Monthly Archives: October 2008

Tom Harris MP thinks “an awful lot of people – perhaps dozens” are worried about our trend towards a police state

David Davis

Interesting comment thread on that post on his blog. About 97% critical of him I would guess. Brave guy, then, anyway.

And here’s Middleborough cops trying to interdict private photography in the street:-

Obama versus McCain: let’s all keep a sense of perspective

Peter Davis

Let’s concentrate on the important stuff…

…while greenazis demand a cut of £57 trillion in output, so we all have to become starving subsistence-farmers and yet live in the land that was the most efficient mechanized farming machine in the world – what they will love while they drive their SUV – and this is what the Paras were doing in the meantime….protecting the bastards’ right to flay us all with hunger and cold.

Libertarianism? Yes, for non-stalinists I think it’s good plan to be libertarian, and you might therefore be able to behave usefully as a sovereign individual in such a civilisation – ‘coz you’d know how to, sort of – but I’m not sure I’d any more want to die for a greenazi’s right to oppose us…not after what’s gone before. You know, guns and death and stuff, and “freedom fighters”. Skulls everywhere, many smashed and with biggish blast-holes: millions of the things… Year Zero; that sort of scumbag rubbish. Some things can’t be forgiven. I’d “let God sort them out”, from now on. Too much blood has flowed under the bridges, for us to be merciful any more.

I begin to understand the anger in blogs like the Devil, and Obnoxio, and Mr Eugenides….and all the others….we have tried to be patient men, but sometimes it does not work any more.

David Davis

The Landed Underclass sums up…..

…why we, who live in a stalinist paradise, need all these mind-altering potions. In the end, there is nothing. Even for those of us who believe in God and the eternity of Paradise in Heaven, scientists can’t really convince us that this will occur. So we have vodka and beer instead, to help us though the socialist “now” and its “future”.

David Davis

Oh dear…. why?

David Davis

Fast food outlets should be barred from opening near schools.”

Isn’t it enought that socialists have removed the content and taste from the lessons, for the poor little buggers? Do they have to do it to the food as well?

Hat tip Tim Worstall via Obnoxio the Clown.

If you have to turn all people into poor wrteched downtrodden sheeple, who agree with everything you say on Big Brother the Wireless Tele Vision, then at least let them have food which tastes of something.

It’s the socialists…..again

David Davis

India is climbing out of Ghandi-Nehru-induced barbarism and post-1947-reimposed-pre-British darkness, but the stalinists can’t have that. No, it can’t be allowed. For India to be a modern first-world nation will expose their dangerous irrelevance again, and a billion++++ people could be free, and for ever out of their control, if they are not careful. This stuff is no accident.

I just live to see the day when someone will say “thank you” to our civilisation. It is not this day, sadly, and Barack Obama is planning to postpone it for a very, very long time, and this really does matter, for he is about to, possibly drive the world’s most important polity for a few years, and I am very sad about that. (McCain would not be much better but the descent into the cesspool of oblivion and destruction,, under him, would take a bit longer.)

Rudyard Kipling wrote a story, once. Not really about India, but good anyway. Wayland Smith was free to go, as soon as someone thanked him, in the first chapter.

Fingerprinting of parents of nursery school children is of course, “not planned”.

David Davis


… = … Come in, Children, Eat, Relax, Obey……

I am astounded as usual, by the extent to which private outfits will sell rope to the hangmen.

As usual, Mr No-One, is planning to extend this scheme.In fact, more cleverly than is normally the case, he does not even get a mention.

Honeycomb Solutions (I bet you 50p that 90% of firms called “solutions” are hand-in-c*** glove with stalinist statists) says this. the article positively shimmers with all the statist planning buzzwords, and has prbably been written by the Department for Child Abuse Children (I expect there is one.)

As a Libertarian, one understands the concerns of the two parents of a child, for the wellbeing of their property, which is to say: the child. However, the fears of the majority about such things as abduction, molestation, paedophilia, assaults on children, and the like, all no more common now than 50 or 100 years ago, ought to be set aside in favour of the concern for civil liberty that this wedge-end-measure suggests will be the caes in more places in the future.

Who can say how long before it is used to prevent a “Fathers 4 Justice” father from getting his “kid” back from the State?

So why don’t we vote, then?

David Davis

The Landed Underclass comments sagely on why voting percentages have been falling like a stone for some years. If he’s got the right idea, then things are worse than we thought.

We in the LA used to sell a badge, in the early 1980s, in the Alternative Bookshop, whien we had a badge-making-machine. (I wonder what happened to it? It ought to be worth money and in a museum by now?)

One badge said:- “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal”.

Is the cavalry-charge of the Enemy Class, against mortal humans, out of control or is this sort of twaddle intended as “good Wireless Tele Vision”??

David Davis

Just look at the buggers. There’s a spat I hear, about one of them phoning some old guy about his grand-daughter. I’m sure it was “good broadcasting”. Now, I know jack-shit about slebs, not finding the Wireless Tele Vision News very helpful in my estimation of what’s happening to the planet – so I don’t watch it – at all at all at all. But these two have got to have been smoking or snorting something.

He's slept with your grand-daughter and he's so sorry!


Which one of the buggers is which? I do not know. Pray tell.

How are we going to re-encompass the regrowth of liberalism, if we have to contend with buggers like this, who contrive to upset people, for money, paid for by our taxation-take? What useful work could they do in a Libertarian nation, holding the beliefs they clearly do? I do not know.

What is to become of the BBC? What goes on these days is embarrassing to an old and civilised culture which thought it had given birth to it.

I am not suggesting that we ought to shoot all its directors, programme-controllers and major-presenters out-of-hand, against a wall in White City (a bit drastic I admit.) But ought a way to be found to curtail these Enemy Class excesses, while also removing the prohibition on ordinary British mortals from receiving RF signals?

Getting colder? Maybe.

David Davis

Useful stuff here.

I can’t think why the lefties always deny that the earth has no settled climate.

Perhaps all greenazis are climate-change-deniers, then?

Extreme Weather Alert: Meteorologists Predict Intensely Brisk Autumn

Surveillance and “management” … of what?

David Davis

I am indebted to Sofia for sending me the link to what’s below. Scary stuff when you integrate it all.

Libertarian Alliance showcase publication 20: Affirmative action, social terorism and trade Union freedom…

David Davis

Dr Jean-Louis Caccomo, Affirmative Action, Social Terrorism, and Trades Union Freedom: The Failures of the Fallacious Concept Of ‘Social Justice’, 2003

Affirmative Action, Social Terrorism, and Trades Union Freedom: The Failures of the Fallacious Concept Of ‘Social Justice’
Dr Jean-Louis Caccomo

Economic Notes No. 99

ISSN 0267-7164                   ISBN 1 85637 570 6

An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance,
Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, Mayfair, London W1J 6HL.

© 2003: Libertarian Alliance; Jean-Louis Caccomo.

Jean-Louis Caccomo is a lecturer in the Département des Sciences Économiques et de Gestion at the University of Perpignan, France. His speciality is economic dynamics and he wrote his thesis on the economic analysis of technological change.

The views expressed in this publication are those of its author, and
not necessarily those of the Libertarian Alliance, its Committee,
Advisory Council or subscribers.


The tendency to confuse the rhetoric of racism and exclusion with the functioning of the market economy is a disturbing sign of deep intellectual regression and mental manipulation. The moral and philosophical foundation of market individualism is not a smug cult of blind egoism, but rather a commitment to judge individuals without regard to attributes such as skin colour, ethnic origin, religion, socio-economic status, or sex. An individualistic society refuses to consider people on the basis of such attributes, insisting that before one is a man or a woman, a peasant or a professor, black or white, blue or white collar, one is an individual.

As long as we hold supreme the value of the individual – a value which can neither be dissolved in a group nor reduced to the sum of specific attributes – a just society can only be founded on a respect for individual choice. Only a State of Rights can guarantee Continue reading


David Davis

From Freeborn John: Now, then: why would people in the Gaza Strip want a socialist to be the president of the USA, and why would they put themselves out to try to ensure this thing, since they can’t officially vote? I can’t think of a reason, can you?

If people who terrorize people into trying to influence other people whom tey don’t know and who could possibly liberate them, into not liberating them, then this sort of stuff is also the business of this blog to expose.

The coming boom

David Davis

Interesting perspective on Forbes.

