Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Ayn Rand’

How the Elite use Attila and the Witch Doctor to keep Power

Posted by M. C. on October 22, 2020

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

So you can try to reason in your mind that something is off. But you have been taught that War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. And so you don’t think about it, because you know finding any flaws in Big Brother’s reasoning is a thought crime.

By Joe Jarvis – October 22, 2020

It is not enough to control people’s bodies, their actions. The people in power must also control their minds.

And that is why strong men have always needed mystics.

Ayn Rand called this the partnership between Attila and the Witch Doctor.

And I think she offers a useful way of thinking about this particular power dynamic. You can see this paradigm being used by all the most powerful people, governments, and religions throughout history.

Attila controls the people physically, and the Witch Doctor controls them mentally, even spiritually.

In her book For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand wrote:

Attila rules by means of fear, by keeping men under a constant threat of destruction—the Witch Doctor rules by means of guilt, by keeping men convinced of their innate depravity, impotence and insignificance. Attila turns men’s life on earth into a living hell—the Witch Doctor tells them that it could not be otherwise.

Let’s discuss a few examples to better understand what Rand was talking about.

Feudal Lords and the Catholic Church: Feudal Lords extracted labor from the serfs which created all the food and material possessions needed to live– Attila. Catholicism made the serfs believe that their suffering was retribution for their sins, but that if they behaved they would be rewarded in the afterlife– the Witch Doctor.

The peasants don’t rebel against the Lord, afraid of his sword. They don’t rebel against the Church, afraid of eternal damnation. They are controlled in both body and mind. They see no physical or intellectual way out of their predicament without breaking one or the other’s rules.

New England Puritans: As a theocratic society, Attila and Witch Doctor were wrapped up in the same powerful people and institutions. People could be physically punished for any number of transgressions, but it was God making the rules. Man was simply delivering on God’s demands for a pure society.

During the Salem Witch Trials, people truly believed that the Devil was possessing their fellow villagers. So it was entirely justified to use physical punishment, even hanging, to keep people in line. Otherwise not only was the village at risk of becoming completely disordered, but they were all at risk of God’s punishment.

Big Brother and Newspeak: In George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother is always watching. You behave because you don’t want to be punished for stepping out of line. But because of Newspeak, a language that has been so butchered as to render any critical thought fruitless, the people do not even have the means to intellectually disagree.

For example, Oceania is at war with East Asia. Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.

In reality, the previous week Oceania has been at war with Eurasia. However, Newspeak has rendered words like truth and deception meaningless. What big brother says is the truth, it becomes reality.

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

So you can try to reason in your mind that something is off. But you have been taught that War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. And so you don’t think about it, because you know finding any flaws in Big Brother’s reasoning is a thought crime.

Republicans and Democrats: Here’s one big way this applies to most of our lives today.

You could say the Republicans broadly represent the military and police state, and the Democrats are in line with the woke mob.

In other words, the Republicans are the Attilas who will physically punish you for victimless crimes like drugs, and illegal immigration. And the Democrats are the Witch Doctors who control the media, the Twitter mobs, and the Facebook/ Google/ Youtube censorship.

And as many commenters have pointed out, the politicians are not truly in charge.

So you could say politics in general is akin to the Witch Doctor, keeping people believing they need to submit to this government for safety and prosperity. Meanwhile the monetary system controls our physical reality.

Of course there is some mix and match here because the government’s police are Attila’s agents who you have physical contact with to keep you in line.

But, the neat black and white paradigm is just useful to extract and understand how the powerful operate, as opposed to everything being able to fit neatly into the two categories.

And you can even see this with a lot of powerful corporations. In real life, Nike uses sweatshops to make huge profits. But their branding has to take a stand– or I guess a knee– against injustice in America. It’s Attila doing whatever it takes in the real world to make a profit, and the Witch Doctor making sure there is a proper myth so customers believe in the company.

And throughout these examples, you see sometimes Attila has more power, and sometimes the witch doctor has more power. Sometimes one is leading the charge, and sometimes the other is dominant.

That is because they too are struggling for power, and suspicious of the other power faction. You see this often in current day rulers and elites behind the scene. As I’ve said before, the power game is largely elite versus elite, and the use the people they view as lesser as pawns.

