Paul Marks: Condemnation and Disclaimer


Statement by Sean Gabb
Director of the Libertarian Alliance

I have had my attention drawn to this comment, posted by Paul Marks on our blog:

“It would, of course, be emotionally satisfying to cut Kevin Carson’s Black Flagger (Black Flaggers like Carson will side with the Red Flagger Marxists – indeed they already are and have for years) throat, or blow his head off with a bullet (although he would be more likely to do those things to me) – but it is the job of politics to AVOID THAT SITUATION.”
(http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/libertarian-self-marginalization/#comment-48626)

The comment, I think all will agree, shows a most alarming degeneracy of character. I am shocked. It is not the job of politics to keep us from cutting the throats of those with whom we disagree. No one of good character is tempted even to fantasise about such things. The next time Paul boasts of his conversion to Christianity, or of his instinctive cultural conservatism, or in general of his spotless moral purity, I for one will remember the malevolent and dangerous beast I have seen behind the smiling mask.

In a normal country, this would be the limit of what I need to say. However, I am advised that Paul has committed a crime under the Public Order Act, and the Malicious Communications Act, and under about half a dozen other of the laws that comprise the Thatcher-Blair police state. Regardless of this, he has put us in breach of the terms of service of the organisation that hosts this blog.

Therefore, I will say that Paul’s comment does not, in its particulars or its generality, represent the views of the Libertarian Alliance, and that it fills us with the same abhorrence that any other reasonable man must feel on reading it. We will take no action against him this time. But we are watching him. We require him to place some minimal restraint on his disgusting passions. We have tolerated, and will continue to tolerate, his inability to refrain from vulgar and sometimes hysterical abuse. But a repetition of these murder fantasies will not be so indulgently received.

 

About these ads

90 responses to “Paul Marks: Condemnation and Disclaimer

  1. Compared to this guy, Mr. Anduril Stargate’s frivolous SLAPP lawsuit threats are positively sane. I suggest Thomas Szasz never met Paul Marks.

  2. Pingback: X Marks the Spot

  3. Why is it wrong to want to AVOID war?

    I also note that Dr Gabb (who has broken his word to never reply to a comment of mine) does NOT attack Kevin Carson – who (for many years) has indicated his desire to remove “the rich” and their defenders (which would include people as poor as me – no doubt I would be a “henchman of the Kulacks”) from this world.

    The fact that Black Flagger (anarcho-communalist) Kevin Carson insists on cloaking his desires in jargon language is exactly why I used blunt language.

    If Comrade Kevin wants to cut throarts and blow off heads that is what he should say (in those words) – NOT quote Ludwig Von Mises (and other classical liberal writers) wildly out of context in order to pretend that they (like him) opposed large scale private ownership of land and other means of production. Or that they supported credit bubble finance (and on and on).

    Say what you mean and say it plain – or SHUT UP.

    That is my point.

    If Kevin (or the turncoat Sean Gabb) want to exterminate the “landed interest” or manufacturers and other people (whose property was not “justly acquried” – and it just so happens that by their definitions no large scale property was “justly acquired”) then this should be said in blunt language.

    So which is it Dr Gabb?

    Do you side with Kevin Carson and the “Occupy” movement (which he openly supports – just as he supported the savage mobs in Egypt even AFTER the attack on Laura Logan) or do you not?

    If you do NOT support the extermination of “the rich” and any person (no matter how poor) who tries to defend them, why do you enable people who (when their mask of jargon language is stripped away) clearly do.

    As I said (in the very bit of writing I quote) Kevin Carson is far more likely to kill me than I am to kill him – but I am not talking about my life.

    I am talking about the farmer down the road from you Dr Gabb – or the manufactuer in a near by town, or the shareholders in “Tesco” (and other chain stores for which you have a fanatcial hatred – for no reason).

    Do you support their violent deaths – for they will not give up their property without a fight.

    Do you support cutting their throats or blowing off their heads.

    Yes or no?

    If the answer is “no” you do not have to love me (I am not exactly loveable) – but you do have to break with Black Flaggers like Kevin Carson.

    And (while you are at it) you should also break with the other sort of “Black Flagger” – not just anarchocommunalists like Kevin Carson, but the FACIST “white nationalists” also.

  4. Oh, the mask is well and truly off – behold the beast who lurks behind it! Sad people of Kettering, to have voted Conservative and got this as a Councillor: http://www.kettering.gov.uk/councillors/54/paul_marks

    The wretch has repeated his claim that I am a communist and a nazi. My general response is here: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2012/tle685-20120826-03.html

  5. It seems Mr Marks has progressed from being a pompous windbag prone to fairly ludicrous conspiracy theories into something rather nastier. His hypocrisy in claiming to be a libertarian while living in state supplied housing has already been demonstrated.

  6. Paul Marks, I think few people have the time to read your long and rambling comments here. You have personalised your crusade against Kevin Carson for some reason that is difficult for me to discern.

  7. It is not hypocritical to accept state handouts. Pristine liberals do not handicap themselves by not working for the state, taking grants for the colleges when they used to be on offer or any other state handouts.

    The very idea of hypocrisy is an ad hominem fallacy as it switches from the message to the messenger. Indeed, that is a big fault in the whole of this topic.

  8. I find all this rather sad, as I consider myself a friend of both Paul and Sean, in an internet kind of way, that is, I don’t know them really but vaguely hope that I can shine a little by their reflected light or something, which is like being on Facebook without actually joining Facebook; Ian has 200 Libertarian Friends! None of whom he has ever actually met.

    I was born in Kettering though. That might count for something. Not sure what.

    It may be that Libertarianism is trying to be too broad a movement, or is too broad a word. I am myself feeling an urge to shy away from it; the excellent Stephen Davies has suggested that “individualism” might be a good word, and I am somewhat drawn to that, not least because I feel a certain dismay that many libertarians I encounter seem to be rather collectivist- either left-wing or right-wing forms- and just want to impose hegemonic collectivisms in a nominally “state-less” society. The problem is that when people of strongly differing views are jammed together in one movement, they inevitably start arguing about precisely what that movement should be, and the smaller and less successful the movement is, the more vicious the arguments become. This is a well known effect, of course lampooned famously in Monty Python’s Life Of Brian. The Judean Popular Front? That’s him over there! Splitter!

    Then everybody takes sides. During the big fall-out a while ago, when Tim Evans left, I found myself trying to decide which “side” I would prefer to be on, and decided it was the LA side represented by Sean and David. Not of course that I am a significant figure, so it doesn’t matter to anyone else. But that was the conclusion I reached. I have to admit that part of that was a gut reaction to watching a video of a Libertarian gathering featuring Mr Evans, who spoke at a rate of something less than 10 words per minute while fiddling with a laptop in the midst of a room of men who appeared to have started decaying some time before, but not quite died yet, and I felt that if this was Libertarianism, no wonder we’re as well subscribed as a return coach from an Exit outing to Beachy Head.

    But as I said, I do consider Paul to be a friend. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of relevant history- particularly of Marxism- and economics. He also though has a manner of self-expression which comes across very badly; mind you I speak as a man who has so far been kicked out of two websites for refusing to shut up, so, well, pot, kettle, you know.

    I do think there is a fundamental problem here. Austrian-School Libertarians and the kind of ultra-”mutualism” espoused by Kevin Carson simply don’t belong in the same movement. If we try to, we will fight until one side or the other (or quite possibly both) are destroyed. I do not see a way to resolve this. Mainstream “right” libertarianism has a strong commitment to free market economics. Kevin Carson’s “free market” isn’t a market at all; it is an anarcho-communist viewpoint. I do not use the word “communist” as an insult. It is simply descriptive of people who believe in communal production, as Carson espouses at every opportunity. It is paradigmatic. Here are the two paradigms:-

    People who believe in free markets/capitalism see “the economy” as a system of production, in which agents produce and then trade that which they have produced. Such persons are thus interested in the creation of value by economic agents. In this scenario, a price system develops which records the value created by each agent and thus facilitates trade.

    People who believe in communalism see “the economy” as a system of distribution, in which agents share a pool of existing resources (which may be from nature, or a pool of commodity labour, etc). Such persons are thus interested in the sharing of resources by economic agents. In this scenario, a price system records the fraction of resources awarded to each agent and thus facilitates fair or unfair sharing.

    These two paradigms are entirely incompatible. They are fundamentally different and oppositional conceptualisations. They cannot be harmonised. I am in the first camp; not because I particularly like it, but because I believe that that paradigm reflects actual reality.

    But whichever of the two is correct, they are clearly not compatible and, in a movement dedicated so heavily to economic analysis, cannot in my view co-exist.

    I do not believe Sean is a communist or a Nazi. I don’t believe in any of the quotes that Paul called him a Nazi, though he did accuse him of harbouring communists and fascists, which may be close. I believe that it is in the best interests of Libertarians to continue supporting the Libertarian Alliance. Sean is probably the best populariser that the movement has. If, as Sean reports, there is a whispering campaign to bring the LA down, then its orchestrators need a damned hard kicking in the bollocks. Because this kind of stuff has got to stop. Because liberty is dying, and we should be fighting the people doing that, not each other.

  9. I think your reply is too tribal to be pristine liberal, Ian. Liberalism has no enemies.

  10. David, I genuinely have no idea what you mean.

  11. I only mean only that the message of free trade & a free society is in the interests of all. So the main assumption is that if someone, like Kevin Carson, opposes it, then the enlightenment paradigm supposes he must be merely ignorant rather than that he is an enemy in some way, as the Romantic paradigm supposes. The latter outlook leads to leads to illiberal action, Ian. It thinks in terms of tribes, or quasi-tribes.

  12. Well that’s as maybe David. The problem is when somebody who is “merely ignorant” actively rejects considering that they may be, and doggedly sticks to and promotes their “merely ignorant” ideas. At some point, one has to become “tribal”, when it’s over something that matters. One must at least say, “we will ignore this man”.

    I came to Austrian-style economics because I wanted to understand how the economy works. In my younger days I was, and at heart perhaps still am, a leftie. Many left wing ideas appeal to me emotionally. But, as I studied economics, I began to realise that they are wrong. Indeed, I had worked out many of the basics for myself before I even discovered Liebrtarianism and the Austrian School. To be specifically anecdotal, the subjectivism of economic value suddenly occurred to me while working on a ghastly milk bottling production line in a plant under the Westway in the middle of the night for £3.20 an hour. I had fallen from a well paid job into desperate times and, initially felt angry at the “injustice” of that. And then it dawned on me- a small, essential, paradigmatic shift- that I was being paid £3.20 an hour because that was all I was worth to somebody else. I had no entitlement to any more. I was worth nothing but whatever I was subjectively worth to other people.

    /end of anecdote

    Carson, like so many other people, comes at it from the other direction. He starts with some moral beliefs, then looks for an economic theory that supports them. As such, he simply rejects everything since about 1850 as Capitalist Lies, including Subjective Value (marginal utility) and chooses to believe the Labour Theory Of Value. Which is just plain wrong. He has had numerous people tell him it is wrong, and we knwo that he has read the texts explaining why it is wrong. But he has read them not in search of theoretical enlightenment, but simply as an exercise in critical theory, and then denounces their writers as stooges for the Capitalists. He is immune to education. This is not a unique state. Many on the economic Right are equally bad. But it’s Carson in the midst of this argument, not the low-income-tax-big-statists of the Boneheaded Right.

    I honestly think that part of the reason that Paul writes like a man possessed of disquieted spirits is sheer frustration. Nobody with a decent mind, an interest in economics and access to the internet has an excuse to be ignorant these days. Paul’s presentation is awful. But the points he makes on economics, Marx etc are sound ones, if you pick them out of the noise. He is a man who cares passionately about Libertarianism. That is a Good Thing. They’re no different in substance to the points made by myself, CH Ingoldby, and other commenters. Except we don’t write like somebody swapped the sugar in our tea for amphetamine sulphate.