How socialism serves the people

David Davis

from Newmania:-

In 1948 the first year of the NHS there were 480,000 hospital beds and 176,000 people on the waiting list. Today there are 167,000 beds and 1,283,100 on the waiting list.
Sun 2.7.08

It probably cost less than in 1948, oh, half a billion, say. Now it’s 80-odd billion, rising.

I wonder what he wants?

David Davis

Lord Mandyperson seems to think it’s OK for him to hobnob with “oligarchs” who have silly names, but not for George Os-boy to do so. Of course, if Lord Mandy does it, it’s for the good of the country”. I can’t, though, wuite see how it was “bad for the country”, if little Os-boy either stepped aboard the famed yacht, or talked about declining £50,000 for the Tories, or both.

Personally, I would say that giving the Tories £50,000 of foreign money to fight the stalinists with, would do slightly less harm to the lives of ordinary wretched individuals in Britain today that having Lord Mandy in the government (again….and again….and again…) Perhaps that’s why the buggers have latched onto this one, and it’s just the old Enemy Class doing its stuff to us.

Let’s make every british subject into a policeman, and then there won’t be any crime.

At all at all at all.

David Davis

Now, we will be faced with handheld fingerptint scanners. Then anyone who even mildly dipleases the every increasing occupying army of “More Policemen On The Beat” – whether they are real or artificial ones – will be able to have his pawprints forcibly taken, and deleted afterwards kept on file for ever and ever.

Truly, the solution must be to force everyone to be a Policeman – whether he will or no. Then we can all spy on each other all the time, for ever, and crime will be a thing of the past, even though there will be more indictable offences than ever before.

What good people we shall have become!

For freedom to flourish, we need liberty (as I keep saying.)

David Davis

Hayek particularised this relationship between whatever “State” authorities there may be, and individuals, by stating that “to be controlled in one’s economic pursuits… to be controlled in everything”.

Today we learn that the Forestry Commission, a body statist to its very fibre (no pun intended) from its inception to its present activities, is to terminate ancient rights of individuals to collect fallen timber and dead wood for any purpose, on the grounds of “health and safety.”

I am not convinced that the right is enshrined in Magna Carta, as my copy does not appear to explicitly state it. But the point is that this is a symbolic act by a “big statist” QUANGO, designed further to separate individuals from victimless rights, which is to say natural ones as we have always described. it is nothing to do with “political correctness gone mad” – as if PC was something designed to help civilisations operate sanely and rationally anyway.

No: the plan to forbid people from gathering their own dead wood, instead “licensing” “local timber merchants” to sell it to them, merely is another act in the sordid sham of “bringing government closer to the people it serves”. Just like death-camps “served” the Jews and others under another socialist state I shan’t mention: government was brought closer to them than was good for their health and well-being.

Like my post the other day, on the true importance and meaning of revising history with regard to Agincourt (and why what the French revisionist historians are doint is TOTALLY relevant to the fight for liberty) what the Forestry-gauleiters are up to is yet another little detailed skirmish in the long retreat of liberty from the lives of ordinary people.

This gradual confiscation is designed to make it harder and harder for us to climb back out of the Dark Age in store for us, to a state where real Natural Rights can again be exercised in a minimal-statist environment. Successful conferences like ours which has just closed in London last night, will do great good in firing up the officers of libertarianism for the future. But officers are no use unless the “lesser folk”, for whom it is all about in the end, and of whom there are many many millions, understand what’s at stake, and how to use liberal philosophy to combat petty local assaults on natural rights.

Grand think-pieces will not be forgotten. But, in the even grander strategic context of British libertarian thought and tactics for re-engineering liberty for humans, this blog will increasingly take the role of exposer of petty, nasty, bureaucratic destruction of liberties, especially ancient ones.

Awards at the Libertarian Alliance conference. Brian is too modest.

David Davis

There was another one….

Congrats to old Brian, on his Lifetime Achievement Award. Via the Devil.

Agincourt and WW1: different enemies for different reasons. If libertarianism is not about defending what these old men think they fought for, then it is nothing.

David Davis

I have been garotted, in the last 48 hours or so, for writing about why it’s important to think about past battles of the English against large enemies who wanted us all dead for the wrong reasons, and what the impications are and were for the survival of libery for individuals.

All tyrants want the English dead. It ought not to be surprosing at all, at all at all. And their reasons are, naturally, wrong, for we are right. But without English liberalism there will be no libertarianism.

Here’s one of the very last articles that you will  ever read, about what my old man used to call “The Poor Old Chaps”. File it for historical purposes. It’s nearly Remembrance Sunday, and as these guys pass out of our lives and into memory, make a little note of them. Libertarian conferences are all very well and nice, but I don’t think we’d have been having any at all (at all at all) if things had been different by the end of the Third World War*** in 1991.

***First = 1752-1759

***second = 1793-1815

***third = 1899-1991

Trying to talk down at teenagers badly

David Davis

“Talking down to teenagers, badly”, is not in it! These guys (see below just here) just “do not quite cut the cake”. I’d give their stuff to an 8-yo as an example of how to construct sentences but no more than that. Not for philosophy.

Just look at what the Anchorage Daily News (or whatever it’s called) is saying about Republicans.

Ahhhhhhh….so that’s it then. How stupid of us not to see it….

David Davis

The continual and extending sexualisation of free-people’s children was written about earlier on here. Now, Trooper has made the connection with earlier but still fairly modern fascist Utopian literature on the subject, which could give us reasons why our children are all being sexualised by the State.

This may or may not have anything to do with why I, running this blog, now find it useful to outreach previously un-libertarianised groups in British society and elsewhere, such as young British men.

There’s nothing wrong with sex. I even agree with the horrible Paul Ehrlich that it’s nice. It is the reward, programmed into the operation of our bodies, and contrived from first principles for us by our genes, for us being successfully able to pass them on before we fry. They (our genes) are toast, otherwise. Er, that’s why it’s nice. Otherwise we wouldn’t be programmed to spend time working out obessively how to do it with someone.

But what he forgets is that the tragedy of civilisation, language, morality and goodness versus evil has crept into the woodwork. Matter has at last reached the state of consciousness where it contemplates its own existence, its origin, its possible fate, and what it ought to do in the meantime.

Thank God I still dont look like that,

Thank God I don't yet look like that...He's had too much sex, clearly. (Terrible hands.)

Libertarian Alliance quote of the day

David Davis

From the Remittance Man:-

“government extorts money from the people and then gives some of it back to them under terms far less favourable than if they’d kept it for themselves.”

Libertarian Alliance fringe-meeting-Samizdat-Essay-Prize competition

David Davis

What has the Battle of Agincourt got to do with Libertarianism? Discuss in no more than 300 words?

There’s a few clues here, cunningly not very well hidden in the post I wrote in rather a hurry yesterday.

There will be a first prize, of a shorted-debt-swap-option*** on a 50p bottle of State champagne-substitute for the winning entry.

***or whatever the thing is called….

Libertarian Alliance conference celebration post 10: Milton Friedman on self-interest and the profit motive (2)

Libertarian Alliance: Conference update

Antoine Clarke

I spoke to LA President Tim Evans twice earlier today.

The Conference is a great success with well over 100 attending on the first day and the dinner being packed. LA Director Sean Gabb’s warnings in the run-up to the event, that fire safety limits might be reached were no exaggeration. At this rate, there is no doubt that a bigger venue (perhaps at the National Liberal Club itself) may have to be considered next year.

…and to think there are people who think that the financial crisis is a blow for capitalism and its supporters.

I’m definitely looking forward to videos of the Conference appearing on-line, although it may be a while for this to be done, given the major logistical efforts underway.

I must admit I can’t decide if the one I’m most looking forward to is Hans Hermann Hoppe, or David Friedman. I had the pleasure of meeting Prof Hoppe on a strange trip to South Korea a number of years ago, which was also attended by science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle and Chris Tame himself. As for David Friedman, Brian Micklethwait once put it succinctly: he may one day be considered Milton Friedman’s most significant testimony. It’s in an LA pamphlet, but I’m unable to locate the title.

Apart from Tim, who I think has taken the vision of the Libertarian International Conference in London to a consistently more ambitious level, the three people I would want people to know have worked incredibly hard are Sean and Mrs Gabb, especially in coping with a heavier than expected administrative burden, with a fair bit of juggling duties, over the weekend and Helen Evans, whose preparations have been so comprehensive, that many potential snags have been avoided. I mention this because it is not always apparent what good has been done, until no one does it.