Rand wrote:

But the alliance of the two rulers is precarious: it is based on mutual fear and mutual contempt. Attila is an extrovert, resentful of any concern with consciousness—the Witch Doctor is an introvert, resentful of any concern with physical existence. Attila professes scorn for values, ideals, principles, theories, abstractions—the Witch Doctor professes scorn for material property, for wealth, for man’s body, for this earth. Attila considers the Witch Doctor impractical—the Witch Doctor considers Attila immoral.

And of course these are not strict, rigid archetypes. Rand only describes the two factions of power in this way in order to demonstrate how they operate. Like everything, these traits fall along a continuum.

But whether it’s Attila or the Witch Doctor that is any given elite’s dominant trait:

…secretly, each of them believes that the other possesses a mysterious faculty he lacks, that the other is the true master of reality, the true exponent of the power to deal with Existence. In terms, not of thought, but of chronic anxiety, it is the Witch Doctor who believes that brute force rules the world—and it is Attila who believes in the supernatural; his name for it is “fate” or “luck.”

And the reason Attila and the Witch Doctor are able to keep this power dynamic going is largely because most people fall along the continuum into their various camps, some assuming that the biggest muscles and armies are truly in control, and some believing in a higher power.

That higher power, again, is not always religion or spirituality. It could be the ideology of Communism, or the belief in the social contract, where people assign inherent obligations to everyone without their agreement.

But this power dynamic relies on a  third class: the people who actually produce the necessities of life– the food, shelter, innovation, technology, and advancement.

Against whom is this alliance [between Attila and the Witch Doctor] formed? Against those men whose existence and character both Attila and the Witch Doctor refuse to admit into their view of the universe: the men who produce. In any age or society, there are men who think and work, who discover how to deal with existence, how to produce the intellectual and the material values it requires.

These are the men whose effort is the only means of survival for the parasites of all varieties: the Attilas, the Witch Doctors and the human ballast. The ballast consists of those who go through life in a state of unfocused stupor, merely repeating the words and the motions they learned from others.

Or, in other words, the ballast are the useful idiots who lend the Attilas and the Witch Doctors their power.

And I’m assuming anyone that made it this far is one of those producers who the parasitic classes mooch off of.

You’re actually producing something, doing some piece of the work that the Attilas, Witch Doctors, Ballasts, and mooching classes of all varieties depend on.

And the question is, how to respond to this power dynamic. You can’t simply stop producing. That was the idea behind Rands “Atlas Shrugged.” A boycott from the actual producers of the world, who say they won’t produce any more for the cabal.

But that doesn’t really work if you don’t have a Galt’s Gulch to escape to.

The good news is, we each have the ability to create our own little Galt’s Gulch– a little piece of paradise where were keep the products of our labor, and throw off the yolk of the Attilas and the Witch Doctors.

For me, that meant moving to Puerto Rico to take advantage of great tax incentives.

But in my next video, we’ll get into the “traps” that keep most people supporting the Attila/ Witch Doctor system, when they could be striking it out on their own, and throwing off this control of the elite.

Never let a good crisis go to waste is the mantra of the elites.

In tumultuous times, their tactics have extra potency. They reach for more power.

But this is also when the elite are most vulnerable.

By studying their tactics, you will be more prepared to guard against, and counter-attack the enemy.

The current crisis is being used to exploit the masses. But it also presents tremendous opportunity to take the power back, and reshape this world.

Society is entering a new period of transition, a struggle that will reveal the elites of the next generation.

Now is the time to seize your power if you intend to be among their ranks.

Subscribe and immediately receive TWO FREE TACTICAL REPORTS:

1. Four Ways The Elite Control You

2. How to Infiltrate the Elite and Steal Their Power for Yourself

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Donald Trump, Anarchism Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on September 27, 2020

“Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.” (Google Online Dictionary)
“ANARCHISM is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.”  (Wikipedia)




Donald Trump seems to think we’re all stupid, or he really is stupid. Then again, maybe we can just chalk this all up to neo-McCarthysim. What, you may ask, am I talking about?

The ‘Dear Fuhrer’ keeps using a word as a fear-inducing pejorative, and I don’t think that it means what he thinks that it means. It’s even more ridiculous than something from ‘The Princess Bride.’