    But. The Carson issue is not even remotely fatal to Libertarianism or the LA, even if I (and Paul) are right about how wrong he is. If there is a whispering campaign and serious attempt to pull down the LA by a clique, it needs to stop, and anyone involved in that should really be ashamed of their weenie selves. As I said before, when I was looking at the “sides” it was fairly clear to me that the people attempting the “coup” had not got a way forward for British Libertarianism, but maybe Sean has. The preening establishment metrosexuals throwing around ludicrous implications of racism are certainly not going to get us anywhere other than, at best, a repeat of the Thatcherism failure.

    And…

    I’ll stop. And go check what’s in that sugar bag in my kitchen cupboard.

    • Sean Gabb you are neither a Nazi or anarchocommunalist (although you enable BOTH), but you are (to use a piece of technical language) a dreadful human being.

      You know perfectly well that I was arguing AGAINST war and AGAINST satisfying the emotions (against reason being “the slave of the passions”) but you imply the exact opposite – by the old trick of quoting out of context.

      You help people like Kevin Carson – and have been doing so since at least 2006. Not because you do not know what they are – but because you do know (that is why it amuses you to help them).

      And you help the other sort of “Black Flagger” also (the “white nationalists”).

      Actually I suspect that, in a way, you are worse than both sorts of “Black Flagger” – in that I do not believe that you have any principles at all (not even bad ones).

      You do what you do not out of some ideological committment – but simply out of a sense of SPITE.

      You thought it would be amusing to take over the Libertarian Alliance (by working on a man who was dying of cancer) and then destroy it – and that is exactly what you have done. In spite of a few of the old crowd hanging on (much like some classical liberals hung on at “The Nation” magazine in the 1920s – even though it had gone from being the great enemy of Richard Ely style Progressivism – to the main mouthpiece for just that ideology).

      You did not do this for any ideological reason – you did it for AMUSEMENT. To show that you could do it – that you could take a group that was about defending the secure possession and civil use of the private property means of production, distribution and exchange (the basis of the non aggression principle civil soceity) and open it up to a grab-bag of anarcho-communalists ( now Occupy movement thugs) and white racists (of course “Occypy” has its share of antisemites who blame everything on “the Jews” – as well as the normal Marxist Red Flaggers and their alies-of-the-moment the anarchocommunalist Black Flaggers)..

      What would “Baby Bear” think if the child knew her father for what he really is?

      That you work with (encourage) those who wish to destroy countless millions of human beings (indeed destroy civil society) and you do it FOR FUN?

      Do not worry – I have no intention of telling the child the truth about you (not even in the incredibly unlikely event that I am still alive when the child is older).

      It is not my place to do that.

      Actually I hope the one truthful thing about you is your claim to love your child.

      The child will need a good father – to survive what is comming to this world.

      You are not a good man Sean Gabb – but at least be a good husband and good father.

      Both your wife and child will need you.

      Do not betray them – as you have betrayed everyone else.

  13. Thanks for your reply, Ian.

    We are all ignorant, of course. The Romantic outlook thinks in terms of identity whilst the Enlightenment outlook thinks it is this ignorance that it the problem. The former paradigm often does not seem to want change the world at all whilst the later is out to convert one and all to changing the world.

    Leftie tends to mean pristine rightie as the pristine left was free trade or laissez faire whilst the right was aristocratic and for the collectivist nation from the French Assembly of 1789 up to the 1880s. .

    The Fabian Society, and others, reversed this in the 1880s when they called the old Tory ideas or memes socialist and socialism was said to the left of liberalism. At that time too, Radical Joe Chamberlain made a generational stance against the Grand Old Man, Gladstone, replacing his Cobdenite laissez faire with his new management ideas; thus we had the birth of neo-liberalism, which many ironically call classical liberalism today. But all that is tribal anyway.

    I was a Marxist myself from 1968 to 1974 in a socialist group but maybe after I left up to 1978 too, as I was still trying to answer Mises on the economic calculation argument [eca] till about then but I gave up on it and joined the LA in that year. The best book on this is by my friend: From Marx To Mises (1992) D.R. Steele.

    Marxism wins people over as a problem solver and liberalism does the same. Both claim solve the problem of war and mass unemployment, for example, but Marxism fails owing to the eca.

    Class analysis has the appeal to me that smoking has to the ex-smoker; or maybe like the red rag to a bull. So I am clearly quite biased against Kevin Carson’s outlook that Sean finds exciting. In my Marxist days, I was searching for this class struggle and found nothing even remotely like it. It seems clear to me that it is merely bogus bosh.

    Why should a propagandist ever ignore anyone?

    No Ian, you are always worth a bit more than you are paid, and the reverse too, for we will always do the job for a bit less. There is always what P.H. Wicksteed called a producer, or seller’s, surplus on one side of trade and a consumers or buyer’s surplus on the other. So trade is always positive sum. By contrast, politics is negative sum. So is charity, by the bye, unless given directly when we then get a perfect zero sum transfer but usually administration costs make charity negative sum.

    You are priceless, Ian! It is only what you do that you sell. You are no slave.

    Did you ever read The Ultimate Resource (1981) J.L. Simon?

    Kevin Carson is a complete Romantic but so is Paul Rogers from what I have seen from him. I see Romance as sheer bosh that needs to be cleared away. Another of my friends has written a book to that end The Myth of the Closed Mind (2012) Ray Percival.

    If we get low pay at work then we might consider doing something the public will pay more for. It is they who pay through the firms as J.S. Mill rightly said in his 1848 book. We are always worth more than what we are doing at the moment.

    I do not think any of us can choose what we believe. We can choose what we say, though.

    Marx was confused over who the capitalists were. They are merely savers and many of them are old women. Marx conflated them with the entrepreneurs and profits with rent and with interest too. His 1867 book is not up to much, fact-wise.

    I have still not criticised the stint from Kevin stint yet but I hope to do so; next week now, I suppose

    There are a number of other things on this blog related to this class Romance that I did promise Sean I would sort out when he was kind enough to give the LA a talk. I drifted off into other things but I hope to make amends for that later on.

    It is fine to be eristic. It is all grist to the enlightenment mill. Attitude, contra Karl Popper, does not matter. Our rationality is innate. No one still alive is immune to cogent ideas. What they want to think is the last thing that matters. Their understanding is independent of their will. Points simply need to be clear and cogent so that they can comprehend them.

    Kevin Carson fears debate, of course. But he does not have to reply to be refuted utterly. Nor does Sean.

    We are bound all to go on in at least some ignorance, Ian. Access to the Internet can only remove a bit of it. Our ignorance remains infinite no matter how much we learn. The human race as a whole remains infinitely ignorant. But knowledge still advances. It nevertheless remains finite.

    I have not seen much of Paul’s writings but we met a few times and I then found some of his ideas dodgy each time. I told him why at the time but I forget the details now.

    Yes, I suppose Paul is basically all right but then I tend to think that of everyone!

    I do not think any debate can harm the LA. We debated no end in the 1970s and 1980s and we have done so ever since.

    I do not think Tim Evens leaving was a coup. It was just Tim Evens leaving the LA. But then I cannot claim to know very much about it.

    Thanks for your reply, Ian.

    We are all ignorant, of course. The Romantic outlook thinks in terms of identity whilst the Enlightenment outlook thinks it is this ignorance that it the problem. The former paradigm often does not seem to want change the world at all whilst the later is out to convert one and all to changing the world.

    Leftie tends to mean pristine rightie as the pristine left was free trade or laissez faire whilst the right was aristocratic and for the collectivist nation from the French Assembly of 1789 up to the 1880s. .

    The Fabian Society, and others, reversed this in the 1880s when they called the old Tory ideas or memes socialist and socialism was said to the left of liberalism. At that time too, Radical Joe Chamberlain made a generational stance against the Grand Old Man, Gladstone, replacing his Cobdenite laissez faire with his new management ideas; thus we had the birth of neo-liberalism, which many ironically call classical liberalism today. But all that is tribal anyway.

    I was a Marxist myself from 1968 to 1974 in a socialist group but maybe after I left up to 1978 too, as I was still trying to answer Mises on the economic calculation argument [eca] till about then but I gave up on it and joined the LA in that year. The best book on this is by my friend: From Marx To Mises (1992) D.R. Steele.

    Marxism wins people over as a problem solver and liberalism does the same. Both claim solve the problem of war and mass unemployment, for example, but Marxism fails owing to the eca.

    Class analysis has the appeal to me that smoking has to the ex-smoker; or maybe like the red rag to a bull. So I am clearly quite biased against Kevin Carson’s outlook that Sean finds exciting. In my Marxist days, I was searching for this class struggle and found nothing even remotely like it. It seems clear to me that it is merely bogus bosh.

    Why should a propagandist ever ignore anyone?

    No Ian, you are always worth a bit more than you are paid, and the reverse too, for we will always do the job for a bit less. There is always what P.H. Wicksteed called a producer, or seller’s, surplus on one side of trade and a consumers or buyer’s surplus on the other. So trade is always positive sum. By contrast, politics is negative sum. So is charity, by the bye, unless given directly when we then get a perfect zero sum transfer but usually administration costs make charity negative sum.

    You are priceless, Ian! It is only what you do that you sell. You are no slave.

    Did you ever read The Ultimate Resource (1981) J.L. Simon?

    Kevin Carson is a complete Romantic but so is Paul Rogers from what I have seen from him. I see Romance as sheer bosh that needs to be cleared away. Another of my friends has written a book to that end The Myth of the Closed Mind (2012) Ray Percival.

    If we get low pay at work then we might consider doing something the public will pay more for. It is they who pay through the firms as J.S. Mill rightly said in his 1848 book. We are always worth more than what we are doing at the moment.

    I do not think any of us can choose what we believe. We can choose what we say, though.

    Marx was confused over who the capitalists were. They are merely savers and many of them are old women. Marx conflated them with the entrepreneurs and profits with rent and with interest too. His 1867 book is not up to much, fact-wise.

    I have still not criticised the stint from Kevin stint yet but I hope to do so; next week now, I suppose

    There are a number of other things on this blog related to this class Romance that I did promise Sean I would sort out when he was kind enough to give the LA a talk. I drifted off into other things but I hope to make amends for that later on.

    It is fine to be eristic. It is all grist to the enlightenment mill. Attitude, contra Karl Popper, does not matter. Our rationality is innate. No one still alive is immune to cogent ideas. What they want to think is the last thing that matters. Their understanding is independent of their will. Points simply need to be clear and cogent so that they can comprehend them.

    Kevin Carson fears debate, of course. But he does not have to reply to be refuted utterly. Nor does Sean.

    We are bound all to go on in at least some ignorance, Ian. Access to the Internet can only remove a bit of it. Our ignorance remains infinite no matter how much we learn. The human race as a whole remains infinitely ignorant. But knowledge still advances. It nevertheless remains finite.

    I have not seen much of Paul’s writings but we met a few times and I then found some of his ideas dodgy each time. I told him why at the time but I forget the details now.

    Yes, I suppose Paul is basically all right but then I tend to think that of everyone!

    I do not think any debate can harm the LA. We debated no end in the 1970s and 1980s and we have done so ever since.

    I do not think Tim Evens leaving was a coup. It was just Tim Evens leaving the LA. But then I cannot claim to know very much about it.

  14. Paul Marks writes: “Kevin Carson is far more likely to kill me than I am to kill him.”

    Given that Marks has publicly fantasised about cutting Carson’s throat, and Carson has not done likewise, I think we can take this claim with a grain of salt. Unlike Marks, Carson is a libertarian, and thus not a big fan of aggression.

    Ian B. writes that Carson “rejects … Subjective Value (marginal utility) and chooses to believe the Labour Theory Of Value.”

    This is false. Carson’s version of LTV is explicitly a subjectivised version.

    David McDonagh writes: “Kevin Carson fears debate, of course.”

    This is ridiculous. Carson is constantly engaging in debate. See here, for example:
    http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_7.pdf

    Referring to Carson as an “anarchocommunalist” (as both Marks and Ian B. do) is likewise bizarre. Carson is a defender of individual ownership. The rules defining this ownership are not quite the same as Locke’s or Nozick’s or Rothbard’s, but they’re much closer to those views than to Marx — and Carson’s precise rules of ownership are far less important to him than they seem to be to his critics. See, for example:

    http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/in-defense-such-as-it-is-of-usufructory-land-ownership

    Disagree with Carson all you like (though I think Carson’s one of the most important and valuable libertarian thinkers around, I myself am not persuaded by the LTV, and I prefer Rothbardian to Carsonian property rules). But disagreement is no reason to misrepresent him (much less to engage in psychopathic fantasies about cutting his throat).