Are there improvements to make? I think I touched on this before, the answer is yes. Reaching the audience of people that cannot attend is the one I would highlight. The good news is that the means to do this have never been easier to do. Check out what Daily Kos does with Netroots Nation. The beauty is that most of the coverage costs virtually nothing to arrange. Letting bloggers sit at their laptops/streaming video phones  and use a wi-fi connection does not actually cost much, nor should it be hard to organize. That’s my number one tip for what to add next year.

Live-blogging or more press releases? No contest.

Libertarian Alliance conference celebration post 9: Milton Friedman on self-interest and the profit motive (1 of 2)

David Davis

The other one will try to come later, if I have been able to scratch my arse before the conference closes.

…and this one’s 30 years old! Surely, the oldies are the goodies, and I bet that not more than 20,000 of tomorrow’s Zoo and Nuts readers will have seen it before. So it’s worth airing. The illuminati of the british Libertarian Movement are not the only people who need to have heard of this guy, and otherswill not be picky about the age of a video clip either.

You may vote for more than one answer.

Antoine Clarke comments constructively on the Libertarian Alliance Blog

David Davis

Antoine, when you post, please could you kindly put your name, in blue italc type at or near the top of each post? Then everyone out there (who does not know us, and sadly that is still most people on the planet) will know who you are.

In the LA as we know, Chris Tame always said that a project belongs to him who does most to run it. I am fortunate to have been asked to run the blog, which had beet started before I came to it, and we are now read by an annualised (Peter Marsh’s  (of ABM) words not mine!) 180,000-odd people a year.

I do not care if Milton Friedman videos are 20 years old. I may well have seen these for the first time: how can one know? Anyway, things get old and stick around because they are good. Furthermore, I have not time to make new ones, and he, Friedman, will now find it hard to get to the appointment.

Two-and-a-quarter years ago, I did not know what blogging was. I had to be told by Sean. But soon I looked at a couple of liberal/libertarian/”right wing” blogs. I found that the popular ones were talking outwards to new people who had not really heard either of libertarianism (or even knew what liberalism really meant) or had not really got politicised.

Kelley Hazell (and refs to “bras”) are there on purpose. Can’t think why I didn’t do it before. (Don’t worry, she won’t be able to appear every day…) I want to get this blog’s teeth ibto the trousers of people who may well be supportive of liberal ideas but do not know why. Yep, even “Sun” readers. Of the Dead Tree Press, the Sun still has a circulation approaching 2 million. I don’t know what some libertarian blogs get, but it’s probably less than that. I know Samizdata gets several thousand a day, for which I also aim: Samizdata reads “rougher” than you think, Antoine! That is why it is popular.

If people start to think Kelley Hazell is getting boring, or if she marries a nice sensible plasterer and settles down to have “kids”, I may get someone else. I’ll have to see which one next airs her climate-change views on Sky news or wherever.

For too long, libertarian blogs hgave been talking to themselves and each other, while the Enemy Class strides on and our back is turned. If we don’t alert thousand, and thousands, and millions, of “ordinary” people to the issues soon, we might as well sit in each other’s lounges having meetings about philosophy.

I will have more to say later after I have been to work. Meanwhile, my Youtube research officer will find another old (but good) Friedman video for you all.

“A family blog”? Some blog…some family!

Antoine Clarke

I don’t read this blog, because I find it an embarrassment. I don’t write for it as much as I’d like either for the same reason.

The header only carries pictures of dead people, most of whom weren’t Libertarians.

Most of the writing on this blog would be great, if trying to talk down at teenagers badly was a good idea.

The skimpy ladies are idiotic (get a life, failing that, go to Zoo, Nuts or FHM). It reminds me of the 1980s overgrown adolescents’ game of counting female nipples in copies of Sunday Sport.

And this prose: OMG!

This fairly pleasant-looking young woman seems to have brought several hundred hits to the bolg, merely by tamely repeating “I’m saving the planet” mantras on Sky news. Astounding really, since we are just a think-tank, and we don’t even agree with her with the people who have told her what to say.

And, she’s even from Bromley. Just down the road really. Marilyn Monroe, you are nowhere, stop hanging out with the corrupt, grasping, self-centred Kennedys, and get a life.

As this is a family blog, read by women and children too, ladies don’t take off their bras in front of people they don’t know:-

Apart from the insane reference to Marilyn Monroe, the bit that gets me is the claim that “this is a family blog”. What kind of family? You would have had to beat me near death to read anything as bad as this blog when I was child. How many women read this blog?

Using Tags like this: Tagged: , , , , may get some people who search for these words on Google to accidentally land on the LA blog. But this is no more than Spam. I’d be annoyed, not happy, to search for “bra” and “girls” to find myself pointed to some of the rubbish on this blog.

I could excuse this, if there was anything of immediate relevance to Libertarian Alliance supporters. (What has the Battle of Agincourt got to do with Libertarianism? Discuss in no more than 300 words.)

What people who are unable to attend the LA Conference this weekend might like is live-blogging [here's a demonstration from the U.S. vice presidential debate recently] from the National Liberal Club. Instead we get Milton Friedman videos that, if I’m not mistaken, are nearly 20 years old.

Continue reading

Blogging, opinion, censorship and news. The left is getting jittery and will soon get nasty

David Davis

Out of ignorance, I don’t normally spend much time looking at Iain Dale but perhaps I ought. Apparently the left is irritated, via the New Statesman (I’d rename that if I was you, guys, and before we achieve global megapower) that “right wing blogs” deploy and need a “lot of money”.

I don’t think so. Nah. It just points up how they don’t understand either human interaction dynamics, or capitalism, which I guess really is the same thing.

But….how did a seriously-appreciable proprtion of the world’s humans actually get like that in the first place?

Did WE fail them? Is there what C S Lewis called “good” and “less good”…. or does primordial evil really exist?

And here’s Keeley Hazell and Jamie Oliver to entertain you all at dinner tonight…


Firstly, here is the News: JamieOliveOil talks about the EU common agricultural police:-

And Prodicus puts the BBC in its place, as a dinosaur of the MSM.


Go see this topless video first for it is more fun, and concerns your liberty. It is without top.

And I wonder what she thinks about the crown dependency of Forvik?

UPDATE2:- …for future visitors, say in 2009, the LA is a free-market Classical liberal think-tank and policy institute.  This post below was created for the amusement of our London Conference Dinner on 25th October 2008….

So, now that you’re here, why not stay and mine our unrepeatable archive of interesting Classical-liberal postings? Who knows – you might even end up a liberal yourself. And we do still do Keeley from time to time, for your delight and ours, maybe about every couple of days….

and…The Remittance Man carries, regularly, lots of pictures of girls! Not Keeley Hazell but other pretty unknowns, so be the first!

UPDATE:- ….and we even talk about other stuff on this post, more recently, as well as a couple of other pix of her

David Davis

This fairly pleasant-looking young woman seems to have brought several hundred hits to the bolg, merely by tamely repeating “I’m saving the planet” mantras on Sky news. Astounding really, since we are just a think-tank, and we don’t even agree with her with the people who have told her what to say.

And, she’s even from Bromley. Just down the road really. Marilyn Monroe, you are nowhere, stop hanging out with the corrupt, grasping, self-centred Kennedys, and get a life.

As this is a family blog, read by women and children too, ladies don’t take off their bras in front of people they don’t know:-

No, it stays on...

No, it stays on...

Libertarian Alliance conference celebration post 8: Milton Friedman on the role of Gold

Child abuse: Libertarians name and shame the guilty.

David Davis

From Obnoxio the Clown, we learn what the MSM has been allowed to report about the further degradation of British State Primary-School education – as if the seven-odd years that are spent in there by today’s state-Helots are not fully-wasted already…..

The comment thread is wonderful. Especially from Leg-Iron; view it for that alone. (That link is to his site, not the comment, you’ll have to go to obnoxio for that, for I don’t know how to do it and I’m ill anyway.)

“Healthy living, multiculturalism, personal development”….I sometimes wonder how these peoploids who expectorate this pretentious drivvle manage to keep a straight face after so many years of it.

Perhaps they really, really are exactly as cruel and irremediably, deeply, blackly, pre-meditatedly and strategically wicked as I have sadly calculated, and as I increasingly suspect since my sums add up…..