There are a lot of people in the world who identify as an ‘anarchist’ of some sort or another. From some of the world’s most respected intellectuals and political minds, to the factory floors, as well as the culture in music, and even among those who practice law or fight wars; you can find a rich history of anarchists in America. If Bubba from Forrest Gump were here, he might say: “There’s market anarchists, christian anarchists, political anarchists, classical anarchists, individualist anarchists, mutualist anarchists, social anarchists, crypto anarchists,” etc, ad nauseam.

If you’re talking about people who may not always self-identify as ‘anarchists,’ but technically are living a given lifestyle consistent with some traditional vein within anarchism, then even pacifists such as the Amish communities can count as a type of ‘anarchist.’ And, in fact, anarchists are typically not bomb-throwers, but garden-growers. Anarchists may sometimes just include people who tend to have an aversion to being organized in authoritarian and violent hierarchies, and choose rather to surround themselves among people who problem-solve with a countenance towards peaceful resolutions which respect everyone’s natural rights and freedoms.

I’ve been happy to self-identify as an ‘anarchist’ of a stripe for many years now because I find the concept of consent and voluntaryism to be the highest of all the ideals in both morality and law.

For the record:
“Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.” (Google Online Dictionary)
“ANARCHISM is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.”  (Wikipedia)

(In)famous atheist activist Madalyn Murray O’Hair was a self-identified anarchist, and philosopher Ayn Rand has certainly been a historical favorite among those who enjoy reading in the ‘individualist anarchist’ vein of thought (although I don’t know of her ever technically self-identifying as an anarchist). Emma Goldman is probably one of the most well-known historical anarchist names in American labor movements. Leo Tolstoy left an undeniable legacy of anarchism within America’s most widely practiced faith tradition. There are ‘Austrian economists’ who openly call themselves anarchists currently, and who have even testified before the U.S. Congress on economic matters. Noam Chomsky seems to be a celebrity favorite of many anarchists today, and even a President of the United States can sound much like an anarchist when they say things like, “Government isn’t the solution to our problems, government is the problem,” as Ronald Reagan did.

Words actually have definitions. One might think the president would know the definitions of the terms he speaks publicly and would want to use those words correctly.

Or, maybe there’s another agenda afoot.

If someone has awoken the spirit of Eugene McCarthy, I’ve got a few questions for them.

Kru Adam G. “Brick” House is an Afghanistan war veteran and former licensed minister (UPCI), who has become an outspoken skeptic, peace advocate, and libertarian activist. He currently resides in Leander, Texas, where he is a licensed Muay Thai Kru and owner of Peaceful Warrior Muay Thai Academy.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

You Aren’t Free If You Don’t Own Yourself

Posted by M. C. on August 3, 2020

“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
Ayn Rand
Remember that when you are told the only way to get rid of your mask or out of lockdown is taking a vaccine.
You can’t be free if you are a slave to government.
You aren’t free if you don’t own yourself.
Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Anti-Industrial Revolution

Posted by M. C. on May 31, 2020

We haven’t had any Ayn Rand in a while.

A new piece to me. Click the link.

by Ayn Rand, From Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

Be seeing you




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

bionic mosquito: Where is John Galt?

Posted by M. C. on May 22, 2020

Where is John Galt?

Who is John Galt?

No, the title is not a typo.

You all know the story: private businesses suffer under increasingly burdensome laws and regulations; one man decides he will stop the engine of the world, wanting to be free from the business-stifling attitude of both government and society; he convinces other businessmen to join him in his strike; the economy comes to a halt.

Who are these titans of industry?

John Galt: before going on strike, he was an engineer at Twentieth Century Motors. He developed a motor that was powered by ambient static electricity. He quit the company when the founder’s children decided “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The working model remained in stasis until well after the company went bankrupt.

Francisco d’Anconia: owner of the largest copper mining company in the world – until he purposely destroyed it, destroying the investments of hangers-on while also ensuring the company could not be exploited by these same leaches.

Ragnar Danneskjöld: the pirate, stealing from government ships that which was taken in taxes from the producers of the world. What he stole, he converted to gold and then delivered to those producers who joined the strike, returning what was previously stolen from the producers in taxes.

Henry “Hank” Rearden: the producer of an incredible metal – lighter and stronger and less expensive than any steel before it.

Dagny Taggert: the brains behind operating Taggert Transcontinental.