  15. Paul Marks is plainly the sort of person about whom articles get published in medical journals. How do you comment on the postings of someone like that?

    I will only deny his scandalous claim about the relationship between me and the late Chris Tame, and state that I am not amused by his references to my wife and daughter.

  16. Perhaps you should just be grateful he hasn’t yet used an empty chair as a prop.

  17. Well, in effect he has. Marks’s fantasising about absent people who want to kill him and Eastwood’s fantasising about an absent president cursing at him seem to belong to the same tube of glue, though Eastwood does not seem to have sniffed quite so deeply.

  18. Roderick Tracy Long.

    Try reading the threads – on several recent posts here.

    You will find I was argueing AGAINST war and AGAINST giving in to emotion (against reason being the “slave of the passions”).

    As for Kevin Carson – he is trying to do to the word “libertarian” what was done in the United States in the 1920s to the word “liberal”.

    Once in the United States a “liberal” was someone who was AGAINST “Progressive” economic ideology. The Nation magazine was the arch ENEMY of people like Richard Ely.

    Then in the 1920s the Nation magazine (with no change of ownership – just the owner handing over the pages of his magazine) became the mouthpiece for Progressive ideology (the very thing it had been the arch enemy of) and this it remains.

    Kevin Carson (and others) wish to take the word “libertarian” and do the same thing to it, as was done to the word “liberal” in the United States – turn it 180 degrees.

    As for yourself…

    Two questions.

    Are you in favour or opposed to the docrine of “Social Justice” (the main doctrine of the socialists, the anarchocommunalists, and Fascists like Father C. – see his Journal “Social Justice” from the 1930s). i.e. the doctrine of “fair shares for all” (what Hayek called the morality of the hunter-gatherer pack) – the doctrine that all income and wealth are rightly owned by the collective (“the people” or whatever you want to call it) and should be “distributed” according to some political rule.

    Are you in favour or opposed to the doctrine of “Social Justice” – the doctrine opposed even by moderates such as F.A. Hayek (see the second volume of Law, Legislation and Liberty – “The Mirage of Social Justice) and Antony Flew (see “Equality in Liberty and Justice” and many other works).

    Second question.

    What is your opinion of Charles and David Koch?

    These are two well known examples of successful businessmen who support pro liberty causes.

    How much do you admire these two people?

  19. Sean Gabb – I have no interest in “amusing” you, My hope is that you will stop playing games – and at least not betray your wife and daughter as you have betrayed everyone else.

    You may dismiss my warnings about the state of the world as evidence of my insanity – but this time next year the state of the world will be no laughing matter and the time for playing stupid games (as you have been playing since at least 2006) will be well and truly over.

  20. Paul Marks, your campaign against Kevin Carson (whatever the merits of his writings, which may be discussed congenially from any point of view) seemed personal, and your comments on Sean Gabb’s daughter and wife are also quite revealing of your personality flaws! Why did you have to personalise a site which is just about discussion of ideas on politics and economics? The whole point of libertarianism should be free (and as I said, congenial) discussion, and when it drifts into personalised vendettas, then it is clear that mere discussion of ideas is not really what is going on here. Whatever your agenda – I’m not interested in it! I might have been interested in some well-argued and non-rambling comments on blog posts here, but I haven’t found any by you that fit that bill!

  21. You will find I was argueing AGAINST war and AGAINST giving in to emotion (against reason being the “slave of the passions”).

    Yes, I’ve read it. You indulged in a fantasy about cutting Carson’s throat and then said you didn’t wish to act on it. But you admitted to the fantasy, and reveled in it publicly. Put your analyst on danger money, baby.

    As for Kevin Carson – he is trying to do to the word “libertarian” what was done in the United States in the 1920s to the word “liberal”. Once in the United States a “liberal” was someone who was AGAINST “Progressive” economic ideology.

    And Carson is against Progressive economic ideology too. All that Carson is doing is returning libertarianism to its 19th-century roots, before it was highjacked by conservatives.

    What are your views of Herbert Spencer, Benjamin Tucker, Thomas Hodgskin, or Lysander Spooner?

    Are you in favour or opposed to the docrine of “Social Justice”

    Social justice is not a doctrine.

    the doctrine of “fair shares for all” (what Hayek called the morality of the hunter-gatherer pack) – the doctrine that all income and wealth are rightly owned by the collective (“the people” or whatever you want to call it) and should be “distributed” according to some political rule.

    Like Carson, I oppose what you’ve just described, yes.

    Are you in favour or opposed to the doctrine of “Social Justice” – the doctrine opposed even by moderates such as F.A. Hayek

    Once again, social justice is not a doctrine. There are various different theories and doctrines OF or ABOUT social justice. Hayek himself accepted a version of social justice, as is pointed out here –
    http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/hayek-enemy-of-social-justice-and-friend-of-a-universal-basic-income
    – though Hayek’s version of social justice is too collectivist for my taste.

    What is your opinion of Charles and David Koch?
    These are two well known examples of successful businessmen who support pro liberty causes.
    How much do you admire these two people?

    It’s a mix. They support both libertarian and statist causes; and they owe their wealth to both market means and statist means.

    Your questions are largely irrelevant to the issues at hand, however, which are a) your creepy fantasies about killing Kevin Carson, and b) your gross misrepresentation of his actual views.

  22. djwebb2010

    I have many character flaws.

    However, I did not try and be civil about the Carson matter – back in 2006.

    I found a piece of writing by him in my conference pack at a Libertarian Alliance conference – it was called (if I remember correctly) “Contract Feudualism”.

    It was vile stuff.

    I assumed it was in the pack either by mistake – or as a joke.

    I wrote a refuation of it.

    And then weird stuff started to happen.

    Rather than saying “well we picked some recent writings we were sent at random and put it in the packs” (which was what I was expecting – and would have accepted) it got backed up by Gabb and co.

    Not formally, no “I agree with with every word of this” – but by implication.

    After six years I have never got a straight reply in relation to all this – just endless game playing.

    “Why do you personalise it”.

    Because it is a matter of life and death – for vast numbers of human beings.

    This is not the early to mid 18th century where ideas were just a GAME – where one could listen to the Abbe de Mably instructing the young Rousseau in the ideology of collectivism – and just think “how silly” and go play an hand of cards.

    Since the French Revolution (and especially since the October Revolution in Russia – which Kevin C. has praised) ideas are not a joke any more – they are serious matters. Matters of life and death.

    And “insane” person that I am I like all the enemy IN FRONT OF THE LINE – NOT BEHIND THE LINES.

    I do not think it is good for the person next to me (or behind me) the “fellow libertarian” to be part of THE ENEMY.

    It is bad enough having the enemy in front of you – without having the enemy in the ranks as well.

    Do you really think I would care if Kevin Carson was just another open socialist writing in the New Statesman or The Nation?

    I assure you I would NOT. I would not write a word against the man – he would not interest me.

    In the stuggle against collectivism – against “social justice”, enemies are to be expected (there is no need to get upset about them). Even idiots (such as those members of the Conservative and Unionist Party who use the term “social justice” as a positive term – because they have no idea what it means, and are trying to please the BBC) are not really a problem.

    But false “friends” are a different matter. If someone calls himself a collectivist I have no interest in him (or her), – only if an enemy calls themselves a “libertarian” am I really concerned.

    The struggle to preseve some remains of non aggression principle civil society (some large scale private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange) will not be easy – I will certainly not survive it (that I know). There may indeed be a restortation of civil society (that is what I hope for) – but I will not see it. I can only play my (very small) part in preserving what can be preserved – others will rebuild (long after I am gone). And the preservation, and the rebuilding, may not happen at all.

    And what may doom it is traitors in the ranks. One enemy inside is worth ten or a hundred outside.

    So I get a little bit upset about them.

  23. RTL – you have basically dodged both my questions (atnd saying “dodged” is a nice way of putting it). I thought I knew your name – “Bleeding Heart Libertarians”?

    No clear rejection of “social justice” (as for Hayek – he made the mistake of never actually reading “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls, so he did not know what Rawls actually believed), the central doctrine of the enemy, and no clear support for Charles and David Koch – not even a “I wish they were better on X, Y, Z – but of course I will defend their property to the death”,

    No property is “justly acquired” by Carson’s rules (not if one goes back far enough) – apart from. possibly, some farms in Iceland (I never got a clear answer from him that that one).

    I remenber trying him on a estate in Staffordshire that was actually PRE Norman Conquest – but no clear support (not even for that estate) clearly “man is as wolf to man” (the motto of the family of that estate), In practice one could argue it did not matter (as the family lost the estate recenly by their own bad business judgements), but I would rather such people were not robbed and murdered by Carsonites (I am ecentric that way).

    As for “social justice” the conservative Oakeshott sums it up….

    “And there is, of course, no place in civil association for so-called “distributive” justice [i.e. "social justice" - P.M.]; that is, the distribution of desirable substantive goods, Such a “distribution” of substantive benefits or advantages requires a rule of distribution and a distributor in possession of what is to be distributed; but Lex can not be a rule of distribution of this sort, and civil rulers have nothing to distribute.”

    Of course K.C. would object that he would have no “rulers” – just “the people”, but this is a distingish without a difference.

    If a mob of these “the people” turned up (say) on a Texas ranch to “take it from those who have not justly acquired it” they would be ignored – if they did not do anything. But if they tried to do X, Y, Z then a BATTLE WOULD START.

    What I am interested in is WHICH SIDE YOU WOULD BE ON – and your dodgeing questions does not fill me with great confidence.

    I liked it better why you concentrated on mocking religion (even though I am Christian myself) for example the thing I seem to remember on your website (correct me if I am wrong) the Zeus thing, was actually quite good. Even I have a sense of humour – although it has taken a bit of pounding in recent years.

    Tony – yes the Wooblies (spelling alert).

    It is a good test – whether someone is for them or against them.

    A total misunderstanding of how a labour market works – dominated by the “exploitation” theory of wages.

    Someone who backs the Wooblies would be no libertarian.

  24. Thanks again Tony – it is a good example.

  25. Yes, I’ve read your previous bizarre, falsehood-filled, oft-refuted screeds about Carson. At the time I concluded that you were either dishonest, or incompetent at reading, since your description of Carson’s views was so laughably distant from what he had actually written.

    As for social justice: once again, social justice is not a “doctrine.” That’s like calling geography a doctrine when you really mean flat-earth theory — a doctrine about geography. Social justice is a topic, concerning which there are various doctrines. There are both libertarian social-justice doctrines and anti-libertarian social-justice doctrines, just as there are round-earth geographical doctrines and flat-earth geographical doctrines. Any view, whatever its content, as to the justice or injustice of the basic institutions and practices of society is a social-justice doctrine.

    My claim that Hayek held a social-justice doctrine has nothing to do with what he said about Rawls. The evidence for his holding a social-justice is in the link I sent you.

    I haven’t “dodged” anything; I answered your questions. You didn’t answer my question about Spencer, Hodgskin, Spooner, and Tucker, so you probably won’t answer this question either; but:
    Do you likewise regard Locke’s, Nozick’s, and Rothbard’s theories of the acquisition and transfer of property titles as horrible? If no, then why pick on Carson, since their theories have similar implications? Or if yes, then why not admit it’s really libertarianism and property rights that you’re opposed to?

  26. RTL-

    What are your views of Herbert Spencer, Benjamin Tucker, Thomas Hodgskin, or Lysander Spooner?

    Speaking for myself (I cannot answer for Paul) I think a lot of American political thinkers need to get their heads out of the nineteenth century and into the twentyfirst. The necessary transition from agrarian to industrial production models is, for our purposes, ancient history. Don’t like the way it happened? Fine. But it’s done with. Those thinkers were writing at one time in history. We are writing in another. Deal with what we have. Not with what might have been.