…..and that, in the end, there can, tragically, be no place for them in a civilised polity – whether they are living….or dead.

Revising Agincourt: this is merely a part of a generalised Marxist-Twaddle-Assault on the credibility of those few civilisations which could, or can, sustain liberalism.

AGINCOURT is today.

David Davis

The post below has this link. I’m not sure what other papers have picked it up as I have not time, and am ill, but it may be a few.

The slaughter at Agincourt, as has been well-known for some centuries, in fact from day-1, was terible. Juliet Barker’s 2005 book published by Abacus, a must-read even if you know all the other well-researched acounts, goes into astonishingly minute and also rather gory detail.

There were, fistly, all sorts of “issues” going on. The English, tired, depleted by adventures at Harlfeur and by dysentery (inevitable then) were with their backs to the wall: pooing what was left of their pants into the mud, hungry, cold, and not of a mind to surrender, since the political consequences would have been unbearable for decades if not longer. Whether their subsequent adventures and attempts to hold onto Englsih territory on the European Mainland were wise or not, history has shown.

The French, enraged rightly or otherwise by this impertinent fleabite of an attack on their sovereignty and amour-propre – triggered as it was by imperfectly-interpreted and imperfectly-drafted State-succession-case-Law, which was at best ambiguous, would inevitably wipe out this rump of an invading force if they could ride it down (and they planned to.) If the Oriflamme was shown (it was) then there “would be no quarter given”.

The issue was tactically settled on the day by the Longbowmen, largely – and by careful and intelligent choice of ground and cover, as well as the weather! The French were faced with ground and confinement of their front which would have been difficult in the best conditions, without having to endure the archers on top. Their fate was simply terribly unfortunate. Furthermore, if they had not tried to mount a flanking attack on the English baggage-train, or looked as if they were going to, then a number of prisoners would not have been killed out-of-hand (some were.)

There had been plenty of years since Crecy or even earlier, for them to learn the art of archery with the longbow, and to encourage their peasantry to use it and own it: the same trees were even available to them. Other nations’ failure to adopt the logical and cheapest antidote to this medieval equivalent of a thermonuclear device can thus only be put down to destructive xenophobia and the wrong kind of conservatism. Or perhaps they feared its distribution in their populations?

No. This is what’s happening now: English liberal (which is to say, conservative) civilisation looks weak right now – weaker than at any time I can remember, having been under constant and probably co-ordinated attack since the 19th century. This latest jab, by French “revisionist” historians (with nobody else invited) is but one more way to bully and twist the tail of an already wounded beast, which unlike real beasts of the Wild happens unconditionally to be in the moral right.

The problem of how to preserve a polity, together with its historical and philosophic canon on which it is based, that can, or could nurture liberalism and libertarianism in the end, ought to be a keytone.

How do we make the world safe for liberty?

This does not, moreover, even begin to address the problem we have of how we initiate (or, worse, have to re-initiate) liberty, in conditions where it has been expunged. Like modern Britain?

These small events  and attacks may individually be but pinpricks. But, whether or no, we MUST treat them as co-ordinated, for they ultimately are, in a Gramscian sense. While yet having grand conferences (ours is going on right now) to decide the broad strategy for the defence and extensions of liberty, we MUST defeat these attacks IN DETAIL.

If we do not, then because the fascist lefties currently control the terms of discourse, ground lost becomes ground we don’t any more occupy in public in front of the undecided – and THAT is what matters.

Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize Winning Essay

Sean Gabb

I, writing from the National Liberal Club in London, where the Libertarian Alliance and Libertarian International are holding our 2008 conference.

This is going well.

This evening, at the dinner, I will announce the winner of the Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize. I can tell you all now that the winner is Keith Preston. His essay was, in my opinion, the best. Here it is:

Keith Preston is the founder and director of American Revolutionary Vanguard, a U.S.-based tendency committed to advancing the principles of anti-statism, personal liberty, cooperative individualist economics, and the sovereignty and self-determination of communities and nations. He is a graduate student in history, an independent business owner and entrepreneur, and advocate of a new radicalism that reaches beyond the archaic left/right model of the political spectrum. See the ARV website at

Free Enterprise: The Antidote to Corporate Plutocracy

A political libertarian, broadly defined, is someone who wishes to dramatically

reduce the role of the state in human social life so as to maximize individual freedom of

thought, action and association. The natural corollary to libertarian anti-statism is the

defense of the free market in economic affairs. Many libertarians and not a few

conservatives, at least in the Anglo nations, claim to be staunch proponents of free

enterprise. Yet this defense is often rather selective, and timid, to say the least.

Libertarians and free-market conservatives will voice opposition to state-owned enterprises, the social welfare and public health services, state-funded and operated educational institutions, or regulatory bureaus and agencies, such as those governing labor relations, relations between racial, ethnic, and gender groups, or those regulating

the use of the environment. Curiously absent among many libertarian, conservative, or free-market critiques of interventions by the state into society are the myriad of ways in which government acts to assist, protect, and, indeed, impose outright, an economic order maintained for the benefit of politically connected plutocratic elites. Of course, recognition of this fact has led some on the Left to make much sport of libertarians, whom they often refer to, less than affectionately, as “Republicans who take drugs”,

or “Tories who are soft on buggery”, and other such clichés.

Some advocates of free enterprise will respond to such charges by indignantly proclaiming their opposition to state efforts to “bail out” bankrupt corporations or subsidies to corporate entities for the ostensible purpose of research and development. Yet such defenses will often underestimate the degree to which the state serves to create market distortions for the sake of upholding a corporation-dominated economic order. Such distortions result from a plethora of interventions including not only bailouts and subsidies but also the fictitious legal infrastructure of corporate “personhood”, limited liability laws, government contracts, loans, guarantees, purchases of goods, price controls, regulatory privilege, grants of monopolies, protectionist tariffs and trade policies, bankruptcy laws, military intervention to gain access to international markets and protect foreign investments, regulating or prohibiting organized labor activity, eminent domain, discriminatory taxation, ignoring corporate crimes and countless other

forms of state-imposed favors and privileges.1

Perhaps the efficacious gift to the present corporate order by the state has been

what Kevin Carson calls “the subsidy of history,” a reference to the process by which the

indigenous inhabitants and possessors of property in land were originally expropriated

during the course of the construction of traditional feudal societies and the subsequent

transformation of feudalism into what is now called “capitalism”, or the corporatist-

plutocratic societies that we have today. Contrary to the myths to which some subscribe,

including many libertarians, the evolution of capitalism out of the old feudal order was

not one where liberty triumphed over privilege, but one where privilege asserted itself in

newer and more sophisticated forms. As Carson explains:

There were two ways Parliament could have abolished feudalism

and reformed property. It might have treated the customary possessive

rights of the peasantry as genuine title to property in the modern sense,

and then abolished their rents. But what it actually did, instead, was to

treat the artificial “property rights” of the landed aristocracy, in feudal

legal theory, as real property rights in the modern sense; the landed

classes were given full legal title, and the peasants were transformed

into tenants at will with no customary restriction on the rents that could be charged…

In European colonies where a large native peasantry already lived,

states sometimes granted quasi-feudal titles to landed elites to collect

rent from those already living on and cultivating the land; a good example

is latifundismo, which prevails in Latin America to the present day.

Another example is British East Africa. The most fertile 20 percent of

Kenya was stolen by the colonial authorities, and the native peasantry

evicted, so the land could be used for cash-crop farming by white settlers

(using the labor of the evicted peasantry, of course, to work their own

former land). As for those who remained on their own land, they were “encouraged” to enter the wage-labor market by a stiff poll tax that had

to be paid in cash. Multiply these examples by a hundred and you get a

bare hint of the sheer scale of robbery over the past 500 years.

…Factory owners were not innocent in all of this. Mises claimed that the

capital investments on which the factory system was built came largely

from hard-working and thrifty workmen who saved their own earnings

as investment capital. In fact, however, they were junior partners of the

landed elites, with much of their investment capital coming either from

the Whig landed oligarchy or from the overseas fruits of mercantilism,

slavery and colonialism.

