained, by these laws.