individualism for the masses
April 23, 2013 2 Comments
FEE just put my first Freeman article up on their website:
“Why Rhett Butler’s Weed Is So Strong”
Prohibition has driven the development of ever-stronger drugs, where a free market would see a proliferation of lighter options.
March 27, 2013 Leave a comment
Apropos news versus history, I like Scott Lahti‘s review of Memoirs of a Superfluous Man:
Be warned, though: after reading his MEMOIRS, you may find your cultural habits changed forever. You will never again feel the need to acquire an opinion of Tom Friedman’s latest essay in best-selling globaloney so as not to be caught short at the next round of cocktail-party Book-of-the-Moment-Club “conversation.” You will never again think of an Ivy League graduate or a Ph.D. on the one hand, and an educated mind on the other, as being in any way synonymous – even in theory. And you will never, even for a moment, confuse your daily NEW YORK TIMES habit with an instrument of mental cultivation – if, in fact, you retain it at all. And you may find yourself doubled over in helpless laughter the next time some Volvo-driving professional describes the programming on NPR as “serious intellectual radio.” And you will leave your first astonished reading of Nock with a silent question, addressed to every teacher and writer to whom you have hitherto entrusted the fertilization of your mind: “Where (or why) have you been hiding Albert Jay Nock all my life?”
February 20, 2013 Leave a comment
History can never be a science. There is no such thing as objective history, but does that mean that all histories are equally biased?
Like any form of interpretation, historical narrative will reflect the worldview of its author. I think the best a historian can do is to make his biases explicit, and explain what theory he is applying (if any) to connect causes and effects. Even then, the narrative will tell us as much about the historian as it will about the history being narrated.
This idea of history as a mirror into which the historian casts his gaze is clear to me whenever I read any history, but it has been especially clear to me recently, as I try to learn about the "Golden Age" of pirates.
Two examples should suffice.
January 4, 2013 Leave a comment
Hanna Rosin of The Atlantic argues that prosperity theology contributed to the housing bubble that caused the late-2000s financial crisis. She maintains that home ownership was heavily emphasized in prosperity churches, causing a reliance on divine financial intervention that led to unwise choices.
That’s one line that grabbed my attention in the already very interesting article featured on the front page of Wikipedia today: prosperity theology.
I wonder if Hanna Rosin of the Atlantic is at all familiar with Austrian business-cycle theory and the role of the Fed and fractional-reserve banking in general in the development of the housing bubble. I suspect not.
What is "prosperity theology"? It is apparently the belief that being a good Christian will make you wealthy.
My first thought was of Calvinism, where prosperity is considered a sign of being among God’s elect. But if I understand correctly, you can’t do anything as a Calvinist to become one of God’s elect, because God has already decided who is and isn’t saved, and there’s nothing you can do to change that. For the antinomians, such as Anne Hutchinson (whom Murray Rothbard considered America’s first individualist anarchist), the doctrine of predestination led to all sorts of behavior that other Christians would consider quite sinful. The antinomians were demonstrating their faith in their elect status by doing nothing to cause it. Even among Calvinists, however, the antinomians seemed like nut jobs. I think most Calvinists tried to act outwardly righteous and become prosperous to prove to themselves, if not to God, that they were among the elect.
But for prosperity Christians, the relationship between righteousness and wealth is one of cause and effect.
So while my first thought may have been of Calvinists, my second thought is of the classical pagans.
Bart Ehrman (website, blog) explains that religion in the world of the Roman Empire was not about ethics. To the classical Greco-Roman mind, ethics belonged to the discipline of philosophy, not religion. To religion belonged the practical undertaking of a quid pro quo with the myriad deities. The gods could punish or reward, so religion was the very businesslike pursuit of keeping on the good side of the relevant gods. It had nothing to do with faith, creed, or doctrine, and certainly had nothing to do with fidelity to any particular god. Best to think of it as a metaphysical form of customer relations — or maybe political lobbying captures it better.