    Paul-

    This accusation that Sean took over the LA in order to destroy it verges on the unhinged. I say this as your friend. Such assertions do not serve you well.

    I think it is worth noting that there are two entirely contradictory charges being made here. On the one hand Sean is accused of promoting some kind of racism, being “an enemy of multiculturalism” and being a “Ron Paul Newsletters” “Paleolibertarian”. Whatever that is.

    On the other hand, he is accused of being a crypto-marxist promoting leftists like Carson. I think it is a fair thing to say that Carson and the C4SS are all deeply opposed to racism, being left-wingers and all that. I have read much of Carson’s work (I suffer from insomnia) but nowhere have I found a hint that he is the type to go looking to work with racial bigots.

    So which is it? Sean cannot be both.

    From what I have read here, Sean appears to oppose “multiculturalism” for the same reason thousands of other libertarians and millions of other people do; because it is a deliberate divisive policy by elites, designed not to foster racial harmony but to create division and distrust and a need for a powerful State to moderate “community interactions”.

    If anyone who opposes having “white christian” or “shia muslim” stamped on their government ID Card is a racist then I am a racist too. If anyone who wants to deal with other indivduals as individuals rather than as “african-british” or “muslim-british” or “jew” is a racist then I am a racist too. And proud of it.

    Ultimately; some Libertarians I think are hoping for another re-run of Thatcherism, using organs like the Cobden Centre for another run up the hill of tepid, establishment, Libertarian-LIte. But that has already been tried once, and it failed. We know why it failed. It requires too many compromises. It did not work last time. It will not work in the future. If their strategy for achieving this is to destroy real, radical, Libertarianism in order to make us more “acceptable” to the New Class, then it is they who are the enemies of Liberty and they should, at the very least, be ashamed of themselves.

    You cannot build a movement that way. You destroy a movement that way, and then watch your opponents dance on its embers.

  27. I don’t think “distributive justice” is the same as “social justice”

    If political economy is a moral inquiry into the just returns (distribution) on the three factors of product land, labor and capital (there is a reason for that order btw)

    The returns on the factors are;
    1. land = economic rent
    2. labor = wages
    3. capital = economic interest

    The study of Economics from an Austrian & Marxist perspective conflates land as capital…thus the world is simply a struggle between capital and labor.

    If you are for the state intervening on the side of labor – that is the modern version of “social justice”.

    Left-libertarians point out that “vulgar” libertarians won’t question the state mostly covertly and sometimes overt intervening on the side of capital and conflating this with a “free market”.

    Left-libertarians want to return the conversation to “distributive justice”.

    The mutualist wing of left-libertarianism seem to focus on how the state privileging of capital formation/ownership and therefore so-called “profit” within economic interest (the return on capital) directly impacts wages (the return on wages).

    The geo-libertarian wing of left-libertarianism focus on the the state privileging of land ownership and therefore so-called “profit” within economic rent (the return on land) directly impacts wages (the return on wages).

    The Long/Johnson wing of Left-libertarianism seem to focus more broadly on how state intervention in “economics” (either on the side of capital or labor) overall effects the social sphere.

  28. Oh, I thought we were about due for a Ricardian to drop in.

    The more this thread goes on, the more I think the whole problem we’ve got is that everyone is looking backwards. I keep expecting somebody in a frock coat with exuberant whiskers to march in. I mean, what fricking century is this?

    David Ricardo was third rate numpty with a remarkably bad theory of economics which attempted to describe a transient moment in the rise of modernity, when society could apparently be easily divided into three clear groups- the old aristocratic landowners, the new capitalists, and “the workers” transition from agriculturalists to factory work. It is long past.

    Shall we have another tiresome and pointless argument about the Enclosure Acts? The Corn Laws? Whether to use horses or steam on the railways?!

    Please, it’s 2012, not 1812. Let’s move on, people!

  29. What the fucking fuck is this all about, people?

    Why does it matter if Kevin Carson is a mututalist (if he is), and Paul Marks is not (if he’s not)?

    Why does it matter if we publich stuff by Kevin Carson? Why does it enrage people? If I was to put up Mao’s little red book, or Milton friedman’s tracts (which I might), would anybody comment?

    No, I thought not.

    I thought we were all on the same side. Clearly not. Chris Tame was right when he said “there may be two libertarians on the planet who all agree about everything, but I am not one of those”.

    It does not matter that we don’t agree: we’re trying to reach some sort of position that we could present to others and they will then say “WHY DID WE NOT ALL THINK OF THAT THE FIRST TIME ROUND?”

    • And disagreement is critical to settling the truth of a matter. As Milton said: “Where there is much desire to learn, here of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.”

      For the avoidance of going mad, or of just wasting time, there are reasonable limits to this. We do not, for example, pay attention to people who argue that the sun orbits the earth, or that electrical current flows from positive to negative. But the nature and behaviour of big business, and the legitimacy of intellectual property rights, and the nature of “justly-acquired” property, are controversial within our movement, and need to be discussed – and need to be discussed without accusations of personal immorality.

  30. If these people like PM and Tim and the other fellas don’t like the Libertarian Alliance the way it is…..well….this particular one is not theirs actually, er, now, er…. is it?

    Do they own it? Nah.

    I’m not getting at Ian B here, who’s objections to Kevin Carson’s stuff, which I don’t really agree with myself, me, in detail, I think are quite well argued and well-founded. I’m not as great a fan of KC as people might think, but I don’t mind his stuff being published here for discussion, and I’m the blogmaster, so I am told. I am told it ofetn, so here I am and I will wade in and “do”…

    Why don’t the objector-buggers go off and start another Libertarian Alliance, though? They can do it now.

    I cannot see the problem really. They could do it today. Tonight. There are two official ones already – why not three, or a few more? You fellas could have one each.

    Let a thousand LAs bloom, eh?

    If they capture more traffic that we have got, then good luck to them.

    If not, then not.

    Let the Market decide which Libertarian Alliance is the right one, eh? LOL.

  31. Actually, Dave, the LA was created as an unincorporated association without written rules. It was (and is) owned in equal shares by its Members.

    During 1982, we wrote to the Members offering (you, I, Chris, Judy and David Farrar) to serve as the Executive Committee, the governing council of the LA. We proposed to provide published material through a Limited Company, in part to avoid the danger of Members losing their property as a result of libel actions.

    As an LA Member and Executive Committee Member I have at no time received any offer from a Limited Company owned by Chris or anyone else to acquire LA assets. Somewhere along the way, Chris seems to have converted the LA into his personal property in the form of a limited company. Chris could sometimes be rather high-handed with other peoples’ property. A “Libertarian Alliance” of only one person is preposterous.

    As far as I can discern, there is “The Libertarian Alliance”, a membership organization. There is also a limited company which claims to own most of the assets of the LA, which is 51% owned by Sean. There is also another “Libertarian Alliance” which is controlled by David Ramsay Steele’s associates.

    Sean is now proposing to redistribute Tim Evans’ shares to the present Officers of “The Libertarian Alliance.” Tim Evans could make Sean’s position as “Director” very uncomfortable if he so chose…

    I have no intention of getting involved in this squabble, which resembles “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” sometimes. Chris must have presented a Written Constitution of the LA to the LA’s bankers to obtain signing powers over the LA’s bank account. As I have said, he could be cavalier in these matters. It’s just the way he was, for better and for worse.

    I hope this clarifies the situation.

    Tony

  32. @DD

    Because in Paul Marks’ view, ideas have consequences and in his warped opinion anyone (like KC) whose ideas supposedly support the “enemy” (the occupy movement) is “obviously” an enemy of “freedom” itself that “justifiably” needs to be exterminated…

    PM quote:

    “Do you side with Kevin Carson and the “Occupy” movement (which he openly supports – just as he supported the savage mobs in Egypt even AFTER the attack on Laura Logan) or do you not?

    If you do NOT support the extermination of “the rich” and any person (no matter how poor) who tries to defend them, why do you enable people who (when their mask of jargon language is stripped away) clearly do.

  33. Bill Green if you had bothered to read the orignal thread (and the other threads on other recent articles) you would have seen I was argueing AGAINST war, AGAINST the “emotional safisfaction” of allowing “reason to be the slave of the passions”.

    If you are too lazy to read the original thread (or the other others) it really is not my fault. Naughty people like Sean Gabb only succeed if people are lazy enough to be mislead by quotes out of context. Which, of course, is also the Carson method – taking words out of context from Ludwig Von Mises (and others) to pretend these thinkers held opintions that were the opposite of the opinions they actually held. So, I suppose, I should be pleased to be in such good company as Mises and the others.

    As for Kevin Carson – his position was made clear some years ago in “Contract Feudalism”. From this and other works it is clear that he is NOT just an enemy of the “landed interest” (as Sean Gabb sometimes implies), on the contrary all employers (whether in farming, manufacturing or services) are his target.

    “Contract Feudualism” was not just a terrible work of history (which as an historian Sean Gabb knew perfectly wall – but decided to push anyway), it was a rehash of subMarxist wageslave stuff.

    If the extermination (or if the word “extermination” is too harsh – then their no longer existing) of all employers (I repeat NOT just landed ones) is your definition of “libertarian” – well it is not mine.

    Social Justice…..

    Dr Long objects that it is not a “doctrine” – I suppose he hates this word because it is associated with religion (which he detests). Fair enough – I will use the word “principle”.

    The principle of Social Justice, or “justice as fairness”, or “fair shares for all” is as follows…..

    That all income and wealth are rightly owned by the collective (whether one calls the collective “the people” or whatever) and should be “distributed” according to some political rule.

    Does that sound libertarian to you?

    If it does then the what has been done to the word “libertarian” is close to what was done to the word “liberal” in the early decades of the 20th century in the United States.

    The meaning of the word has been shifted round – 180 degrees.

  34. PM – I read all of your remarks here as well as the remarks/comments from the original post.

    left-libertarians are broadly concerned with achieving leftist ends (what you call social justice) via libertarian means (negative liberty).

    I prefer “distributive justice” – who is justly deserving of the return on the 3 factors of production – land, labor, & capital.

    thus our definitions of “wealth” and “income” are probably going to be very different.

    so, as a geo-mutualist, in my opinion land can not be considered “wealth” because by definition there are no labor inputs in it’s production.

    as a result, I treat the return on land (called “economic rent”) as “common wealth” which in effects treats land ownership itself as owned in common because there would be no economic advantage to choosing to occupy one location over another.

    by “income” do you mean return on labor (wages) or return on capital (economic interest) or return on land (economic rent)?

    as a geo-mutualist, I believe that without the state’s privilege granting abilities, rentier classes (landowners, bankers, owners of capital/corporations, owners of “intellectual property”) would not be justly due what you are probably referring to as “income”.

    I also believe that common ownership (individual equal ownership claims) is different than collective ownership (joint claims).

  35. I prefer “distributive justice” – who is justly deserving of the return on the 3 factors of production – land, labor, & capital.

    I prefer to divide the economy into: spicy foods, things which are orange, things which are larger than a breadbox, machinery with a reciprocating motion, and “uncategorised”.

  36. Bill – if you read my comments then you know that I am desperate to AVOID the emotional satisfactions of throat cutting and blowing off heads with bullets (and NO APOLOGY for harsh language – those who favour ideological war must be confronted with the grim reality of what they favour).

    Reason must NOT be made the slave of the passions. I know the passions (I can feel in them in myself) – the fact that I openly talk about them (and others do not) does not make other people free of them. So I know that the passions must be controlled – the “beast must be chained”.

    The idea that is perfectly O.K. to cut throats and blow off heads – BUT NOT O.K. TO TALK ABOUT IT (even to prevent it), is too “English” even for me (and I was born in England and have lived here all my life). The dark passions in the nature of man must be confronted by each person – not swept under the carpet (where they will they will fester in the dark corners of one’s soul).

    For example, many friends of mine want BARACK OBAMA to win the election for President of the United States in November – and not just because Mitt Romeny is a pragmatic deal making person (I do not use the words “pragmatic” and “deal making” as praise – very much the reverse). But because they believe that things are going to break down – and they want Comrade Barack in charge to take the blame.