In addition, factory employers depended on harsh authoritarian measures

by the government to keep labor under control and reduce its bargaining

power. In England the Laws of Settlement acted as a sort of internal passport system, preventing workers from traveling outside the parish of their birth

without government permission. Thus workers were prevented from “voting

with their feet” in search of better-paying jobs. You might think this would

have worked to the disadvantage of employers in under populated areas, like Manchester and other areas of the industrial north. But never fear: the state

came to the employers’ rescue. Because workers were forbidden to migrate

on their own in search of better pay, employers were freed from the necessity

of offering high enough wages to attract free agents; instead, they were able

to “hire” workers auctioned off by the parish Poor Law authorities on terms

set by collusion between the authorities and employers.2

The Central American nation of El Salvador provides an excellent case study in

how “actually existing capitalism” came about. The indigenous people of El Salvador,

known as the Pipil Indians, were conquered in the early sixteenth century by the Spanish

conquistadors. It was not until 1821 that El Salvador claimed its independence from

Spain and subsequently became an independent nation in 1839. The system of land

ownership in Salvadoran society was communal in nature as late as the end of the

eighteenth century with ownership rights relegated to individual towns and Pipil villages.

The primary agricultural products produced by the peasants were cattle, indigo, corn,

beans and coffee. The Pipil were essentially practicing a type of collective self-


As the international market for coffee expanded, some of the wealthier and more

powerful merchants and landowners began pressuring the Salvadoran government to

intervene into the economic structures of the nation in such a way as to make the

accumulation of personal wealth more rapid through the establishment of larger, private

plantations with a more greatly regimented labor force. Consequently, the government

began to destroy the traditional system of property rights held by the towns and villages

in order to establish individual plantations owned by those from the privileged classes

who already possessed the means of acquiring credit. This change was implemented in

several steps. In 1846, landowners with more than 5,000 coffee bushes were granted

immunity from paying export duties for seven years and from paying taxes for a ten year

period. Plantations owned by the Salvadoran government were also transferred to

politically connected private individuals. In 1881, the communal land rights the Pipil had

possessed for centuries were rescinded, making self-sufficiency for the Indians

impossible. The government subsequently refused to grant even subsistence plots to the

Pipil as the Salvadoran state was now fully under the control of the large plantation

owners. This escalating economic repression was met with resistance and five separate

peasant rebellions occurred during the late nineteenth century. By the middle part of the

twentieth century, El Salvador’s coffee plantations, called fincas, were producing ninety-

five percent of the country’s export product and were controlled by a tiny oligarchy of

landowning families.3

The phrase “means of acquiring credit” from the previous paragraph is a

particularly significant one as the purpose of state control over banking and the issuance

of money serves to narrowly constrict the supply of available credit which in turn renders

entrepreneurship inaccessible to the majority of the population at large. Indeed, Murray

Rothbard argued that bankers as a class “are inherently inclined towards statism”4 as they

are typically involved with unsound practices, such as fractional reserve credit, that

subsequently lead to calls for assistance from the state, or derive much of their business

from direct involvement with the state, for instance, through the underwriting of

government bonds. Therefore, the banking class becomes the financial arm of the state

not only by specifically underwriting the activities of the state, such as war, plunder and

repression, but also by serving to create and maintain a plutocracy of businessmen,

manufacturers, politically-connected elites and others able to obtain access to the

narrowly constricted supply of credit within the context of the market distortions

generated by the state’s money monopoly.5

The process by which “capitalism” as it is actually practiced in the modern

countries developed-by means of a partnership between the forces of state and capital,

rather than through a genuine free market-has already been very briefly described. There

remains the question of how this relationship has subsequently been maintained over the

past two centuries. Gabriel Kolko’s landmark study of the historic relationship between

state and capital traced the development of this symbiosis from the “railroad government

complex” of mid-nineteenth century America through the supposed “reforms” of the so-

called Progressive Era to the cartelization of labor, industry and government by means of

Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.6 At each stage of this development of American state-

capitalism, members of “the capitalist class”-bankers, industrialists, manufacturers,

businessmen-adamantly pushed for and were directly involved in the creation of a state-

managed economy whose effect would be to shield themselves from smaller, less

politically connected competitors, co-opt labor unions and generate a source of

monopolistic protection and cost-free revenue from the state. Similar if not identical

parallels can be found in the development of state-capitalism in the other modern


Indeed, parallels can also be drawn between the structures of contemporary state-

capitalism and historic feudalism. Since the High Middle Ages government has been

transformed from its earlier identification with a specific person or persons into a

corporate entity with a life and identity of its own beyond that of its individual members.8

Out of this process of transformation from personal government to corporate government,

the evolution of a system of state-capitalist privilege that has supplanted feudal privilege,

the ever greater interaction and co-dependency between the plutocratic elite and the

minions of the state, and the wider integration of organized labor, political interests

groups generated by mass democracy and unprecedented expansion of the public sector

has emerged a politico-economic order that might be referred to as the “new

manorialism”. These “new manors” are the multitude of bureaucratic entities that

maintain an institutional identity of their own, though their individual personnel may

change with time, and who exist first and foremost for the sake of their own self-

preservation, irrespective of the original purposes for which they were ostensibly

established. The “new manors” may include institutional entities that function as de jour

arms of the state, such as regulatory bureaus, police and other “law enforcement”

agencies, state-run social service departments or educational facilities, or they may

include de facto arms of the state, such as the banking and corporate entities whose

position of privilege, indeed, whose very existence, is dependent upon state intervention.9

Out of this domestic state-capitalist order there has emerged an overarching

international order rooted in the pre-eminence of the American state-capitalist class and

its junior partners from a number of the other developed nations. Hans Hermann Hoppe

describes this arrangement:

Moreover, from a global perspective, mankind has come closer than

ever before to the establishment of a world government. Even before

the destruction of the Soviet Empire, the United States had attained

hegemonical status over Western Europe…and the Pacific Rim countries…

as indicated by the presence of American troops and military bases…

by the role of the American dollar as the ultimate international reserve

currency and of the U.S. Federal Reserve System as the “lender” or

“liquidity provider” of last resort for the entire Western banking system,

and by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the

World Bank and the…World Trade Organization. In addition, under

American hegemony the political integration of Western Europe has steadily advanced. With the recent establishment of a European Central Bank and a European Currency (EURO), the European Community is near completion.

At the same time, with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

a significant step toward the political integration of the American continent

has been taken. In the absence of the Soviet Empire and its military threat,

the United States has emerged as the world’s sole and undisputed military superpower and its “top cop.”10

Such is what “big business” has wrought. Such an international imperial order is about as

far removed from the libertarian principles of small government and free enterprise as

anything could possibly be. Thus far in this discussion, the surface has only been

scratched concerning the deformation of the natural market process from what it might

otherwise have been because of state intervention and the corresponding system of

corporate plutocratic rule. No mention has been made of the monopoly privilege inherent

in patent laws and the legal concept of “intellectual property.” The role of transportation

subsidies in the centralization of wealth and the destruction of smaller competitors to “big

business” has not been discussed. Indeed, a credible case can be made that without direct or indirect subsidies to those transportation systems such as air, water or long distance land travel that are necessary for the cultivation and maintenance of markets over large geographical entities, the kind of domination of present day retail and commercial food markets exercised by such gargantuan entities as Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, Tesco and others would likely be impossible. 11 No challenge has been made to conventional

views regarding legitimacy of land titles as opposed to contending views, such as those

rooted in usufructuary or geoist principles.12 There has been no discussion, as there easily

could be, of the role of the state in the creation of the underclass of contemporary

societies and the related social pathologies, a situation whose roots go far deeper than the

mere “culture of dependency” bemoaned by conventional conservatives and some

libertarians.13 The role of the state in the dispossession of the indigenous agricultural

population in the period of early capitalist development in the West and in the

contemporary Third World has been mentioned, but such dispossessions continue to

occur even in modern societies.14

The implications of these insights for libertarian strategy are rather profound

indeed. If libertarianism is to be identified in the public mind and among lay people as an

apology for the corporation-dominated status quo, and if libertarians proceed as if

“conservative” apologists for big business were their natural friends, and insist that a libertarian world would be one ruled by the likes of Boeing, Halliburton, ‘Tesco, Microsoft, or Dupont, then libertarianism will never be anything more than an appendage to the ideological superstructure modern intellectual classes use to legitimize plutocratic rule.15 However, if libertarianism asserts itself as a new radicalism, the polar opposite of plutocrat-friendly “conservatism”, and more radical than anything offered by the increasing moribund and archaic Left, then libertarianism may well indeed inspire new generations of militants to take aim at the statist status quo. Libertarianism may become the guiding system of thought for radicals and reformers everywhere as liberalism was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and as socialism was for subsequent generations.16

As for the question of what an economy devoid of statist, corporatist and

plutocratic rule would actually look like, it can be expected that removal of state-imposed

barriers to obtainment of credit, entrepreneurship and economic self-sufficiency (as

opposed to dependency on state and corporate bureaucracies for employment, insurance

and social services) will be one where Colin Ward’s ideal of a “self-employed” society is

largely realized.17 No longer will the average man be dependent on Chase Manhattan, Home Depot, General Motors, ‘Tesco or Texaco for his livelihood or his sustenance. Instead, he will have finally acquired the means of existing economically as a self-sufficient dignified individual in a community of peers where privilege is the result of merit and equal liberty is the unchallengeable prerogative of all.