There were several other titans of industry that joined the strike: Calvin Atwood, Ken Danagger, Lawrence Hammond, Midas Mulligan, Ted Nielsen, Dwight Sanders, Andrew Stockton, and Ellis Wyatt. Beyond these industrial giants are philosophers, composers, middle managers, jurists, and doctors. All the best of the best, all joining the strike. All men and women of integrity. They brought the economy to a halt.

It really is a wonderful book, and despite her protestations, Ayn Rand probably led more people to something approaching libertarianism than any other person in the last century. There is a great speech by Francisco d’Anconia on money; the story of what happened to Twentieth Century Motors when it implemented its maximum-socialist scheme is worth its weight in gold.

And then there is John Galt’s speech…fifty pages, as I recall. You get the idea after a page or two, and I guarantee you that even if you revisit the book every five or ten years, you will never read the entire speech a second time. But still, a good speech – it just could have been delivered in about 1,000 words.

How does the story end? These striking titans of industry win, a new constitution is drafted, money is based on gold. All is right for liberty and industry.

I offered the following in my recent post regarding the necessary role that Christianity must play if we are to have some kind of return to liberty:

“Can’t we just convince the people with our ideas? The non-aggression principle and private property; these should be sufficient, and so easy to understand.”

There is no doubt that such education is necessary and beneficial. But is it sufficient for liberty? The simple answer is…no. I will write something more on this topic in the coming days.

“Yeah, but it worked in Atlas Shrugged.” Many libertarians and free-market economists believe that this is sufficient for liberty – leave it to the market, rational self-interest will govern, the virtue of selfishness, no one wants to be burdened by undue regulation from the government. How is that working out?

Where is John Galt? Our titans of industry stand at the trough, slopping up the government largesse; they are the ones who write the regulations, ensuring that small businesses have no chance to meet the regulations; they cheer on the funny-money of central banking, knowing that it fuels their wealth while the ill-effects remain reasonably hidden from the masses.

Where is John Galt? Where are these men and women of integrity, willing to work at a diner or as a track-worker instead of running the best industrial companies in the world? Today’s titans care nothing for such things, claiming their trillions while the rest receive their pennies.

Where is John Galt? Are they going on strike at all, let alone in sufficient numbers to stop the machine? Or do they threaten the rest of us with another end-of-the-world scenario every time their net worth takes a hit?

Where is John Galt? If ideas are sufficient to set things straight, then isn’t Galt’s speech sufficient to convince (well, maybe shorter, but it’s what I’ve got to work with)?

Where is John Galt? If he strikes, don’t you think there will be twenty others ready, not to join him, but to take his place?


“Can’t we just convince people with our ideas?” Just who are we going to convince? The characters of our “Atlas Shrugged” are more like James Taggart than Dagny, Lillian Rearden than Hank, and Dr. Robert Stadler than Hugh Akston.

Wesley Mouch is today’s rainmaker; Bertram Scudder writes for our own New York Times; Claude Slagenhop sponsors Greta on her world tour. And Horace Bussby Mowen epitomizes today’s industrialist.

There are no men and women of integrity, ready to go on strike instead of putting up with the largesse of the state; our titans live off of that largesse. Who holds such people accountable? We know it isn’t the state and we know it isn’t markets – such as they are.

Unless and until Christianity plays its proper role – and I grant, that may be a bigger ask than waiting for John Galt, given what we know of many Christian leaders today (even before shutting down for Holy Week) – I find little reason to expect that the state will at all shrink in its role.

It stinks, I know. But there it is.

Posted by bionic mosquito

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Return to Beauty – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on March 3, 2020

Beauty and government dictate are not something I would equate. That said Trump is certainly correct about government architecture, at least the post depression variety.

Ayn Rand and Howard Roarke strike again.

Theodore Dalrymple

The guilty flee when no man pursueth, says Proverbs, but it does not follow from this that the guilty do not flee when they are indeed pursued. The guilty also have a tendency to argue when they know that they are in the wrong, as for example architects who continue to deny that, for the past seventy years at least, they have been disenchanting the world by espousing a dysfunctional functionalism and constructing buildings so hideous that they make Frankenstein’s monster look like Clark Gable.

