Month: March 2015

stocks

A response to Nick Ford: get off your high horse bro

By golly, I’ve stumbled upon another reason libertarians will never win: the complete absence of a sense of humor.

“It’s happening” gifs notwithstanding, the liberty movement can’t take a joke. I write one measly piece poking fun at a silly idea, and suddenly I’m a monster. Go figure. I’ve been through this crapshoot before, but the game is getting old.

Here’s what I’m talking about: my recent article on the anti-work crusade has engendered an interesting response from the target of ridicule, Mr. Nick Ford. This wasn’t your typical internet rebuttal. Rather, it was a “meta” rejoinder that focused on the style of my argument rather than the substance. For that, I say, “good job Mr. Ford.” The nature of debate is a topic seldom discussed today. Liberals too often wax and pamper their own victim status, while conservatives cherish their fatalism — a flaw I’m certainly guilty of.

Ford contends that my entire takedown of his philosophy is compromised by not fully understanding his view. He claims my critique “isn’t much of a critique at all.” I made the mistake of going off “on tangents” and brought up “irrelevant” points in “pretty noxious ways.” To Ford, I committed the great crime of not being “familiar” with my subject. Clearly, I deserve a good stint in the stocks!

Jokes aside, do Ford’s accusations have any merit?

(more…)

Cruikshank_-_The_Radical's_Arms

Barron’s AP test prep book butchers the French Revolution

The following guest post is by William J. Upton

The Daily Caller’s Eric Owens has an interesting piece up on a bizarre section in Barron’s AP European History (a study guide aimed at preparing high school students for the Advanced Placement European History exam – a test that could earn them college course credit). The guide provides a chart that details the political factions and ideologies behind the French Revolution – Owens ran with the bizarre conflation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the Ku Klux Klan as the “Reactionary/Fascist” forces (more on the use of “fascism” later). As outrageous as that is – and it is definitely outrageous – the real lede is buried completely. If you look at the chart, it gets pretty much nothing right.

I present, how Barron’s sees the French Revolution: IMG_0982
Photo Credit: The Daily Caller 

Let’s begin from left to right on their “Political Spectrum.” The sans-culottes are placed somewhat reasonably – though the chart misspells the term as “Sams Culottes,” like a Sam’s Club but for pants only). Here, though, it would also be appropriate to note that the sans-culottes were less of a mob and more along the lines of a motley group of radicalized laborers who became militant partisans during the Revolution. They weren’t so much “Communist” as they were radical democrats and republicans spurred on by anarchist factions like the Enragés and anti-Christian/terrorist factions like the Hébertists. The inclusion of the Enragés and Hébertists would have given some perspective into the radical nature of the far-left drive of the revolution.

As you begin to move to right from the sans-culottes, the chart becomes a mess of inaccuracy. The Montagnards weren’t just some “leftist” group that wanted to “regulate banks and corporations.” Led by Maximilien Robespierre, the Montagnards held down the far left of the Legislative Assembly. Their political rivals – only slightly to their right in terms of ideology – were the Girondists (not the Girendists as Barron’s spells it). The Girondists, as with the Montagnards, were anti-monarchy. The key difference between the two factions, however was over the general course of the revolution. The Girondists were killed in mass executions during the Reign of Terror in which the radical-Jacobin Montagnards and Hébertists hunted down and murdered their political rivals. The Barron’s chart bizarrely insinuates that the Jacobins were anywhere from leftist to moderate/centrist – a laughable designation when you take into consideration that the chart has the Girondists to the right of the Feuillants.

The Feuillants were a faction in the Legislative Assembly who broke with the more left-wing Jacobins over what form of government France would take. While the radical Jacobins wished for a republican or democratic form of government, the Feuillants pushed for a constitutional monarchy – rejecting the more radical Jacobin propositions. As mentioned above, the ideological beliefs of the Feuillants should see them placed to the right of the Girondists as the Feuillants were far more “conservative.”