    I believe that such a breakdown (with the Comades in charge) would lead to a sea of blood – and it is exactly the emotional satisfactions of throat cutting and blowing off of heads that I wish to AVOID.

    By the way one can be an atheist and still believe in the soul – for example in an Aristotelian sense.

    Ian B.

    To be fair the word “social” back in the 18th century did not have a socialist implication – back in the 1700s Edmund Burke (and others) could talk of “social freedom” and mean civil freedom – i.e. freedom of action that was limited by nonviolation of the bodies and goods of others (including corporate bodies such as churches).

    However, in the early 19th century the word “social” was taken more and more by the socialists.

    Certainly if any term is on the “Progressive” side of politics it is “Social Justice”.

    “Social Justice” (or “justice as fairness” or “fair shares for all” or …..) means the principle that all income and wealth are rightfully owned by collective – by “the people” or whatever one calls it (one can trace the origins of this idea back the German philospher Samual Pufendorf [and others] – with the theological idea that God gave humanity the world COLLECTIVELY).

    Pufendorf himself was not a collectivist (although he did believe in such things as compulsory charity – contradictions) , but this idea (which is older than Pufendorf) that the words in the Book of Genesis should be interpreted in this way can lead via various things (such as the so called “Lockian Proviso” of an impossible “as much and as good left for others”) to modern “social justice” collectivist ideology.

    The Bible does not have to be interpreted that way – Hugo Grotius (the Dutch philosopher, theologian and legal writer) was among many of who have interpreted the Bible as meaning that the world was OPEN TO BE CLAIMED (not that it was consigned to everyone in common).

    Of course most modern collectivists are athiest (either openly or in the “liberation theology”, “collective salvation” way), but there was a religious root to a lot of what the Progressives believed in the Unted States and the Fabians believed in Britain (they rejected traditionial relgion – but not all the connected beliefs and habits of mind).

    You are right about that much Ian – although you take it much further than I would.

    But then, for personal reasons, I have a bias against blaming relgion as much as others might.

    Certainly the collectivist vision known as “Social Justice” is, in origin, a religious one – if only as a heretical vision of Heaven-On-Earth.

    When one listens to a speech by someone like Barack Obama one is listening to a religious speech – it is a religion without (privately) any belief in a PERSON called “God” or INDIVIDUAL life after death, But it is still a religion.

  37. The War of Ideas is an Ancient Greek idea. Intelligent people saw others fighting with swords, and dying, and concluded that fighting with WORDS was a better approach, with bad ideas dying instead of people.

    Tony

  38. A debate is not a fight in any way but rather it is co-operation, or mutual aid, as the common aim is truth. This is a societal fact and not always easy for people to see, as on the personal level, eristic or polemical argument looks hostile to many people, and, at the motivation level, maybe it usually is, or is meant by one or both sides to be such, but to lie in debate is to be counter productive, and there is even a duty on every debater to openly admit that you have been wrong and just as soon as you can see it. Self-respect should get anyone to honestly exercise that duty in any debate. To refuse to do so just because you dislike the other fellow is to be morally corrupt. So the idea of fighting really is inept, even if it rarely feels that way to any actual debaters.

    Tony got the above from Karl Popper not the Greeks. Popper overlooked that we cannot kill off ideas as well as that writing cannot be fighting. His W3 does not allow ideas to die. However, it is true that killing people is most illiberal.

  39. Mr. Marks, your personal attacks on Sean Gabb are tiresome and undignified. Also, there are other ways than SHOUTING EVERY OTHER SENTENCE to make your point. That is all.

  40. I got it from Popper, who states the war of ideas is an Ancient Greek invention. Well spotted, though!

    Tony

  41. Carl – I should indeed use italics not BOLD.

    However, you are mistaken.

    The post here is from Sean Gabb – not me.

    I have never written a post attacking Sean Gabb (anywhere) – he has wrtitten several posts attacking me.

    I have written COMMENTS attacking Sean Gabb – but only in RESPONSE to him.

    In short “I have never started it”.

    Even the words he quotes in this post (which he quotes WILDLY OUT OF CONTEXT) were NOT about Sean Gabb.

    They refer to Kevin Carson – and were part of my anti David Hume stand (on several threads here) that one should NOT make reason “the slave of the passions” and that one should NOT seek the emotional satisfactions of violence.

    After all David Hume did NOT do that in his own life. His passions were kept under control.

    My whole acceptance of politics (even supporing people like Mitt Romney – and the very thought of that man makes me feel ill) is based on my desire to AVOID ideoligical war.

    Sadly no matter how loud I shout about AVOIDING the emotional satisfactions of cutting throats and blowing off of heads, some people can not hear me.

    Or pretend you can not.

  42. “Sadly no matter how loud I shout about AVOIDING the emotional satisfactions of cutting throats and blowing off of heads, some people can not hear me.”

    I think it is to the notion of deriving satisfaction from cutting throats, etc. which is objectionable, notwithstanding your disavowal of the act itself.

  43. I was not me who said “reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions”.

    Or are you disputing what “the passions” are Mr Carey?

    No matter how many times I shave the hair comes back.

    Is it different for you?

    When Kevin Carson produces a piece of work such as “Contract Feudalism” comparing employers (ALL employers – NOT just “the landed intererest” that is Sean Gabb spin) to slave owners and what-not, what is he saying?

    Is he saying he really loves them and wants to give the employers a big kiss?

    Or does he mean he wants to remove employers from this world?

    You do not like the language “CUT THROATS and BLOW OFF HEADS” – which is exactly why I use this language. Why should I use silly academic language carefully crafted (Roderick Long style) to AVOID the issue?

    I never asked Sean Gabb to push Kevin Carson.

    I had never even heard of Kevin Carson before Sean Gabb started to push him.

    But it is my duty to show you what ideological war is about.

    First you kill for ideological reasons.

    Later you kill – just to kill.

    When someone says…..

    “Your grandfather [or whatever] had no right to this land – so you do not either”.

    I know what they mean. They mean “I am going to kill you and take this land”.

    I am half Jewish and half Irish (Catholic Irish in the case of James Power – although he sided with the British army, he was nice jolly man, he was also a killer there is no contradiction) – I have been to both Ulster and Israel (and will go again). I have never killed anyone – I can not PROVE that. So you will just have to trust me (or not – as you choose).

    But I know what “fighting talk” means.

    So does Kevin CARSON (that name is Irish – Scots-Irish as the American say, and Scots Irish are killers, that does not make them bad people, it is just the way things are).

    By the way – PLEASE do not give me the B,S. line about “it is O.K. to kill – as long as you do not enjoy it”.

    When James Power won a fight (or survived the First World War) and watched the other human being’s blood running into the mud (not his own) – he was pleased.

    When Harry Marks kicked the heads in (and I mean that litterally) of members of the British Union of Fascists during the “Battle of Cable Street” he ENJOYED it.

    He also enjoyed it when he turned on the Communists (allies at the Battle of Cable Street) picked up a conference table (after they ordered him to attack an old lady’s shop) and used it to crush them into a wall.

    I am a physically weak and malcordinated man – Kevin has a much better chance of killing me than I have of killing him.

    A cynic would suggest that is why I am so DESPERATE to AVOID war.

    But let us say the fight (by some freak of nature – say he got hit by lighting and I did not) went the other way.

    He comes to a farm (or the local branch of Tesco) and declares that it now belongs to “the people”.

    I oppose him – and (by a freak of nature) it is HIS blood (not MY blood) that ends up running into the gutter.

    Am I supposed to pretend that I would be UPSET?

    That I would not be pleased?

    I am English, I was born in England I have lived my life here.

    But I have never understood this English HYPOCRISY,

    If you really are going to be upset about the death of someone.

    Then DO NOT KILL IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    Do not kill them – and then go on about how terrible it was.

    I OPPOSE war.

    I wish to AVOID it.

    But I am not going to tell stupid lies about human nature. And why reason must control the passions NOT be controlled by them.

    If an enemy dies, if it is his blood – not one’s own blood that ends up running into the mud. Of course one is pleased (as any animal would be – that is what the “passions” are the ANIMAL in man – and it is there in YOU as well).

    That is a good reason to avoid war in the first place.

    Not just because of what it does to other people – but what it does to ONE’S SELF.

    To one’s own soul.

    Especially when one lies – when one pretends that there is no hair on one’s face, that one will not enjoy the foe’s blood going into the dust.

    That is why the beast must be chained.

    But if the Social Justice people wish to unchain the beast – to let loose the dogs of war.

    Well then – so be it.

  44. The idea that we should let our ideas die in our stead is a much repeated one of Popper, Tony.

    The war of ideas, the polemic, is never quite realistic, as I explained last time. Nor can ideas die. They leave legacy in what Popper calls W3, that is not like the law of the jungle, or like evolution, as it is not at all short of room.

    So ideas can only be discredited by a refutation rather than killed off but that process of being discredited is a W2 subjective thing of the individual mind that comprehends the refutation rather than a W3 affect on the idea itself. So this rather splendid insight of Popper is incoherent.

    However, the basic insight can be saved by saying something like that we should see debate as mutual aid rather than as a war. We should then drop the Romantic idea of having any class enemies and see the only problem as being one of rather widespread ignorance.

    Debate is nearer to trade that to war, It is positive sum with mutual gains rather than negative sum with mutual losses, as both politics and charity usually are.

    But we need to retain the Popperian duty to attempt to refute our own ideas. Debate puts that duty on the division of labour but we still need to retain the duty to admit that the other fellow is right as soon as we can see it if it is to be effective in doing the Popperian job of error elimination ; indeed, we should admit to error even if we only think that we see it. This hardly prevents us from going over the matter again. But it might aid error elimination. The state is, of course, a big mistake.

  45. Paul,

    But then, for personal reasons, I have a bias against blaming relgion as much as others might.

    I’m not trying to blame religion. I’m trying to illustrate the different philosophies within Christianity, a faith which can be interpreted as individualist and (old meaning) liberal, or as collectivist and authoritarian. My basic argument regarding the Puritans is that they distorted Christianity and their legacy is the philsophical justification of tyranny in the service of salvation.

    To attack some Christians as tyrannical Statists is not to attack all Christians or “religion”. It is to note that the Western World is Christendom, and we have to understand its philosophies in that context.

  46. Sean, you’ve got to bear in mind that my most significant memory of Latin is a classroom full of ten year old boys (myself include) giggling at the word “homo” while an aged and exasperated latin master dug himself in deeper exclaiming, “you are a homo, I am a homo, we are ALL homos! All men are homos!”

    It was the mid 70s, so it wasn’t yet illegal to giggle.

    • It wasn’t directed at you, but was an exasperated sigh at the persistence of this thread. It translates roughly as “When you’re in a hole, stop digging.”

  47. Ian – yes I stand corrected on the religion point (I am too sensitive on it).

    Sean.

    You started the thread – it was your post.

    I have never written a post against you – you have written several against me.

    I have only ever written COMMENTS against you – and not on every post.

    For example, I praised your recent post on the House of Lords.

    I only attack your stuff when it is Carson pushing (or other such).

    I never asked you to start pushing Carson – and I do not think you even believe in this stuff.

    I think you started all this (back in 2006 or before) as some sort of joke – you were having fun (much as David Hume sometimes said things to shock people, to wake them up, not because he really believed in).

    You were having FUN.

    But I just wish you would have fun some other way – not by Carson pushing (which is a TERRIBLE thing to do).

    Do you believe that the long term economic interests of rich and poor, employers and employees – owners of “capital”and those who they employ, are in harmony?

    Yes or no?

    If “yes” then you are classical liberal – and not a Carsonite.

    If “no” you are not a classical liberal – and are on Carson’s side.

    And I do not mean Kit Carson – I mean Kevin Carson.

    You can not be a classical liberal and a Carsonite AT THE SAME TIME.

    Do you believe in Social Justice – i.e. the principle (as Roderick Long hates the word “doctrine”) that all income and wealth rightly belong to the collective and should be “distributed” according to some political rule.

    Yes or no?