Early in the twentieth century there were a variety of movements championing the independent small producer and the cooperative management of large enterprises including anarcho-syndicalism from the extreme Left and distributism from the reactionary Catholic Right.18 These tendencies still exist on the outer fringes of political and economic thought. One need not agree with every bit of analysis or every proposal advanced by these schools of thinking to recognize their visionary libertarian aspects. Numerous economic arrangements currently exist that offer glimpses into what post-statist, post-plutocratic institutions of production might be.

One of these is the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, a collection of worker-

owned and operated industries originating from the Basque region of Spain. Having been

in existence since 1941, the Mondragon cooperatives initially established a “peoples’

bank” of the kind originally suggested by the godfather of classical anarchism, Pierre

Joseph Proudhon,19 for the development of still more enterprises, which now total more

than 150 in number, including the private University of Mondragon. Its supermarket

division is the third largest retail outlet in Spain and the largest Spanish-owned food store

chain. Each individual cooperative has a workers’ council of its own, and the entire

cooperative federation is governed by a congress of workers from the different

enterprises. 20

Still another quite interesting example is the Brazilian company Semco SA. While

privately owned as a family business, Semco practices a form of radical industrial democracy. Under the leadership of Ricardo Semler, who inherited the company from his

father, Semco maintains a management structure where workers manage themselves and

set their own production goals and budgets with remuneration based on productivity,

efficiency and cost effectiveness. Workers receive twenty-five percent of the profits from

their division. Middle management has essentially been eliminated. Workers have the

right of veto over company expenditures. Job duties are frequently rotated and even the

CEO position is shared by six persons, including owner Semler, who serve six month

terms in the chief executive position. The company now has over 3,000 employees,

annual revenue of over $200 million and a growth rate of forty percent each year.21

An economy organized on the basis of worker-owned and operated industries,

peoples’ banks, mutuals, consumer cooperatives, anarcho-syndicalist labor unions,

individual and family enterprises, small farms and crafts workers associations engaged in

local production for local use, voluntary charitable institutions, land trusts, or voluntary

collectives, communes and kibbutzim may seem farfetched to some, but no more so and

probably less so than a modern industrial, high-tech economy where the merchant class is

the ruling class and the working class is a frequently affluent middle class would have

seemed to residents of the feudal societies of pre-modern times. If the expansion of the

market economy, specialization, the division of labor, industrialization and technological

advancements can bring about the achievements of modern societies in eradicating

disease, starvation, infant mortality and early death, one can only wonder what a genuine

free enterprise system might achieve, and would have already achieved were it not for the

scourge of statism and the corresponding plutocracy.

1 Kevin A. Carson, The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand: Corporate-Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege (Red Lion Press, 2001-Revised January 2002).

2 Kevin A. Carson, “The Subsidy of History”, The Freeman, Vol. 58, No. 5, June 2008.

3 Raymond Bonner, Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador. (New York: Times Books, 1984), pp. 19- 23.

4 Murray N. Rothbard, “Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy”, World Market Perspective, 1984.

5 Rothbard, Ibid.; Kevin A. Carson, “Tucker’s Big Four: The Money Monopoly”, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Chapter Five: Section B. Archived at http:// . Accessed September 10, 2008; Hans Hermann Hoppe, “Banking, Nation-States and International Politics: A Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order” The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993), pp. 61-92; Benjamin R. Tucker, “Part II: Money and Interest”, Instead Of A Book, By A Man Too Busy To Write One, 1897. Archived at

Accessed on September 10, 2008.

6 Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism, MacMillan, 1963.

7 Terry Arthur, “Free Enterprise: Left or Right? Neither!”, Libertarian Alliance, 1984.

8 Martin Van Creveld, The Rise and Decline of the State (Cambridge University Press, 1999).

9 James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution: What Is Happening in the World (Greenwood Press Reprint, 1972, originally published in 1940). This classic conservative work argues that modern societies are neither “capitalist” nor “socialist” in the way these terms were historically understood. Instead, a new kind of politico-economic order has emerged in modern times where political and economic rule is conducted by a “managerial class” of bureaucrats presiding over mass organizations-governments and their bureaus and agencies, corporations and financial institutions, armies, political parties, unions, universities, media, foundations and the like. Membership in the upper strata of these entities is often rotational in that many of the same individuals shift about from the various sectors of the managerial class, for instance, from elected positions in government to corporate boards of directors to key positions in the media or elite foundations to appointed positions in the bureaucracy.

10 Hans Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed. (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2001), pp. 108-109.

11 Kevin A. Carson, “Transportation Subsidies”, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Chapter Five, Section E. Archived at Accessed on September 10, 2008.

12 Among anti-state radicals, a fairly wide divergence of opinion exists concerning the manner by which property rights in land should be defined. Most “mainstream” libertarians hold to some version of Lockean property rights while more radical libertarians (mutualists, syndicalists, anarcho-communists) along with some distributists argue that property rights should be defined according to the principles of occupancy and use. Still others adhere to the view of Henry George (geoism or geolibertarianism) that land ownership should be subject to a land value tax. For a discussion of this controversy among libertarians, see Kevin A. Carson, “Tucker’s Big Four: The Land Monopoly”, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Chapter Five: Section B. Archived at Accessed on September 10, 2008. Carson summarizes the matter elsewhere: “In Chapter Five of Mutualist Political Economy, I included an extended discussion of property rights theory that relied heavily on “Hogeye Bill” Orton’s commentary from sundry message boards. According to Orton, no particular theory of property rights can be logically deduced from the axiom of self-ownership. Rather, self-ownership can interact with a variety of property rights templates to produce alternative economic orders in a stateless society. So whether rightful ownership of a piece of land is determined by Lockean, a mutualist, Georgist, or syndicalist rule is a matter of local convention. Questions of coercion can only be settled once this prior question is addressed. And since there is no a priori principle from which any particular set of rules can be deduced, we can only judge between them on consequentialist grounds: what other important values do they tend to promote or hinder?
So it’s quite conceivable that non-severable, non-marketable shares in a collectively owned enterprise might depend, not on contract among the members, but on the property rights convention of the local community. Saying that such an arrangement is “coercion” is begging the question of whether the Lockean rules for initial acquisition and transfer of property is the only self-evidently true ones.” Carson, “Socialist Definitional Free-for-All, Part I”, Archived at Accessed on September 10, 2008.

13 No doubt much conservative criticism of the welfare state for creating perverse incentives for anti-social behavior, such as familial dysfunction, criminality and a hindered work ethic, are correct and insightful. Yet, many of the social pathologies associated with the “underclass” populations of American and European cities is traceable to detrimental state interventions far beyond those of conventional social welfare systems. A number of works by libertarians and non-libertarians alike have documented the process by which organic social, economic and cultural life has been destroyed among these populations by a wide range of interventions, most of which are imposed for the sake of advancing plutocratic interests. See Kevin A. Carson, “Reparations: Cui Bono?” Archived at Accessed on September 10, 2008; Charles Johnson, “Scratching By: How Government Creates Poverty As We Know It”, The Freeman, Vol. 57, No. 10, December 2007; Keith Preston, “The Political Economy of the War on Drugs”, (American Revolutionary Vanguard, 2001), Archived at Accessed on September 10, 2008; Thomas J. Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit, (Princeton University Press, 1996, 2005); Walter E. Williams, The State Against Blacks, (McGraw-Hill, 1982).

14 For an illuminating discussion of the role of state intervention in the dispossession of the indigenous rural agricultural population of America’s heartland in the 1980s and 1990s, see James Bovard, Farm Fiasco, (ICS Press, 1989) and Joel Dyer, Harvest of Rage, (Westview Press, 1997).