For the better part of the past two millennia, Christians have not expected earthly rewards from God. What began as an apocalyptic religion, in which the forces of evil ruled over the present world, became a doctrine about and a focus on the afterlife. Reward was for the next world. This world was a "vale of tears."
Now, I have suspected for a while that there are plenty of 21st-century Christians whose thinking is much closer to that of the pagans — with religion as a consequentialist project more than a principled pursuit — but I’m a little surprised to find a whole movement within Christianity that makes the economic cause and effect so explicit.
December 20, 2012 Leave a comment
I tweeted this the other day:
Overheard this morning: “Well, I don’t follow the Mayans. I follow the King James version. And no man knows the day or the hour.”
Now we learn that Lio does follow the Mayans:
By the way, I did find it interesting that the woman I overheard didn’t just say that she followed the Bible; she specified the King James Version, and yet she did not use the KJV’s wording:
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Matthew 24:36)
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mark 13:32)
December 5, 2012 Leave a comment
“Nothing is more natural than humans innovating to make life safer or more comfortable. Not even having a baby without painkillers.”
Invisible Order’s Mike Reid reflects on what is and isn’t “natural,” while his baby daughter comes into the world.
This article will be in the next print edition of the Freeman, but you can read it now on FEE.org.
November 25, 2012 1 Comment
When I was a kid (and a default left-winger, like most of my friends), I remember seeing the movie Annie, Hollywood’s version of the Broadway musical. There’s a scene in the movie where a bomb-carrying Bolshevik (looking more like the cartoon stereotype of an anarchist than a commie, if I recall correctly) tries to blow up Daddy Warbucks.
Annie: Who would want to kill Mr. Warbucks?
Warbucks’s assistant: The Bolsheviks, dear. He’s living proof that the American system really works and the Bolsheviks don’t want anyone to know about that.
Annie: The Bolsheviks? Leapin’ lizards!
My opinion of this scene at the time is well summarized by blogger Martin Willet in his post “Why Bolsheviks Don’t Blow Up Billionaires”:
In the musical Annie evil Bolsheviks are seen trying to kill billionaire Oliver Warbucks, apparently out of jealousy and fear that he is an object lesson that capitalism works, but then the Bolshevik is not given any lines. How absurd, as if the existence of a billionaire proved capitalism was either healthy or fair. The name Warbucks probably reveals a political consciousness that has subsequently been strangled in America. The resentment of capitalists profiting (more accurately profiteering, that is making a profit the person doing the labeling doesn’t morally approve of) from war (the First World War in particular) has been a major cause of the growth of socialist and communist parties right the way across the world in the first half of the twentieth century.
But the logic of socialism, so clear to Mr. Willet and to my young self, is not necessarily as clear to actual working people — or to the subjects of a socialist dictator. The good folks at Reason.com (h/t @jeffreyatucker) tell a very different story in “How Larry Hagman Saved Romania from Communism” about the impact of Dallas‘s J.R. Ewing on the victims of Romanian communism:
Dallas was the last Western show allowed during the nightmarish 1980s because President Nicolae Ceausescu thought it showcased all that was wrong with capitalism. In fact, the show provided a luxuriant alternative to a communism that was forcing people to wait more than a decade to buy the most rattletrap communist-produced cars.
It’s somewhat painful to me to reflect on the idea that Ceausescu and I might have seen things the same way.
This for me is the critical line from Reason:
The impact of Dallas on global worldviews reminds us that “vulgar” popular culture is every bit as important as chin-stroking political discourse in fomenting real social change.
Throwaway cultural products influence far-flung societies in ways that are impossible for anyone, even dictators, to predict or control.
There’s an ongoing debate among libertarians about the importance of popular culture to the outreach efforts of the freedom philosophy. One important thing to remember is that the message sent is not always the same as the message received, especially across cultural boundaries. I look forward to hearing what my favorite anthropologist might have to say on this subject.