    If “no” then you are NOT a supporter of “Occupy” and the Egyption mobs (both of whom Kevin Carson has supported).

    If “yes” – then you are on his side.

    Yes or no?

    And YES – if things are taken beyond the political process (as both the “Occupy” movement and the Egyption mobs wish to do) then IT DOES come down to “cutting throats” and “blowing off heads”.

    And if Kevin thinks that will be just on his side – he is mistaken.

    If he wants ideological war (and his support for “Occupy” and for the Egyption mobs shows that is exactly what he wants) then Kevin Carson must be made aware that there are TWO sides, not ONE side.

    In short he needs to be warned that his OWN NECK (not just the necks of “the rich” and their “henchmen”) that is at stake, if he chooses war.

    I make no apology for reminding him of this.

    In fact it is my DUTY to do so.

    As for you Sean…..

    I ask again.

    Do you believe (with Ludwig Von Mises and other classical liberals) in the harmony of the economic interests of rich and poor, employers and employees, owners of capital and those they employ.

    Yes or no?

    And do you believe in Social Justice (the central princple of all collectivist movements – Fascist, Islamist, anarcho communalist, Marxist, and on and on).

    Yes or no?

    Which side are you on?

    It is time for the game playing (which you have been engaged in since at least 2006) to stop.

  48. Paul Marks, you are a worthless piece of human debris! I have read your raving, rambling posts over the years and wondered what kind of idiot or psychopath lurked beneath such an obvious inability to think clearly and engage ones opponents honestly. Only a raving lunatic distorts their opponents so badly and so continuously assumes the worst about them. Well, your recent posts have revealed the truth for all those who wish to see clearly: your are both an idiot and a psychopath, the worst combination possible.

    However, please continue your ravings! I have used your posts numerous times to demonstrate (to myself) logical fallacies, and dishonest distortions of opponents and politics and history. So please keep posting so I have more material to work with: I learn a lot when I have to unravel your lunatic ramblings!

  49. This is going to sound terrible, but… let’s not be too rash. Paul Marks has a legitimate libertarian complaint about the type of material being promoted by the UK’s largest Libtare organisation. He goes about it in an uncivilised manner, by his rather paranoid and passive aggressive personal attacks on Sean Gabb. But Mr. Gabb then responds with bullying remarks about Paul’s grammar and mental state. Someone earlier mentioned the Enlightenment versus the Romantic style of rational disagreement and argument. Since you both seem to think of yourselves as men in the Enlightenment tradition, it would behove you both to take the higher path of rational, impersonal disagreement and constructive debate. Though it is of course true that Romantic good vs. evil drama makes for compulsive viewing, and maybe that’s what concerns you more. I know not.

  50. DMajor – I love you to.

    Especially the bit about simple (and basic) questions being “raving” and “rambling”

    Either someone is on the side of “Social Justice” or someone is on the side of traditional justice (the basic principle of such things as the Common Law).

    One can not be in favour of Social Justice and traditional justice at the same time – they are incompatble (traditional justice might best described as “hands off” – Social Justice is a matter of collective ownership and “distribution”).

    Nor one can someone hold, at the same time, the traditional Classical Liberal view (of Bastiat and others) that the rightly understood long term interests of “rich and poor”, “employer and employee”, “the owners of captal and those employed by them” to be the same (in harmony) – or one can hold (with Kevin Carson and others) that there is a radical conflict in interests.

    Talking about “corporate welfare” (which, of course, need not involve corporations at all) does not deal with this. As if is obvious that even if they were no subsidies to business enterprises (and, of course, such subsidies only make up a small part of the budgets of most Western governments – most of their budgets being eaten up by the Welfare States) people like Carson would hate employers just as much.

    The hatred, and the desire to destroy, would not be reduced even by 1% it the subsidies stopped and is no less for business enterprises that do not get subsidies than it is for business enterprises that do get subsidies.

    Roger Keith.

    You suggest that I use polite language.

    I did – for year after year.

    It had no effect – none at all.

    So I have tried blunt (you would say savage) language.

    But ideological war is about throat cutting and the blowing off of heads – so if Kevin Carson wants it (which by his support of such things as the “Occupy” movement and the Egyption mobs – he clearly does) he should be reminded that it is not only the necks of “the rich” and “their henchmen” (of course that meant me – and people like me) that are at stake – it is his own neck that is also at stake.

    Kit Carson did not shy away from words like throat cutting and so on – if he thought someone needed killing he said so (in clear language), So why all this academic double talk from Kevin Carson and his supporters?

    And why their shocked horror (which I believe to be fake) when someone insists on using clear words for the things they imply?

    As for Sean Gabb.

    I have never got a straight forward and honest reply from him on the basic questions – not in six years.

    It has made no difference if I have asked politely or not.

    All I get is evasions.

    I would be astonished if the Sean Gabb tap dance did not continue.

    I will not get a clear and honest response to the basic questions – no matter whether I ask politely or not.

    There will just be tap danceing.

    Of course the Karl Popper thing comes in here.

    Sean Gabb could refute me simply by ending the tap dance – by saying clearly which side he is on. For the Social Justice crowd or against them. For the natural harmony of rightly understood economic interests of rich and poor of the Classical Liberals or against it and in favour of the Social Justice idea that the real conflict is not between tax payers and tax eaters, but between “rich” and “poor”, the “owners of capital” and “those employed by them” – with the only way out being collective ownership of income and wealth and “fair distribution”.

    But I would be astonished if the tap dance stopped and we got any clear choosing of sides by Sean Gabb. He will continue to pretend that things (such as down-with-employers “Contract Feudalism” and Social Justice) that are blatenly incompatible with libertarianism are not incompatible with the basic nonaggression principle.

    As I have said before…..

    Sean Gabb may be a good husband and father (I accept that, after all he regularly mentions his family here, much as a certain sort of person insists on showing photographs of their family which they keep in their wallet – the message being “do not think badly of me – I am good family man” ) – and I hope he is, as his wife and child will need such a good huband and father in the terrible times that are to come (times that I certainly will not survive).

    But as far as political economy and political philosophy are concerned – Sean Gabb is no good.

    Not no good because he is stupid – he is not stupid.

    And not no good because he is misinformed – he has had access to the same books and so on that I (and others) have had access to.

    He is no good because he chooses to be no good.

    It is a moral failing.

  51. Paul,

    for pity’s sake, will you stop going on about Kevin F***ing Carson. If it wasn’t for your tireless efforts, no one would even know who he is. If my throat ends up getting slit, it won’t be by Kevin Carson and his invisible army but by me, driven insane by the drip, drip, drip of this never-ended diatribe of yours. Sean’s opinions are well -documented, and every time I’ve seen him speak, or read his work he’s given a straightforwardly libertarian position, and never taken the easy way out on controversial matters, so if you haven’t got the answer from him you require after six years of trying, then give it up and move on.

  52. PM – just curious…do you believe there is a difference between “ownership in common” and “collective ownership”?

  53. Richard – it is Sean Gabb (not me) who pushed Kevin Carson. In fact there are several recent posts on this very site (not all written by Sean Gabb – but all posted by him) that mention K.C. (if only that was Kit Carson) favourably.

    Sean has been doing this sort of stuff for six years (at least).

    The difficulty with giving up and moving on (which I have tried to do several times) is that people keep reminding me that that this organisation still exists – and that it (or at least part of it) is pushing rich-versus-poor stuff (and so on), under the name of “libertarianism”. And promising people impossible things – like under “libertariaismism” you will not have big employers, and so on.

    Of course it may be that the word “libertarian” goes the way of the word “liberal” and that pro private enterprise nonaggression principle types have to come up with some new word to describe ourselves (“voluntarist” perhaps – as in the old, early 19th century, Leeds Mercury).

    After all an academic (Roderic Long) has already made a visit to this thread in which he said (if he said anything) that “Social Justice” was his libertarianism – i.e. turning the word on its head. Twisting the meaning 180 degrees. So (sadly) it is hardly just K.C. – there is whole Legion (in the Bibical sense) out there.

    But it would be sad to let the word “libertarian” go without some resistance.

    Bill – yes you have a point.

    I suppose one possible difference with be….

    If British fishermen were allowed in British fishing grounds (but no one else) and could do what they liked – then that would be a form of common ownership.

    Whereas – if the British fishermen were allowed in, but under the control of the state (or of a fishing guild) that would be a form of collective ownership.

    There was “Nobel Prize” winner (of course, technically speaking, there is no such thing as Nobel Prize in economics – but everyone else uses the term, so please give me a pass), who argued something connected to this.

    Name – I can not remember her name.

    Anyway.

    The lady argued against the “Tragedy of the Commons” by claiming that in some circumstances (on a limited scale) local communites managed forests or rivers (or what not) without the need for any one person to actually own them.

    One could argue this was an argument about common ownership being different from collective ownership.

    After all the lady was strongly opposed to government intervention (even by local councils) – her argument was about tradition (and how it had evolved in the light of local circumstances) and local elders and so on.

    Almost like a old corporation with traditional members.

    A bit like the corporation that ran the port in Genoa for centuries (Roussau mentions it) – there were revolutions and invasions, but the same group of families ran the port (via their traditional organisation). There was an ancient bank in Sienna (I think it was sold quite recently) that was also a bit like this – officially it was a city owned bank (which is how, I think, it got sold) but it was so bound up with traditions and customs (a lot of them good ones) that it was independent.

    Just north of me is another county (Leicestershire is just north of Northamptonshire) and there is a little corner of this county which is still under the common system – it never got enclosed.

    The farmers meet together (every year) to hand out bits of land to be farmed – the crops are private, but the land itself belongs to all of the families (or none of them).

    However, generally speaking such practices do not work well – they work (if at all) in a few cases on a limited scale.

    Certainly the Mir system in Russia (first on the Imperial Estates – but the Alex II spread it to the private estates also) where each village was in charge of the land – was terrible.

    It led to famine after famine – till Stolypin allowed people to leave the Mir (and take land with them).

    The experiences of Israel do not indicate that communal farming (and what not) works well – in spite of all the support it got there (including from people from all over the world who came to work on the Ks and other such – much the utter bafflement of Israelis of a different political point of view “but these weird overseas youngsters are volunteering to be unpaid labour….”) – anyways the K.s and so on have not produced a new society (even at their hight only 5% of the Jewish population were involved in them).

    However – let them be (let them prosper or die as they choose and as objective reality influences things over time).

    If I am against the confiscation of the land of the monasteries and so on (which I am – even though I certainly do not favour trying to take back land after centuries, to try an restore the monarteries), then I must be in favour of letting the kibbutzium (both religious and secular) alone also – even if they are not my sort of people (which, to be blunt, they are not).

    I hope that will not be mistaken for antisemitism (although I am a Christian – I choose that path), the attitude I am expressing here is quite a common one among Jews themselves (Israeli Jews anyway).

    Different strokes for different folks.

    The real problem for Israel is the welfare class (including the religious ones) – and the government employee class (all those media people, teachers, lecuturers and other ver,,,, – sorry I am getting intolerant again, who teach, basically, a watered down Edward Said view of the things – this class are more dangerious then all the terrorists put togther and the taxpayers have to pay for them).

    A cut off of American aid can not come too soon – for that will be the excuse needed to cut all these people off their subsidies (I am getting intolerant again). They might still teach – but they would have to teach what the parents want taught (or not get paid).

    Anyway – back to collective ownership.

    One of my jobs in England (I have quite a few jobs) is working for amusement park (getting fat in a small car park box) – the park is owned by a charitable trust.

    An example of …….

  54. Paul,

    that would be the same Roderick Long seen here hanging out with Walter Block and some of the Mises guys?

    You will notice that they managed to avoid slitting each other’s throats. So why not let a free debate between left-libertarians and libertarians? There may well be an unbridgeable divide between the two positions, but that doesn’t mean there’s an unbridgeable divide between people who take these views, because we may convince them out of their error and they may be decent people anyway. I am no friend of socialism, but actually I was brought up in a Labour family. Even though I disagree over politics with my parents, I’m pretty sure they’re not going to go all Pol Pot on me.