(more…)

Daemonette

“That’s gross,” and other hedonic considerations

You may be familiar with Truffaut’s famous quote, “there’s no such thing as an anti-war film,” which captures the quandry of inadvertently glorifying war by giving it a cinematic representation. I think this is quote is better rendered the more general a “there is no such thing as an anti-hedonistic film.” Or at least it’s really hard. Cinema is an engaging sensory experience, and good and bad are most easily expressed through an engagement of appreciation or an engagement of revulsion. This convention obviously extends beyond movies and into media like books, and it was in fact a book that I read recently that got me thinking about this whole thing.

For anyone who thinks I don’t give feminism a fair shake, I will have you know that I’ve read the radical feminist sci-fi novel Woman on the Edge of Time. On a related note, I have black friends. Anyway, the short of it is that in the novel there’s two potential futures presented to the 1970’s present-day heroine. The first is a Marxist pastoral “utopia” in which gender has been essentially been abolished through Brave New World-like biotechnology. Pretty creepy, but that’s a discussion for another article.

The second future is a hellish capitalist dystopia, where most people are part of a slave-like underclass that are little more than walking organ banks for the rich elite. Women are, of course, particularly oppressed, being kept as ignoramuses who are only valued for their appearance – they are surgically modified to have grotesquely exaggerated sexual characteristics. The grotesqueness is really driven home to let the reader feel just how bad this potential future really is.

Is sickening excess the logical consequence of our unchained material appetites? Of course it isn’t – actual hedonism, by definition, always finds the sweet spot. Excess is, by definition, anti-hedonic. Intentionally eating so much cake to become nauseous isn’t something that people do. Similarly, people find cartoonishly enhanced women revolting; if they didn’t, the author wouldn’t be able to use such a thing as a cautionary tale to scare the reader straight. Showing good or bad in terms of the hedonic calculus is easy, but you can’t have it as both terrifyingly revolting and believably alluring.

Perhaps it is, then, a cautionary tale against changing social norms of the grotesque? Even so, we would need to establish a moral standard outside of “appreciation vs. revulsion” to say that this change of taste is more than merely a value neutral disjunction between our revulsion and their appreciation. After all, the supposed utopia is just as radically different from our current cultural standards as the dystopia is.

(more…)

15240088197_abe9ea5b0f_o

For the U.S., force is not enough to defeat ISIS

Reprinted from the Press and Journal:

She never saw it coming.

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf was caught off-guard by the host’s tough questions. When asked what it will take for the U.S. to defeat the Islamic State, Harf admitted “we cannot win this war by killing them.”

She went further: “We need in the medium and longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs.”

Islamic radicals are capturing vast swaths of Iraq and Syria because they want… jobs?

(more…)

Students for Liberty will start a revolution

Students for Liberty (SFL) will start a revolution.  A real revolution, one in which a standing government steps down before they otherwise would have, as a direct result of the actions of members of SFL.  Now, while my claim will strike many as radical, I do not think it is.  I have been telling people this privately for the last two years, and I figure I might as well make my prediction on paper.  Though, before I begin, full disclosure, I am a member of Alumni for Liberty and consider many members of SFL and their staff to be personal friends.

My argument is fairly simple, many revolutions are student led.  Over the next 20 years, yes, 20 years is my timeline, one of those revolutions will be led by members of SFL or sparked by an SFL event.  An echo of this was seen the last year in Venezuela.  Because I am not bullshitting, I am willing to bet up to $100, even odds, that SFL members are named in a major news source as being the primary instigators in a revolution.  Either their actions would spark the protests, or they would become leaders in nascent protests begun for a different cause.

Of course, my claim depends on several factors.  First, the continued expansion of SFL around the globe.  SFL is not going to lead a revolution in Western Europe because the governments in Western Europe are stable.  The ability of SFL to lead a revolution depends on SFL having members in governments with less than firm foundations, Africa is the prime example, but Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East should all be included.  As of now SFL has yet to have a critical mass in many these countries, but with the continued rate of expansion SFL should have a critical mass in 5 years in the majority of those countries.