May 18, 2011 1 Comment
“I asked at the desk of my hotel if there were any churches nearby. The clerk responded that there weren’t but that there was an In-N-Out Burger if I liked burgers. I thought back to the one time I’ve had In-N-Out, and it was definitely an experience that brought me closer to God. I later learned that she probably thought I meant Church’s Chicken restaurants, which diminishes the quality of the story somewhat.”
– Art Carden, “The Majesty of the Law: TSA Edition”
December 7, 2010 Leave a comment
Via “Intellectual Properganda” by Stephan Kinsella
December 5, 2010 Leave a comment
The first review explains the concept. The second review is a new art form:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Elf on a Shelf
December 15, 2006
This review is from: The Elf on the Shelf: A Christmas Tradition with Blue Eyed North Pole Pixie-Elf (Toy)
We just received this as a gift. It is perfect for my 3 year old who is having constant struggles with being a good little boy as he grows more independent. We’ve named our elf and everyday we remind him that his elf is watching him and he instantly stops the negative behavior. He’s even told his wish list for Santa to his elf. It’s been a great motivational tool for improving his behavior when other techniques have failed. Brilliant idea!!
1.0 out of 5 stars
Now what?
December 4, 2010
By Pi (New Mexico)
This review is from: The Elf on the Shelf: A Christmas Tradition with Blue Eyed North Pole Pixie-Elf (Toy)
So, I bought this adorable elf, whom my three precious children named “Buttface” last year at Christmas time. Before Buttface arrived in our home I was at my wits end. My children would write on the walls with markers, crayons and even oil based paints. They would swing from the light fixture above our dining room table until it finally was pulled out of the ceiling. We had been dining by candlelight even since until Joey decided to light little Jimmy’s hair on fire one night as they fought over who got the red fork at dinner. We couldn’t even have a Christmas tree because Jack would try and climb it, or we would catch Jimmy swinging at it’s trunk with his Boy Scouts ax. I didn’t blame the dear child of course, he was merely using his vivid imagination to play a game of “Lumberjack”. Instead we would have the Christmas Shoe Box for Santa to put the presents in. I don’t care what anyone says, it was just as festive as any old tree. Eventually though I realized that my children were not behaving in a socially acceptable way when the FBI showed up at my door because the boys had called in a bomb threat to get out of a spelling test at school. Terribly upset, I consulted my pediatrician and we both agreed that my children’s behavioral issues were no fault of my own and that the ONLY solution to my discipline problems was “The Elf on The Shelf”.
I brought Buttface out of his box the day after Thanksgiving. For the entire month of December Jimmy, Joey and Jack were perfect angels. Cowering in abject fear over this tiny stuffed doll they behaved as well as the baby Jesus himself. It did make for a few night time bed wetting accidents as they were afraid to get out of bed at night for fear Buttface would be lurking in the hallway. Not once did they bite the dog, cut my hair while I slept or try to hotwire the car. It was a new record in our home. We actually got to have a tree that year and I thought my parenting troubles were over!! Bless you Buttface!
However, on December 26th, giddy with all the loot Santa had bought, which was a lot since they had been so extra good with the help of Buttface, my children knew they were off the hook for the next 11 months! They were back at it again, tipping over our refrigerator, trying to bathe the cat in the dishwasher and scamming old ladies out of their retirement by claiming to be princes from Nigeria in some email scam they had running.
So, in despair, I am asking that there be an elf of this nature to spy on my children and keep them on the straight and narrow year round! I know it would make my life a whole lot easier to know that I had an inanimate object in my house that was keeping my children on the straight and narrow and could take over the parenting duties on a daily basis, not just at Christmas time. Parenting is very hard work and we need all the help we can get. If I don’t have a toy such as this to teach my children right from wrong under the guise of spying on them and denying them presents if they behave badly, how will they ever learn?? Please, please, won’t somebody think of the children!
Update:
Father of Benjamin, husband of Nathalie, BK Marcus works from Charlottesville, Virginia, as a publishing consultant.
He is the former managing editor of Mises.org and the founder of Invisible Order.