I refuse to think so ill of architects as human beings as to believe them to be totally unaware of what they have done. Rather, I pity them. They are like those unfortunate government spokesmen who have to defend the indefensible in public, which is always a disagreeable and nerve-racking thing to have to do. As government spokesmen invent a language full of polysyllabic euphemism to disguise the catastrophe their masters have wrought, so architects speak a language that is either incomprehensible or, where comprehensible, entirely beside the point.

I take as an example the response of a university professor of architecture to President Trump’s executive order making the classical style of architecture compulsory for new federal buildings of any size or cost in the Washington area. I do not name the professor because my target is the guild or sect to which he belongs rather than the individual. His article objecting to the executive order is typical of many.

He begins with the argument from authority: He cites a number of American architectural organizations that are highly critical or fearful of the president’s executive order. But this is like canvassing the opinion of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the KGB, and the Red Army to find out whether communism was as bad as it was painted. It is precisely the nature of the architects’ authority that is at issue.

“A triangular wheel would be an innovation, but it would not be an advance.”

The president’s executive order starts from what seems to me an indisputable premise, that much if not most of the federal building carried out in the past half century has been at best undistinguished and at worst hideous. But in the 1930s and even later, federal buildings that were (and will always be) a great adornment to the city, such as the Supreme Court and the Jefferson Memorial, were built. And it is not possible that what was possible then should not be possible now.

According to the executive order, classical architecture that takes its inspiration from ancient Greece and Rome symbolizes the American founding aspiration toward democracy and the rule of law. Critics point out that both were slave societies, says the professor, and indeed that the slave-owners in the Southern states of America built neoclassical mansions on their plantations. I think both arguments miss the point, though simply to reject the classical world because it was slave-owning is to deny its other and longer-lasting legacy, and would also—in logic—be to reject the founding of the American republic because some of the American founding fathers were slave-owners (and not a woman among them). History is, or ought to be, more than the backward projection of our current moral enthusiasms or obsessions.

Moreover, modernism and its successors are much more tainted by fascist and communist ideologies. And while I do not think that classical buildings are in any way aesthetically redolent of slavery—one does not look at the Maison Carrée in Nîmes and think “slavery”—modern buildings frequently speak of megalomania, both of the architect and his patron, and it is true that dictators have sometimes built in a style that one might call tyrant-classicism. But high modernism was certainly in vogue for much of the Soviet Union’s existence, with horrible results, combining hideousness of design with shoddiness of execution. Moreover, many of the originators of modernism were themselves of very totalitarian disposition—they explicitly wanted to legislate the style of architecture for the whole world—and their inhumanity is obvious from what they built.

However, the political associations of classicism and modernism (and its successors, such as brutalism and deconstructivism) are beside the point. What is important is that classical architecture, even when not of the very best, is never as bad as the kind of things that Thom Mayne builds. It can achieve grandeur through elegance and not merely by size, or by a tendency to make human beings about as welcome in its precincts as weevils in a packet of flour. What is important is to build well and beautifully, and I do not see how anyone could fail to come to the conclusion that (for example) the National Gallery of Art in Washington is incomparably superior to the recent extension of the Tate Modern gallery in London.

But the nub of the professor’s argument is this: “I fear that [the executive order] will ultimately stifle innovation and reverse recent federal support for architectural experimentation.” In other words, it will cramp the architects’ freedom to build whatever they feel like building—with the results that are to be seen everywhere.

Innovation and architectural experimentation are not good in themselves. They are to be judged by their results, not by their newness, their originality or unprecedentedness. It would be an innovation to build a skyscraper of refrigerated butter, but the fact of its innovation would not be enough to save it from reprobation. A triangular wheel would be an innovation, but it would not be an advance.

The article bears out precisely what the executive order’s preamble says: that the modernists and their successors pay no regard to beauty. The professorial author extols the new American embassy in London as follows:

[The embassy] combined provocative design with the latest advancements in security, while incorporating green building systems that reduced energy costs. Together, I believe [it] project[s] the image of a technologically advanced and enlightened U.S. federal government.

Not a word of its beauty, not surprisingly, since it is a monstrosity, admittedly one among many other monstrosities.

And why provocative design? Who is to be provoked, and what for? Architecture is not a cartoon, a play, a novel, a joke. Note also the absence of all mention of beauty or elegance in this dithyramb—for a very good and sufficient reason. If anything could bear out precisely what the executive order says to justify its promulgation, it is this.