Now, my claim is not that SFL will actively seek to overthrow an existing government.  They have wisely stayed out of politics and I encourage them to continue that trend.  However, there are a number of scenarios which could unfold.  For example, Honduras won Event of the Year at the International Students For Liberty Conference the past year.  They won because they literally fought a group of Marxists who tried to shut down a University.  However, what if those Marxists had ties to a local political party.  The event nearly turned violent, and easily could have.  This could have led to more demonstrations and started a movement.

Of course, most such events remain relatively obscure.  If not for SFL, the Honduras event would be quickly forgotten.  However, such events are how many revolutions are sparked.  A student group toes the boundary one too many times.  There is a heavy handed government response.  There are protests against the heavy handed response.  The government over compensates leading to an increasing cycle of protests.

In a larger sense this is simply another part of the transformation of society in this day and age.  A group like SFL could not have existed 20 years ago.  Without the internet and low travel costs, forming a community like SFL would be impossible.  However, that community has been formed, the average payoff of protests has increased, you might go on Stossel, and the support network is stronger than ever.  So, if there are any doubters, take my bet, it should be easy money.

Edit: Lode Cossear has accepted by bet.  $100 dollars, here are the parameters further specified.

It must be reported in a top 10 US newspaper or a top 5 European newspaper, judged by circulation. At least one SFL member must be mentioned by name, along with the organization, and there must be a clear statement that an SFL event was a key instigator in the revolution or that SFLers are key members of the opposition. Lastly, the president, prime minister or equivalent party must step down. The deal will be if these conditions are met at any time in the next twenty years you pay me. If after twenty years these conditions are not met, I pay you.  The outcome of the revolution is not important, merely that it happens.  Some of the parameters are open to interpretation.  We will negotiate in good faith what constitutes “key instigator” or “key member” when the time comes.  

Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks

Introducing the Mitrailleuse’s trolling contest

Let’s screw with people!

There are a lot of stupid publications out there. Some of them are so stupid that they are easy to troll. But fake articles can also speak to truths about the media, or, in the case of the Sokal affair, academic publishing. These are usually funny, and we’d like to see more of them, so we’re offering a bounty for the best trolling of media outlets. You may remember when Jordan and I made it into the news for our parody of Salon that fooled even pro-Salon Twitter users. It was a lot of fun, and now we want to give everyone the opportunity to put their satire skills on display. This is a rolling contest of trolling, where a winner is picked every four months.

The Rules

  • Get an article published. The editor can’t be in on the joke.
  • The article must be published somewhere that is a real and decently-trafficked publication. Think Wikipedia’s reliable source guidelines.
  • You can’t let it be known that the article is parody before we decide the winner.
  • While we were thinking more on the lines of trolling lefties, it by no means should be limited to that. You have free rein to screw with people across the political spectrum.
  • Winners will be chosen at the end of back-to-back six month periods. That means it will happen two times a year, with the first winner being chosen on September 1st, 2015.

The Criteria

  • It should be funny.
  • The goal here is to push it to the limits of absurdity while still being believable (and therefore publishable), which is a fine line to walk.
  • It has to somehow satirize the viewpoint of the publication that runs it. The more truth it reveals about them, the better.
  • Proportionality will be factored in. Getting a ludicrous piece published in an actually respectable publication like Jacobin or New Inquiry is different from getting it published on xoJane. We will keep that in mind when choosing the winner.

The Reward

  • 50 USD
  • Your fake name, real name, and article enshrined in a dedicated section of our website until the end of time.
  • The satisfaction of getting the last laugh on a publication that you presumably don’t like.
  • Even if you don’t win, we will link and rank all articles in order from best to worst.

Submissions may be sent to [email protected] Happy trolling.

Update: If you want some good examples of sites to submit to, we’ve compiled a list.