15 The role of the intellectual class as both a constituent group for statism and as the creators of the ideological superstructure of statism is discussed in Hans Hermann Hoppe, “Natural Elites, Intellectuals and the State”, Mises Institute, July 21, 2006. Archived at Accessed on September 11, 2008. Of course, the concept of an ideological superstructure used to legitimize a particular system of class rule is most closely associated with Marxist analysis. For an examination of the differences as well as the points of agreement between Marxists and libertarians, see Hans Hermann Hoppe, “Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis”, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993), pp. 93-110.

16 Murray Rothbard considered libertarians to be the far left end of the political spectrum, with “conservatives”, i.e., proponents of an authoritarian order based on hierarchy, status, and privilege (and justified with appeals to tradition) to be on the far right, with Marxists and other socialists constituting an incoherent middle-of-the-road position. See Murray N. Rothbard, Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, (Cato Institute, 1979). The left-wing anarchist Larry Gambone’s exhaustive examination of the thinking of the early socialists indicates that the original aim of socialism was not the state-run economies associated with socialism in contemporary political discourse, but an economy ordered on the basis of decentralized cooperative enterprises. Larry Gambone, “The Myth of Socialism as Statism”, (Porcupine Blog, May 6, 2006). Archived at Accessed on September 11, 2008.

17 Colin Ward, “A Self-Employed Society”, Anarchy In Action, (London: Freedom Press, 1982), pp. 95-109.

18 Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, (Martin Secker and Warburg, Ltd., 1938); Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State, (The Liberty Fund, originally published in 1913); G. K. Chesterton, The Outline of Sanity, (HIS Press, 2002, originally published in 1927); Anthony Cooney, Distributism, (Third Way Movement Ltd., 1998).

19 Larry Gambone, Proudhon and Anarchism: Proudhon’s Libertarian Thought and the Anarchist Movement, (Red Lion Press, 1996).

20 William Whyte, Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex, (ILR Press, 1991).

21 Ricardo Semler, Maverick, (Arrow Press, 1993).


Arthur, Terry, “Free Enterprise: Left or Right? Neither!”, Libertarian Alliance, 1984.

Belloc, Hilaire. The Servile State. The Liberty Fund, originally published in 1913.

Bonner, Raymond. Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador. New York: Times

Books, 1984.

Bovard, James. Farm Fiasco. ICS Press, 1989.

Burnham, James. The Managerial Revolution: What Is Happening in the World.

Greenwood Press Reprint, 1972, originally published in 1940.

Carson, Kevin A. “Reparations: Cui Bono?”Archived at

Carson, Kevin A.,“Socialist Definitional Free-for-All, Part I”, Archived at Accessed on September 10, 2008.

Carson, Kevin A. The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand: Corporate-Capitalism As a

State-Guaranteed System of Privilege. Red Lion Press, 2001-Revised January


Carson, Kevin A. “The Subsidy of History”, The Freeman, Vol. 58, No. 5, June 2008.

Carson, Kevin A., “Transportation Subsidies”, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy,

Chapter Five, Section E. Archived at Accessed on

September 10, 2008.

Carson, Kevin A. “Tucker’s Big Four: The Land Monopoly”, Studies in Mutualist

Political Economy, Chapter Five: Section B. Archived at Accessed on September 10, 2008.

Carson, Kevin A. “Tucker’s Big Four: The Money Monopoly”, Studies in Mutualist

Political Economy, Chapter Five: Section B. Archived at http:// . Accessed September 10, 2008.

Chesterton, G. K. The Outline of Sanity. HIS Press, 2002, originally published in 1927.

Cooney, Anthony. Distributism. Third Way Movement Ltd., 1998.

Dyer, Joel. Harvest of Rage. Westview Press, 1997.

Gambone, Larry. Proudhon and Anarchism: Proudhon’s Libertarian Thought and the

Anarchist Movement. Red Lion Press, 1996.

Gambone, Larry, “The Myth of Socialism as Statism”, Porcupine Blog, May 6, 2006).

Archived at

statism.html. Accessed on September 11, 2008.

Hoppe, Hans Hermann, “Banking, Nation-States and International Politics: A

Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order,” The Economics

and Ethics of Private Property. Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic

Publishers, 1993.

Hoppe, Hans Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed. New Brunswick and London:

Transaction Publishers, 2001.

Hoppe, Hans Hermann, “Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis”, The Economics and

Ethics of Private Property. Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic

Publishers, 1993.

Hoppe, Hans Hermann, “Natural Elites, Intellectuals and the State”, Mises Institute, July

21, 2006. Archived at Accessed on September 11,


Johnson, Charles, “Scratching By: How Government Creates Poverty As We Know It”,

The Freeman, Vol. 57, No. 10, December 2007.

Kolko, Gabriel. The Triumph of Conservatism. MacMillan, 1963.

Preston, Keith, “The Political Economy of the War on Drugs”, (American Revolutionary

Vanguard, 2001), Archived at

of-the-war-on-drugs/ Accessed on September 10, 2008

Rocker, Rudolf. Anarcho-Syndicalism. Martin Secker and Warburg, Ltd., 1938.

Rothbard, Murray N. Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty. Cato Institute, 1979.

Rothbard, Murray N., “Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy”, World Market

Perspective, 1984.

Semler, Ricardo. Maverick. Arrow Press, 1993.

Sugrue, Thomas J. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar

Detroit. Princeton University Press, 1996, 2005.

Tucker, Benjamin R., “Part II: Money and Interest”, Instead Of A Book, By A Man Too

Busy To Write One, 1897. Archived at

tucker/instead-of-a-book/. Accessed on September 10, 2008.

Van Creveld, Martin. The Rise and Decline of the State. Cambridge University Press,


Ward, Colin, “A Self-Employed Society”, Anarchy In Action. London: Freedom Press,


Williams, Walter E. The State Against Blacks. McGraw-Hill, 1982.

Whyte, William. Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker

Cooperative Complex. (ILR Press, 1991).

“Agincourt a war crime” say French

David Davis

I will have more to say about this ridiculous matter later, which surfaces today. Watch for a late pm post. The details of this battle, campaign, and the behaviour of many individuals have been known for centuries, so it’s just EU-type/Gallic tail-twisting to re-raise them now.

Here’s my later posting, to save you the trouble.

This is (apparently) the guy who “threatened journalists” in Glenrothes, that they “may get shot and then it’s not my problem”.

I didn’t know that the British State Soviet now employs young boys. Perhaps these are the “end times” and we are in the Siege of Berlin…..but somehow I sadly doubt it. Hat tip Landed Underclass who got it from Old Holborn. Old Holborn wants you to email the guy and tell him what you think about him suggesting that he would allow his compatriots to be shot by his apparatchiks…..or should that be apparatshootiks?


Also, what fun! I didn’t know that this chap was called Gweeds! What a hoot! I shall go to town on “Gweeds”, for some while.

Osborne denies soliciting contributions to Party funds, from a poor-person

Newsbiscuit has the low-down.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism…Libertarian Alliance Conference week celebration post 7 :Milton Friedman on The Power of Choice

The velvet gloves come off, to show the steel ones….

…and the iron hands were always inside. (From the Scotsman.)

Fascist leftists the most dangerous people after all…

….and you only have to look at what the bugger says, in public, below…

David Davis

From the DT, we have threats from quite official democrat bloggers, of rioting, civil disobedience, and shutting down the White House.

Here’s an extract:-

Meanwhile, in a blog posting entitled ‘A McCain “Win” Will Be Theft, Resistance Is Planned’, David Swanson, Washington director of and a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, writes: “If your television declares John McCain the president elect on the evening of November 4th, your television will be lying.

“You should immediately pick up your pre-packed bags and head straight to the White House in Washington, DC, which we will surround and shut down until this attempt at a third illegitimate presidency is reversed.

“We may be there for days or weeks or months. But we must be there. We must be there by the millions. We must show each other, and the nation, and the world that we have had enough, that we will not stand for one more stolen election, that we will not give in to fear, lies, theft, and intimidation.”

Raunchy-looking blog the have got. They clearly have all the time in the world to organise civil war. “The aggressive progressives!”…..I thought that’s what Hitler, Stalin and Mao thought they were.