    • Actually I can remember that Roderick Long.

      He did have some kinks (but so have we all – me especially) and I actually did laugh when I came upon the Zeus thing on his own website – I did not make up that I laughed. I thought it was funny.

      But then he went over to Social Justice – I have no idea why.

      And judgeing by his comments here, it is not going to tell me.

      Family and death.

      Well now my half brother (Marks by name Maxist by belief) did say he was going to kill my father and me, as a Revolutionary duty (nothing personal – he was not a harsh person).

      He is too late for Harry Marks.

      But if Tony is still alive he might have a go for me – that would be fine, after all If I spotted him a combat situation (i.e. where he was on a side trying to actually kill) I might well aim a bullet at him (a familar face as it were – I do not have anything particularly against him, it would not be a personal thing).

      By the way I have many Labour supporting friends – I always have done.

      But they are not political philosophers.

      They can not be expected to know what Social Justice means. To them it is just a nice sound – a bit like “be good”,

      I would even give pass to Conservative party ministers. Well actually I do not give them a pass (I send off letters and so on) – but perhaps I should give them a pass (although not a candidate who says he is going to “hard wire” Social Justice into police work – if I bend that far I will break, he is beyond the pale even if he does not understand what he wrote).

      Ian Duncan Smith is a nice man – but not an educated one.

      David Cameron is not a nice man – but I doubt he has any real beliefs (so no real BAD beliefs – he just says whatever he thinks might be popular).

      But Roderick Long?

      No I RESPECT him too much to give him a pass.

      Actually I respect Kevin Carson also.

      I think I understand where he is comming from,

      I have been told he was a security guard – I was one for decades.

      I feel he was in a lot of dead end jobs.

      Getting to see a lot of people who were a lot better off than him (indeed having to take orders from them – and say Yes Sir, No Sir, Three Bags Full Sir).

      Even when the rich people were as thick as pig shit and as drunk as skunks.

      And got their money by blind luck – or corruption (or both). Or one thought they had.

      Easy to go over to the Dark Side – very easy.

      Especially if one is not very nice – and I am not very nice (and I sense that in Kevin also).

      So I think I understand him – and respect him.

      But that is why I do not give him a pass.

      Of course there is a another possiblity……..

      That it is all a con.

      That they do not really believe in Social Justice – that they are just trying to con the collectivists.

      But if that is so – then they would have told me years ago.

      A quiet e.mail in 2006 – or something,

      Saying “Paul you dolt – do not fear, this is a SCAM, we are conning the left”.

      I am not sure I would have approved – I am a bit of a stick-in-the-mud sometimes.

      But I would have drawn off.

      “I can not spoil their operation even if I do not like the tactic” would have been my line.

      But I have never got the slightest indication that people K. C. are not serious.

      He is not going to go “follow me Comrades”(say to a Egyption mob out for the blood of “the Jews” – whom they define as any rich person [or even nonrich person - if they happen to dislike them], even if they have not one drop of “Jewish blood”) and lead them into some waiting 50 calibre machine guns to mow them down (jumping down a hole at the last second).

      At least, if this is the plan, no one has ever told me – or even given me a knowing hint.

      Not that I would really approve anyway.

      A mob is best contained (left to wear itself out) – if one starts shooting, the innocent (who just turned up to see what was going on) are bound to die along with the guilty (the ones who have been eating human flesh – and not out of hunger).

      Although……

      I remember seeing some Mao’s men on a televison progamme.

      They were saying how they had cut out the hearts of reactionaries (not rich people, there were none, just the “henchmen” doctrine at work) and eaten them.

      They were not proud of what they had done – indeed they were ashamed.

      And they were old men now.

      Nasty as I am – I doubt I would have the heart (no pun intended) to hang them after all this time.

      If someone is a clear and present danger – the give me the most heavy stone (or the most heavy stone by sorry excuse for a body can manage).

      But if someone is defeated, or old, or just no longer a threat – then it is time to lay down the stones.

  55. Paul – I usually only need to read a few words of a post or comment to identify you as the author. This isn’t a compliment. Your defining characteristic is not erudition or a clear and logical argument but the endless repetition of a few trigger phrases in apparently random order. You have clearly read a great deal, but equally clearly you cannot marshal that reading into anything resembling coherent English. I’m not talking about your appalling spelling, which is bad enough to hinder comprehension, but something much more fundamental – you appear unable to think and too often you just don’t make sense.

    I have no idea of your actual intellectual capacity, but unless you take control of the way in which you express yourself, I will simply have to assume you have none worth noting.

    • Ian – there is no evidence or argument in your comment for me to reply to.

      My own previous comment was actually quite friendly in tone – and I was making a good faith effort to understand the “social justice” crowd, Specifically those “social justice” people who claim (at the same time) to be libertarians.

      You reply by sneering at me.

      Fair enough.- please assume the contempt you express for me is reflected back at yourself (with interest).

  56. Paul – I don’t feel contempt for you, although you clearly are contemptuous of anyone who doesn’t subscribe to your world view. That’s fine – it is your life and your emotions you are twisting up with your hatred, although I feel sorry for the people of Kettering. If you think it is sneering to ask for content, well that says more about you than me.

    You clearly feel very passionately about something, but until you provide some significant understandable content I can’t respond to it. I will say however that you would do well to look for some other rhetorical devices than the ‘straw man’ argument you persist in using, as here for example in relation to ideas about social justice.

    It’s pointless saying more, so if you feel, as you usually do, that you must try to have the last word, go ahead.

  57. Ian (or whatever your real name is) – if you actually produce something about economics, history or politial philosophy I promise I will examine it.

    However, you have not done that – you just engaging in more sneering (“I am sorry for the people of Kettering” – for having people like me on the council, rather than collectivists having a monopoly as you would you prefer) and engage in a lot of meaningless waffle.

    As for the “last word”.

    Say something sensible about economics, history or political philosophy – and you can have the last word. The sensible comment you make being that last word.

    Carry on talking nonsense – and I will have the last word.

    I remind you that I did not start this thread – Sean Gabb did.

    Sean has written several attack posts against me (this last one by taking words wildly out of context – a typical act from the wildly dishonest little man that Sean Gabb is). I have never written posts against Sean Gabb.

    I have written comments against Sean Gabb – but only in response to posts of his (pr posts he has pushed – indeed more about posts he has pushed).

    When Sean has written posts worthy of praise – I have praised them.

    When he has written nonsense – I have attacked it.

    And when he has pushed articles full of stuff on economics, history and political philosopjy that he knowns not to be true (spreading lies – and smearing the very word “libertarian” by associating it with these lies) I have attacked both the posts – and him for pushing them.

  58. Richard Jenkinson

    “When Sean has written posts worthy of praise – I have praised them.

    “When he has written nonsense – I have attacked it.

    “And when he has pushed articles full of stuff on economics, history and political philosopjy that he knowns not to be true (spreading lies – and smearing the very word “libertarian” by associating it with these lies) I have attacked both the posts – and him for pushing them.”

    Let me see. You’ve accused Sean Gabb of:

    Communism
    White nationalism
    Hypocrisy
    A possible tendency to adultery and unfit parenting
    Undue influence over a dying friend
    A desire to destroy libertarianism

    And always with complete freedom on a blog that he controls. A remarkable belief in the toleration of diversity from someone you say isn’t really a libertarian.

    Would your friends Perry de Havilland and Tim Evans allow you this degree of freedom on the blogs they control?

  59. Mr Henderson please try and write a comment without telling lies.

    I have never accused Sean Gabb of Communism or White nationalism – although he has enabled both the “rich versus poor crowd” (although more the Black Flaggers the so called anarchists – the anti property anarchists, than the Red Flag Marxists) and the White nationalists. But he has done so for personal amusement – not because he actually believes in their doctrines (more later on this obsession with game playing).

    I have never accused him of adultery or unfit parenting.

    On the contrary – I have said (several times) that Sean Gabb being a good husband and father is, possibly, the only good thing about him,. And (in spite of everything he has done) I have wished him well in his effort to protect his wife and child in the terrible times that are to come. I will not be alive to help him – and (although he might never be able to understand why) I would help if I could.

    I have also warned him that they (the wife and child) are the last real loyality he has left – if he fails them (as he has failed so many others) his soul (in an Aristotelian sense if one rejects religion) will be lost – but I am sure he knows that anyway.

    My guess (and it can be no more than that) is that they are the people he will not betray – and that, if need be, he will die weil in their defence.

    Predicting that someone will die well is perhaps the highest praise than any human being can give to another – so you (as an ally of Sean Gabb) should be pleased.

    “Hypocricy” – I do not remember calling Sean Gabb a hypocrite but (if you are asking) yes he is one. – for example writing pompous posts about the importance of being not “unEnglish” and not “underhand” and then using every little sneaky trick he can think of – even, possibly, praising his own books under false names (on this very site).

    “Undue influence over a dying friend”.

    That was obvious – I was told that repeatedly (although not by Sean Gabb).. As someone who was only in London about one week a year there was nothing I could do about it – or that is what I told myself (one can always find excuses to do nothing). Also I did not understand it was a real problem till well after 2006.

    Remember my opinion of Sean Gabb used to be very different from what it is now.

    I knew we did not agree on theology or pure philosophy (he being both an atheist and a derterminist), but what mattered was the agreement that I supposed we had on politics

    We were both foes of international Communism and supporters of the West (i.e. the United States and allies).

    And we both stood for the nonaggression principle of civil society – standing for private property (from a window clearner with his ladder and bucket to the greatest estate).

    And (leaving aside libertarianism) we were also both conservatives – we both had a lump in our throats as we looked at ancient buildings and thought of the great families. Although we were both from the gutter ourselves (I even smiled at the fake upper class writing style and so on that Sean put on, “good for you” was what I thought).

    So what did it matter to me if Sean Gabb became the new leader after the death of Chris Tame – actually I thought (although, I admit, I did not actually say this to the complainers) that he would make a good leader.

    Yes a good leader – and I was prepared to be a loyal follower.. Even in the fight for liberty some must lead and others follow (freely make a choice to follow) and I am not the sort to lead (I have always known that).

    Then came the Kevin Carson thing in 2006 (or about then).

    For some years odd speakers had started to get invited to Libertarian Alliance conferences – socialists (they admitted that themselves – I did not beat the confessions out of them in some dark cell).

    I ignored this – if people organising the conferences invited socialists to speak (and speak about weird conspriacy stuff) it was not my place to complain (or so I thought).

    But then (in the conference pack in 2006 – if I remember the date correctly) came “Contract Feudalism” by Kevin Carson.

    A full frontal attack on the basis of libertariaism and classical liberalism.

    A vast number of totally false statements – about history as well as economics.Lie, after lie, after lie – and with obviously terrible motives. To set the poor against the rich and bring civil society (the nonaggression priciple of libertariaism) to its knees.

    I felt violated and dirty just by reading it – but I did not (not) associate it with Sean Gabb.

    In fact I thought he would be as horrified by the piece as I was – if not more horrified.

    Remember I had a very good opinion of Sean Gabb at that time – the only sign of a problem was a speech he made attacking “corporations” (I remember talking to an economist from South Africa, at the conference, about the anti corporations thing that Sean seemed to be pushing – and he was as shocked as I was) , but was only one issue (“Contract Feudalism” attacked everything – nothing was left standing by it, it did not just attack companies, it wanted to destroy everything and everyone).

    Corporations – in the end not wlldy imporant. Not compared to such things as attacking employment itself (as a form of serfdom) and attacking the private ownership of land and everything else (unless an unbroken chain of “just acquistion” could be shown going back to the year dot).

    So I wrote out a long refutation of Contract Feudalism.

    For a long time there was no response – but then there was a response, from my “friends” Sean Gabb and others.

    All Hell broke loose against me.

    I was totally betrayed – by Sean. Someone I had trusted and put faith in had proved faithless.

    But that is a minor matter compared to the following – , by de facto sideing with “Contract Feudalism” Sean Gabb had betrayed all the basic foundations of libertariansim and classical liberalism. Nothing was left – from the opposition to the labour theory of value, to opposing credit bubble finance (“monetary expansion”) to supporting the private ownership of land, and factories and chains of shops – nothing was left, nothiing.

    It was not some (relatively) minor matter of a dispute about the exact form of 19th century limited liablity laws. It was everything – everything had been betrayed, everything sold out, nothing was left.

    I have never been so close to total and absolute despair in my whole life – not even on the deaths of my mother and father.

    “A desire to destroy the libertarian movement”.

    More a fanatical desire to play games.

    David Hume (who Sean greatly admires) had the same desire – a desire to say things that he did not really mean to shake people, to wake them up (to get them thinking).

    But Hume was writing in the mid 18th century (when ideas did not seem to really matter – apart from as a diverting game) – not the early 21st century.

    Also Hume eventually broke with people such as Rousseau – he did not push their work, year after year, as Sean has with Kevin Carson (and others).

    The Libertarian Alliance is a small part of the great scheme of things – but it could have had a small part to play for good, in the terrible times that are to come.

    That is much less likely now – and, yes, I do blame Sean Gabb for that.

    Not because he has a great desire to “destroy libertarianism” – but because he will not control his desire to play games, The games are (and have been for some years) far more important to him than libertarianism is.

    “The blog he controls”.

    Mr Henderson – Sean Gabb recently wrote a post (the “Underhand and UnEnglish” one in which he wrote in his pretend Colonel Blimp style, a style I once admired – althought that seems like another life now) in which he said he was giving up his shares in the Libertarian Alliance and, thus, would no longer be in control of things such as this blog.

    If Sean no longer controls the Libertarian Alliance (as he claims) then (logically) he has given up control of the Libertarian Alliance blog.

  60. Don’t bring David Hume’s philosophy into this Paul. With all due respect, you don’t seem to either understand it or want to understand it. This really is starting to tick me off, frankly.

    • Actually I was (at least in part) defending David Hume.

      He always said he was not (not) a system builder – he was a sceptic asking questions.

      Casting doubts even on the obvious (such as one’s existance – by even challenging if a thought meant a thinker).

      It was not his fault that other people took his questions (designed to wake people up from their sleep) and built a system from them (as if they were meant to be statements of dogma).

      The last people to do that were the Logical Positivists (although there were many other sources for their “philosophy”).

      See Joad “Logical Positivism”.

      I suspect (strongly suspect) that David Hume would have despised his supposed “followers”.

      Of course the paradoxes of David Hume are not confined to philosphy he also wrote on history – and sometimes with unfortunate results.

      Hume’s History of England was one of the favourate books of Louis XVI – and he took from it that one must not resist enemies.

      It was one Hume’s mental exercises – instead of accepting the obvious (that Charles the First died because he lost the Civil War) Hume argued that he should not have faught at all, no fighting = no war, so no death of Charles.

      Looks logical (just like those mental exercises of Douglas Adams in the “Hitchhiker’s Guide to Galaxy”).

      Of course it is not really logical – and is not meant to be (at least I do not think so).but Louis XVI took it deadly seriously (no pun intended).

      So when (for example) the Swiss Guard started to fight back against his enemies – he ordered them to stop.

      No fighting = no war = the King and his family will be safe,

      Of course it did not quite turn out that way – but David Hume is certainly not to blame for a stupid and weak King taking a mental exercise as if it were literal minded truth.

      I wish I could go back in time (with the right technology) and give Louis XVI some episodes of “The Flashing Blade” to watch.

      They would have done him (and France, and the whole of Europe) a lot more good than trying to understand difficult works of philosophy and history..

  61. Paul,

    I won’t pretend that I like you, or that I regard the frequency and length and tone and content of your comments here as other than irritating. But please try to take it as helpful advice when I suggest that, in future, you should wait 24 hours after writing your comments, and only send them in when you have had time to consider the effect they are likely to have on your reputation.

    Your response to Mr Richardson looks like the product of a seriously disordered mind. I suspect there is nothing I can say to persuade you of this. I therefore make the further suggestion, that you should ask a trusted friend to look over the various contents of this thread and give you his honest opinion. I do not think his opinion will be very different from mine.

    I say this partly for selfish reasons – the Libertarian Alliance runs what may be this country’s most varied and active blog, and I do not wish it to be brought into ridicule. But I do also assure you that there are limits even to my ability to gloat over the ruinous folly of your conduct.

    You are welcome to disagree with our inclusive approach to libertarianism. The strand of libertarian thought you try to present is shared by many people, and deserves to be presented. But I hope you will, on consideration, agree that your manner of presenting that strand does it no service whatever.

    It may be that you are better suited to writing for Samizdata or the Cobden Centre blog. Our own refusal to edit or delete comments – unless for obvious legal reasons – may have deprived you of a chance for second thoughts on which you have come to rely. If this is the case, please think very hard about imposing a discipline of your own on what you write.

    My final advice is that you should make no response to what I have written, but instead try, to the best of your ability, to turn yourself from a growing irritation into a useful member of the Libertarian Alliance community.

    Sean

  62. Sean we are both mistaken.

    You have said “Richardson” and I said “Henderson” – actually the name was “Jenkinson”. I am assuming you refer to my last but one comment – not to the one in response to Ian B. (of course as a Hume specialist, which I am not, you, or Ian B., may well be able to correct me on Hume).

    Of course you may mean the comment that started this whole thread (although I do not remember if it was made in response to a Mr Richardson).

    One should reject (reject – totally reject) the “emotional satisfactions” of throat cutting and blowing off of heads (of course pretending that the violent death of foes is not emotionally statisfying is just a lie – and lies are no good foundation for anything). Revolution is about cutting throats and blowing off of heads – those who favour Revolutions (such as the Occupy movement in the United States – who desire to kill anyone who has more money than they do, although for some reason billionaire leftists get a pass, or the savage mobs of Egypt and……) should have the consequences of their proposed Revolutions shoved in their faces – with the most extreme language that it is possible to think of.

    Do not just think of the emotional satisfaction of killing a foe – think of the dead body afterwards (when one’s anger has cooled). Think of the faces of the wife and children when they look at the person (oneself) that has killed their husband and father.

    And then come to understand that killing the rich (and handing out their goods) will not (not) reduce poverty, not in the long term. Indeed in the end poverty will be even worse than it was before.

    As for what I said (in the comment to Mr Jenkinson) – as far as I can remember (over events some years ago) it was the truth.

    It is certainly was not the product of a disorded mind – although (yes) I may be in error on this or that. Remember a lot of what I know about LA. affairs is just what other people have told me (not first hand experience).

    As for “reputation” – I could not care less about it. People often believe lies and reject the truth – oh dear, how sad, never mind.

    I do not care what other people think of me – I care only about the truth.

    If I can stand before God and (honestly) say that I did the best I could – that is enough for me. As for the rest – I trust in His mercy.

    However, if I did not believe in God and individual life after physical death – I hope I would act in the same way.

    As Fransisco Suarez said “natural law is the law of God – but if God did not exist, natural law would be exactly the same”.

    Of course the Scholastics were hated by Thomas Hobbes – a good reason to look into them. Indeed (many years ago) it is the reason I did look into them – I hated Hobbes (even as a boy) so people he described as the “Kingdom of Darkness” naturally got my attention. Although Protestant writers (such as Ralph Cudworth) did also.

    As for libertarianism (although with many of the Scholasitics one is not far away from it).

    The stand for the protection of the nonaggression principle – of the property even of people I despise (such as George Soros), of both rich and poor….. this is my central political concern.

    I stand for the principles of classical liberalism and libertarianism.

    Of the harmony of the rightly understood long term interests of rich and poor. Against the lie (the vicious lie) that the poverty is caused by the rich.

    Of opposition to credit bubble finance (“cheap money” – “low interest rates”) .

    Of a central opposition that there is some sort of “natural prosperity” and that scarcity and property are “artificial”,

    On the contrary – poverty (indeed near starvation) is the natural condition of humanity. It is prosperity that it the rare exception – a tender bloom that can be destroyed by the wind.

    Of course I have faults.

    I tend to fight first and think later (a family fault – both the Jewish side and the Irish side).

    I am also prone to the sin of despair (one of the great sins) – so that I assume that things are hopeless and therefore think only in terms of a last stand (not how to prevent things getting to that position)..

    Where I will be on the day of the American election (Masada) reflects my default mental setting – one I have to struggle with.

  63. Paul – you make yourself look foolish enough without starting to imply I’m some sock puppet for one of your imagined enemies. The name I use to post here is the same one I have had for the last 66 years. I see no reason to hide behind pseudonyms when posting on political issues. Indeed, a little effort would have taken you to my blog of the last 10 years, but then you wouldn’t have another conspiracy theory to hide behind.

    “Infamy, infamy…”

    • Ian I liked the Kenneth Williams version better “infamy, infamy – they have all got it in for me”.

      I repeat – if you have something to say about economics, history or political philosophy I will examine it. If it is any good I will say so – I certainly will not personal dislike influence me.

      Have a nice day.

  64. Sorry for the gap but I’ve been ill.

    Paul – Infamy… – this was intended to be the Kenneth Williams line, but clearly you’ve missed my point.

    I don’t have to justify anything I write on economics, history or political philosophy. If I write anything on these matters it is because I find them interesting, not because I am arguing in support of a particular point of view. Most of my posts of any length on virtually any topic will find me effectively thinking out loud, rather than starting with a conclusion and building an argument towards it. Even so, I try to couch my thoughts in reasonably grammatical English and ensure some sort of logical progression such as If A then B or C with pro and con for B and C.

    You on the other hand are a career politician, a member of a specific political party and a prolific blogger and web commenter with a very strong stance on these matters.If you expect to persuade others, as I assume you do, then some effort to organise your thoughts might be expected. Some attempt to rein in the endless parentheses and meandering down side roads would seem reasonable. After all if you want to persuade, you have to draw people in, to hold up your arguments so that they can be seen and understood by the uninitiated.

    But you don’t do you – your posts and comments are instead a torrent of disconnected thoughts, thrown on the screen without pause for thought. You appear to think that linking two ideas by placing a conjunction between them or placing them in consecutive sentences constitutes a logical argument. Paul – it doesn’t. It makes your posts look like the placards and pamphlets of that great London eccentric Sydney Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Green) If you are happy with that, then so be it – just don’t expect the rest of us to take you very seriously. Given your obvious breadth of reading, I’m sure you could make a useful contribution to the debate here, at Counting Cats and elsewhere. For your sake – and ours – give it a try.

    I apologise for the intemperate tone of some of my previous comments here. All I can say is that you are a very difficult person to respond to without falling into such behaviour.

    …and this time that really is all I’m going to say on the matter.

  65. Ian I have “missed your point” because you do not have one.’ All you are doing is saying (in a rather long winded way) “Paul Marks is shit” over and over again.

    I am not interested – now go forth and multiply Sunbeam.

  66. Paul Marks

    You should stop raping your poor parentheses buttons. It really does make reading anything you have to write a drag.

    I noticed this in your “critique of a critique of a critique of a critique critique”

    • I can not use bold – and now I can not use “parenthesis” either.

      You people are so cruel……

      O.K. then.

      Anything to be helpful….

  67. Apologies in advance but, given some of the language already used by Paul, and the direction that comments have taken, I couldn’t resist this:

    http://notalwaysright.com/19645/19645

  68. Apologies for what Ian?

    All you have done is give a link (I am hardly likely click on it).

    Say what you mean – or clear off.

    Up to you my dear.

  69. I can understand someone taking words out of context (and, thus, turning their meaning round 180 degrees) in order to smear me – but now I am supposed to click on links?

    Why?

  70. Mr Marks, you are not obliged to click every link you come across. Please excuse my impertinent behaviour! From now on I’ll stick to taking your words out of context in order to smear you instead.

    Why not?

  71. And what have you “found out” Ian?

    I have suggested (repeatedly) that you enlighten me, by explaining something about economics, history or political philosophy.

    However, it appears that you only ability is to sneer at me – you have nothing of your own to say.

  72. O.K. Carl.

    David – who are “they” and what is supposed to be “going on”?

    And do not ask me to click on some link – if you have something to say, then explain it.