What the building projects is not enlightenment, but total inhumanity, a tendency to dictatorship, a deeply skewed scale of values, a total lack of aesthetic discrimination, and a surrender to a self-generating and perpetuating clique. As Thom Mayne, one of the leaders of that clique, put it, he would like to build only for other architects, the only persons qualified to judge and to admire what he does. Yet surely even he has an inkling, at some level in his mind, that he has made the world a little worse than he found it.

Be seeing you

In Novels, A Character Flaw | ArchDaily



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ayn Rand’s Greatest Mistake – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on December 28, 2019

As I finally began to realize, business people, Rand’s heroic figures notwithstanding, generally aren’t the champions of laizze-faire and free market voluntary exchange many libertarians tend to assume. Often, quite the contrary. Assuming otherwise was Ayn Rand’s greatest mistake.

Merchants using government to stifle the competition etc. is nearly as old as government itself. Like this “seven or eight hundred years’” effort to stifle competition from rural textile production and early trading for example – – –


It was those heady early days of the Libertarian Movement. Icons like David Nolan, Murray Rothbard and James Libertarian Burns still walked the earth — and L. Neil Smith was just getting up a head of steam.

That’s when I got my first clue to Ayn Rand’s greatest mistake, though, as often happens, I failed to understand it at the time. It came as Larry Moser and I gave a talk to the Las Vegas Junior Chamber of Commerce (the “JCs“).

We presented two libertarian issues; heroin decriminalization to demonstrate civil liberties and voluntary exchange in free markets to demonstrate economic freedom. Since JCs are business folks, we figured we’d get static on decriminalization, but if we addressed the free-trade issues last, we would leave them happy.

Sure enough, immediately after the decriminalization presentation one JC stood up and in no uncertain terms told us we were crazy to propose such a thing. Before we could answer, another JC said, “Sit down Bob. They’re right.”

There was a murmur of assent from the rest of the thirty or so, presumably conservative, business folks in the audience.

Larry and I looked at each other amazed. We figured we were over the hump.

After our free market presentation, however, there was dead silence. We felt a chill. Someone murmured something like “You can’t have that sort of thing going on.” Another murmur of assent. What was going on here?

My second clue came a few years later at the Colorado LP Presedential Nominating Convention just outside Denver where Bill Huncher was squaring off against Ed Clark. It came in a story related to me by a libertarian, let’s call him “Jim,” running for office in Colorado.

Jim had managed to get an appointment with Adolph Coors Jr., purportedly a libertarian sympathizer himself. During small-talk, Coors expressed admiration and support for the Libertarian Party and its “bold pro-freedom platform” about which he proved himself well informed. However when Jim asked for a campaign contribution, Mr. Coors declined.

If you were elected, you’d eliminate the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) wouldn’t you?” he asked. Jim responded that, in accordance with the LP Platform, indeed he would.

Mr. Coors explained that because of a regulatory technicality, Coors trucking subsidiaries didn’t have to “dead-head” and could bring their trucks back loaded, something ICC didn’t permit other trucking companies to do at the time.

ICC literally defined a truck returning full as “illegal competition” with the railroads. Coors Jr. forth-rightly told Jim that elimination of the ICC would thus weaken Coors’ competitive advantage and so he couldn’t justify supporting Libertarian candidates.

And another clue: In the late 1970s, developers in Lake Tahoe wanted to build a hotel/casino they were calling “The Park Tahoe,” but an environmental organization calling itself approximately “The Society to Preserve Lake Tahoe” (SPLT) blocked them every step of the way.

The main movers and shakers behind SPLT weren’t, however, environmentalists; they were Harrah’s, Harvey’s, Barney’s, Sahara Tahoe, and the other hotel/casino operators already established in the Stateline-South Shore area. Had all these casino organizations suddenly become environmentally conscious?

Shortly after the grand opening of Park Tahoe — which later became Caesar’s Tahoe — a local rancher applied for permits to build yet another hotel/casino across the street. Would you care to guess the identity of the newest environmentally conscious member of SPLT who zealously led the fight against this newest environmental hazard?

Park Tahoe of course!

As I finally began to realize, business people, Rand’s heroic figures notwithstanding, generally aren’t the champions of laizze-faire and free market voluntary exchange many libertarians tend to assume. Often, quite the contrary. Assuming otherwise was Ayn Rand’s greatest mistake.