Sean Gabb in “The Times”: Disestablish the Church

Sean Gabb

From The Times October 24, 2008

Should the Church be disestablished? Yes, says Dr Sean Gabb

Yes: Dr Sean Gabb Director of the Libertarian Alliance

“In the British Constitution, Church and State are joined. The Queen is head of both. There are 26 Anglican bishops in Parliament.

The weak argument for disestablishment is that only a minority of people in Britain are Anglicans. Why should Catholics or Jews or Muslims or atheists defer officially to an institution that does not represent their beliefs?

This is not in itself a good argument. Establishment is part of the Constitution. If I move to Pakistan or Ireland, I would have to put up with the existing establishments there. Why should it be different with us? If it should be different, it is because the Church of England has ceased to be either intellectually or theologically respectable.

Anglicanism used to mean Cranmer and Hooker and Tillotson and Warburton and Paley. Malthus and Sydney Smith were Anglican priests. These were men who combined distinction in theological and secular learning with a broadly tolerant outlook.

Nowadays, priests and bishops seem to be less interested in preaching the Gospel than in preaching an embarrassingly naïve socialism.

It may be arguable that the true message of Christ is socialist. It may also be argued that the laws of supply and demand are as much part of the Divine Order as the laws of motion  and that Christians cannot validly pronounce on either without some study of the secular sciences that have uncovered them. If this is true, it is not enough for an Anglican priest to read The Guardian, announce that  God is love   and then make other than embarrassing pronouncements on interest rates and distribution of property.

Now, the problem here is not that so many Anglican spokesmen appear to be of the Left, but that they seem wholly unaware of any other theological perspective on economics and politics.

With this, I regret, goes their almost casual rejection of the Authorised Version of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer in favour of new versions that are devoid of literary merit.

The Church should be disestablished because it has, in a sense, disestablished itself. It has made itself an object of derision where not of contempt. It should not be allowed to continue representing itself as England at prayer.

The practical argument against disestablishment is that the monarchy would be destabilised. Again, the monarchy has destabilised itself. The settlement by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was that we would regard the monarch as the Lord  s anointed. The monarch would, in turn, safeguard our liberties. Without mentioning any other dereliction, Her Majesty this year allowed ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, despite its implications for how we govern ourselves, and despite the promise by the Government in 2005 that what became the treaty would not be ratified without a referendum.

Since the monarchy is at best on probation, therefore, and since the Church of England cannot be defended as it has become, the arguments for disestablishment strike me, however sadly, as too strong to be brushed aside.


Hat tip Guido

Here it is, I feel so , er, sort of “used” by this guvmint.

Telling commentary on green-smoke-and-mirrors, enviro-flimm-flamm, and bullshit

David Davis

From here, but here’s the crux-or-nub:-

Benjamin Williamson, economist at the think tank Centre for Economics and Business Research, said: “It’s hard to think that people are eating less, but it is possible. We know for a fact that people are trading down from organic, premium and fair trade products, to more normal lines.

Alamein 66 years on, war, memory and what liberalism is about.

David Davis

On these pages I frequently resort to historical lectures based on military anniversaries. This will probably continue until I run out, or else the committee of the Libertarian Alliance suggests to me that I’m boring the readers.

But this all hinges on how I try to expound the Gospel of libertarianism…I take past events when freedom and individual liberty were under threat from massively-resourced, highly-systematized State behemoths (truly, the ultimate enemy.) I show how their depredations were defeated by free coalitions of relatively un-tyrannised people – such as the British Empire (what else was there, for goodness’s sake?) Then, I try to explain that for libertarianism and freedom for individuals to survive, a strong watch needs to be kept on the surreptitious re-awakening of imperialist-Utopian creeds (such as socialism, and pre-capitalist quasi-religious survival-guides) and their baleful, faux-Christian, faux-charitable appeal to under-employed Western idealists of otherwise high intelligence.

It is accidental that many of these anniversaries fall in the Second World War: there is no anti-German, or anti-Japanese, intent about these on my part, for these otherwise good and decent and exemplarily-educated people fell under the spell of what Churchill presciently called “Perverted Science”.

They thus were catapulted into terrible misfortune, at the hands first of the criminally-tyrannical political imbeciles who first tormented them with false bribes, and then at the hands of those whose job it sadly was to clear up the mess.

Some others of course are to do with the First. Others, such as Trafalgar, relate to earlier episodes of what ultimately is the same, ongoing and Titanic struggle – between good and evil: which is in today’s theatre to say, Capitalism and freedom, versus State planning, socialism and tyranny.

(Click on the whole map, it will appear.)

Today is the anniversary of the start of the series of large actions in North Africa, know as the Battle of Alamein. Now, as is largely forgotten today, Rommel’s Afrika Korps had been substantially held up some weeks earlier by a well-designed defensive action atRuweisat and Mitereira Ridges. There is a highly biased and pro-socialist article about this on wikipedia, which I may re-edit soon. Later, at the battle of Alam Halfa, the Afrika Korps also got no further.

By late October, preps were all in place for the battle which is still remembered (by a few old men). I see this one as the Last Battle of the Old Empire, the free coalition which I have referred to earlier. Very roughly, is also stakes out a point in WW2 before which the Axis forces were advancing everywhere, and after which it was all downhill for them. Not strictly true in detail, but good enough for a snapshot.

If liberalism (and I mean it in the true sense of the word, not what American stalinists which call themselves “democrats” mean) is to survive, then we have to remember and learn how and why we liberals went to war, not just for ourselves but for others, such as Belgium and Poland. We don’t really go to war for ourselves – indeed the last time probably was 1793. If we do, such as against Iceland in the 1970s and today, then it’s probably because we were then (by Heath) and are now, led by socialists.

If there is ever such a thing as a libertarian nation, then as I have sadly predicted, it probably will have to go to war for itself.

And now, here’s the techie stuff…

Yes I know this on is just the Aussies charging their own field kitchen, but……

Better not forget the poor wretched Italians, whose hearts were probably not really in it:-

Piles of Italian footage on Youtube, and not much else. It’s not a problem but I wonder why we don’t remember it as well as they seem to do?

Child abuse, a Western Socialist government, and a story of destruction…

…of ordinary, non-state, freely created relationships and behaviour-codes favoured by individuals.

David Davis

I am beginning to warm to Gerald Warner in the Quisling-rightygraph. He asks, not unreasonably given the evidence in other areas, whether this government would “fight gun crime by issuing pistols to children”.

Indeed, it is quite interesting, that one particular problem – the rise in violent crime involving use of knives and guns by “young people” – is deemed to be dealt with by massive public demos headed by slebs (knives) and the complete erazure (of the very idea of guns) of the existential presence of guns from play or social scenarios. In my wife’s workplace, no “war toys” are permitted, and the very word “guns” is greeted (when uttered by a child) with a firestorm of ultra-honeyed and deeply big-brotherish brainwashing from the “practitioners”. Yet….when it comes to sex and all that….

….school-children are actively sexualised from day one. One really wants to wonder who the pornographers really are – who exactly is the Enemy Class?

Here’s a poll…you may vote for more than one answer:- (apologies for the question being so long: it is supposed to say:

Is the British Enemy Class compulsorily sexualising other people’s children merely in order to have a supply of them for itself to shag, or is this a deliberately hurtful way to do a demolition job in a civilised nation and its culture?

One recalls that, under the tutelage of Baldur von Schirach, there was an epedemic of pregnancies in the Bund Deutsche Mädel, thought to have been caused by the Hitler-Jugend. But if NSDAP policy tacitly allowed this, then arguably it had a point – only the master-race would be allowed to shag and mate and multiply freely, leading to political advantage for the Party. But if the British-State-Enemy-Class is trying to create an elite cadre, then its strategy has got to be the wrong one.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism…Libertarian Alliance Conference week celebration post 6 :Milton Friedman on slavery and colonisation

David Davis

There appear to be 40 eco-dilemmas…..

David Davis

…..and you can read all about them here.

And we ought to watch out more for these guys:-

Keeley Hazell: thirteen people came to this blog looking for her today…

David Davis

….So I decided to oblige. If I translated that into letters to MPs, it would be about 611 demands. You need never complain that this blog doesn’t give the readers what they want.

Here she is, saving the planet:-

And here she is in more usual poses:-

I can’t be arsed to sign-up/register with youtube, so therefore you adults will have to go and get the topless stuff yourselves.

Here’s a poll:-

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism…Libertarian Alliance Conference week celebration post 5 :Milton Friedman on “greed”