Merchants using government to stifle the competition etc. is nearly as old as government itself. Like this “seven or eight hundred years’” effort to stifle competition from rural textile production and early trading for example – – –

“(h) The countryside was cut out of trade in the Middle Ages.
‘Up to and during the course of the fifteenth century the towns were the sole centers of commerce and industry to such an extent that none of it was allowed to escape into the open country’ (Pirenne, _Economic and Social History_, p.169). ‘The struggle against rural trading and against rural handicrafts lasted at least seven or eight hundred years’ (Heckscher, _Mercantilism_, 1935, Vol. I, p. 129). ‘The severity of these measures increased with the growth of ‘democratic government‘ . . . . ‘All through the fourteenth century regular armed expeditions were sent out against all the villages in the neighborhood and looms or fulling-vats [in which cloth was dyed] were broken or carried away.’ (Pirenne, op.cit., p. 211).” -Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation. (Boston: Beacon Press 1957), p. 277

You have to admit a century of loom-stealing and fulling-vat smashing shows persistence and dedication. And notice the connection to ‘democratic government.’

Seminal Austrian-school economist Ludwig von Mises completely understood the broader context of vested economic interests using government for their own ends, which of course, has been quite thoroughly perfected today – – –

The consumers do not care about the investments made with regard to past market conditions and do not bother about the vested interests of entrepreneurs, capitalists, land-owners, and workers… It is precisely the fact that the market does not respect vested interests that makes the people concerned ask for government interference. –Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

So, when vested interests ask for government interference — to protect themselves from markets and competition — they have to do it in cahoots with politicians.

To make this work, they regularly disguise the interference as “regulation.” They pretend “regulation” is to protect us “consumers” from businesses instead of the other way around.

You can catch a surprising glimpse of just how remarkably successful vested interests are at using politicians to get their disguised and bogus protective “regulation” here:

UNCOMMON SENSE: What government regulation is REALLY used for

HERE for updates, additions, comments, and corrections.

AND, “Like,” “Tweet,” and otherwise, pass this along!

Be seeing you



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ayn Rand

Posted by M. C. on November 19, 2019

“The first society in history whose leaders were neither Attilas nor Witch Doctors, a society led, dominated and created by the Producers, was the United States of America.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2019

Ayn Rand

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment » Alex Tabarrok on Paul Krugman’s Most Evil Idea

Posted by M. C. on August 6, 2019

From an Erik Torenberg interview of Alex Tabarrok: 

…Krugman and I are almost in perfect agreement. Only marginally different. Paul says ‘Republicans are corrupt, incompetent, unprincipled and dangerous to a civil society’. I agree with that entirely. I would only change one word. I would change the word
Republicans to the word politicians. If Paul could only be convinced of doing that, coming over to the libertarian side, we would be in complete agreement. But he is much more partisan than I am and even though I worry about Republicans more than Democrats at this particular point in time I think the larger incentive is that we all need to be worried about politicians rather than any one particular party.

Although I agree with Paul a lot of the time, sometimes he does just drive me absolutely batty. He just says things which I think are so wrong. In his latest column which to be fair was written as a column fifty years in the future so maybe it was a bit tongue in cheek. The column was pretending that Elon Musk and Peter Thiel were a hundred years of age and fit and fiddle and still major players in society. And Krugman wrote:
Life extension for a privileged few is by its nature a socially destructive technology and the time has come to ban it.
Now to me this is just evil. This is like something out of Ayn Rand’s Anthem, that it is evil to live longer than your brothers and all must be sentenced to death so that none live more than their allotted time. I think it is evil if we accept even the premise of his argument that these technologies are very expensive. Even on that ground it’s evil to kill people just so that they don’t live longer than average. But perhaps even a bigger point is that I think these technologies of life extension are some of the most important things that people are working on today. And the billionaires are doing an incredible service to humanity by investing in these radical ideas and pushing the frontier and that is going to have spillover effects on everyone. If we are to reach the singularity it will because the billionaires are getting us there earlier and faster and they are the ones pushing us to the singularity and everyone will benefit from these life extension technologies.
So I agree with Paul quite a bit, more than you might expect, but sometimes he just says things which are absolutely evil.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »