freedom market

This blog 100% supports Loo Brealey, Mark Gatiss, Steven Moffat, and ALL the creative talents who have given us “Sherlock”, to do the work as they see fit & to not have to defend their work to, and be harassed by, disappointed, sourpuss knobheads who call their temper tantrums “concern” for character or proper representation.

The entire time I was a socialist, I was fighting against my own principles. I was fighting for the right to privacy and liberty the entire time I was a socialist, not knowing that socialism is by definition the elimination of all privacy, which ultimately includes self ownership in which liberty exists. No coincidence that I became such a self defeating, dependency oriented, unworking mooch when I was at the peak of my socialist idealism. I’m honestly still recovering.

Bunny condolences.

Our condolences to the family and friends of those who lost their lives yesterday at London Bridge and Borough Market.  We wish the injured a quick and full recovery.  We also wanted to thank the first responders, police, and those who worked in the local hospitals that helped to save the lives of the injured.  Our thoughts are with you.

In times like these, I take comfort in the fact that fear only has as much power as you allow it.  Making full use of the freedoms of your country is to laugh in the face of fear and those who seek to cause it or profit from it.    

Can we collectively agree that “freedom” as used by politicians and corporations in the US is an immediate sign of something opposite to freedom.

Start with “free market”, where the world is more free when you’re governed by corporate monopolies as mentioned above.
Publication for In-Between Days
Co-publishing my debut novel "In-Between Days," a humorous and heavy coming-of-age tale set in Purgatory.

Alright guys, I’ve been doing this thing for seven years now, and you guys have been here the whole time, liking, reblogging, supporting. Now we start the next phase of that. I’ve been talking about the book for months, and now I can give you some concrete details. I’m working with Köehler Publishing, a small, independent publishing house with award winning authors and a huge reach, to co-publish In-Between Days. It’s a costly venture, but it’s going to allow me a lot of creative freedom in regards to marketing and design, and most importantly, it means this novel doesn’t sit shelved with an agent or a publishing house for the next year or two. If we get this funded, by the end of the fall, it’s on the shelf at your local bookstore. So please, click on over to the kickstarter, give it a look, and help out. I promise I won’t let you down.

Nonlibertarians do not believe in complete self ownership. Sure, they usually grant that each person has some rights in his own body, but they believe each person is partially owned by some other person or entity — usually the state, or society. In other words, we libertarians are the only ones who really oppose slavery in a principled way. Nonlibertarians are in favor of at least partial slavery.

This slavery is implicit in state actions and laws such as taxation, conscription, and drug prohibitions. The libertarian says that each person is the full owner of his body: he has the right to control his body, to decide whether or not he ingests narcotics, works for less than minimum wage, pays taxes, joins an army, and so on.

But those who believe in such laws believe that the state is at least a partial owner of the body of those subject to such laws. They don’t like to say they believe in slavery, but they do. The liberal wants tax evaders put in jail — that is, enslaved. The conservative wants marijuana users enslaved.

—  Stephan Kinsella

There’s nothing about markets that necessitate private ownership (autocratic ownership) over the means of production. Nothing. Right-libertarians love to praise the (free) market in all its glory, and then in the next breath they’ll praise owners of property and capital as the life blood of markets. 

Now, I have mixed opinions on markets (necessities should be democratized to serve communities, but I suppose there are sound arguments in favor of putting non-essentials into a marketplace), but I also recognize that markets and capitalism are two separate things – the former is a means of allocation and the latter is a socio-political-economic organizational mode; the former can be found in a variety of systems and the latter is a particular system that subordinates labor to capital and involves that autocratic management style at the helm. 

Mutualism is a leftist setup that utilizes markets for allocation, but it ditches the private/autocratic control of capitalism by structuring institutions cooperatively. By extension, it does away with absentee ownership and rent, exploitative functions of class society that thrive under capitalism. Think about it – what do landlords, CEOs, rent, and hierarchical surplus appropriation have to do with markets? Again, nothing – neoliberals/right-libertarians already have their reactionary focus set upon the inherent class stratifications of capitalism and the market rhetoric is merely the “freedom-oriented" superstructural justification for it all.

Capitalism itself can even be non-market-oriented. State capitalism (basically what everyone and their grandmother, including cappies themselves, think socialism is) is a variant that replaces private owners with state officials and the system as a whole can function with a market or with government-planning, but both systems are still capitalism because there is still an owner of capital sitting at the top of a pyramid milking workers of surplus and autocratically deciding what to do with that surplus (unless the state puts the surplus towards things that the people democratically decide need attention, but that doesn’t ultimately change the organizational class structure); labor is still subordinated to capital.

All of this is a really important distinction too, because it highlights the farcical fetishization of markets as a cover for something deeper. A market economy within the capitalist mode of production exacerbates inequality because it requires that workers sell their labor like any other commodity to a capitalist buyer, and I think that many reactionaries know and understand this well. Class inequality, a societal “obligation of deference and command”, is, as I argued in a post a couple days ago about Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the foundation of rightist ideology; there are a variety of ways in which this desire for a vertical social order is expressed, and I fundamentally believe that cultural focus on “markets” and “freedom” is our epoch’s way of dodging the inequality question. Because, ultimately, it is in poor taste these days to come right out and say that there is a “natural order” of elite and tenant, so shifting the attention onto “liberty” and installing a “private property is not government and not government is freedom” mindset into people becomes a powerful mechanism for the ruling class to maintain dominance.

If you are a right-libertarian who genuinely believes that markets uphold freedom, but have no personal attachments towards the superfluous hierarchy of class stratification we have in our present market economy (and maybe even wish to see it remedied), then I would strongly recommend checking out mutualism and even Center for a Stateless Society’s “market anarchism”. Both acknowledge that private property – the autocratic management of socially-operated production and activities – is a deviation from legitimate individualism, and they advocate societies where workers run self-managed enterprises in a market economy.

Furthermore, because a setup like this breeds a flatter society, you’re less likely to wind up with cronyism or “corporatism”; you may argue that corporatism and state intervention are deviations from genuine principles of capitalism, but you must understand that the inherent class nature of capitalism inevitably leads to a ruling class that owns the means of production and has the ability to mold government policy to its own benefit because of that societal power – “pure capitalism” generates the conditions for “corporate capitalism” to always take root, in other words. Cooperative structures, ones that don’t have a naturally self-interested owner at the top looking to bend market laws for their benefit and pay off politicians, are much less likely to generate chasms of wealth and power inequality, and in effect you wind up with a freer and more fulfilled population of people.


Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
—  Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (1962)

That comment is awesome

I think Hicks missed the most important part of the aspect of the strategy that a religious person has in rejection of evidence against their faith, and this is actually one of the typical identifiers of pseudoscience, and that is the claim of a conspiracy against their claims. In typical religious language, that would be in the form of “the devil is trying to deceive me”, or in marxist/feminist terms, it’s the idea that all ideas to the contrary are oppressive social constructs made by those who are privileged by the system to justify capitalism/patriarchy to themselves and to those who are “oppressed” by it.

The principle of solidarity would critique a narrow approach to the economy that uses a one-dimensional measure of the economic growth of a nation, singularly defined by profits, that promotes policies that maximize the freedom of markets and individual choice, and that believes that market forces left to themselves are the best — indeed, the only — arbiters of economic progress. This narrow approach has produced “an economy that kills,” as Pope Francis has said.

In its place, a consistent ethic of solidarity would argue that inclusion and economic security for all are the measures of economic health and the criteria for economic decision-making. Solidarity produces the kind of social-market economy that John Paul II advocated, which involves, as Pope Francis noted, passing from a liquid economy “directed at revenue profiting from speculation and lending at interest, to a social economy that invests in persons creating jobs and providing training.

—  Card. Cupich of Chicago, rocking my world
Why the moaning? If anything can halt capitalism’s fat cats, it’s Brexit | Larry Elliott
By leaving the EU we can have a radical socialist programme, says Guardian economics editor Larry Elliott
By Larry Elliott

The left needs to be very careful about running with the idea that business should be able to veto decisions made by the electorate. If Labour had won the recent election, Corbyn would have had a mandate for extensive nationalisation, ending austerity and higher taxation on companies and the well-off. Big business would certainly have cut up rough about all that. There would have been warnings from the Confederation of British Industry about its members moving thousands of jobs out of the country. Would those calling for a second EU referendum be calling for another general election so voters could think again about supporting such a dangerously radical policy? Probably not.

Nor, given that Britain has been through the decade from hell, is the idea of a return to the status quo especially attractive. The four freedoms of the single market have made it easier for companies to move money, goods, services and people around the EU, but workers have not benefited. There has been virtually no growth in UK per-capita incomes since the start of the financial crisis in 2007, something that has not happened outside wartime in the modern age.

Britain is a low-wage economy with a chronic balance of payments problem. Repeated bouts of de-industrialisation mean there has not been a surplus on manufactured goods since the early 1980s. Growth has become ever more dependent on consumers’ appetite for debt, and the willingness of the Bank of England to make servicing that borrowing as cheap as possible. The UK’s poorer regions are 20 years behind the south-east in terms of living standards.

These problems are not new. They were there long before David Cameron decided to hold an EU referendum, and they will be there regardless of whether Brexit happens or not. Remainers on the left have spent the past year bemoaning the referendum result and have expended a great deal of intellectual energy thinking up ways to hold a second referendum or, failing that, to come up with a Brexit that in effect returns Britain to where it was on 22 June 2016.

They have quite legitimately asked leavers to explain what Britain will look like after leaving the EU. But they have come up with no solutions themselves for sorting out the country’s long-term economic problems. The assumption seems to be that all will be well provided Britain’s supply chains are protected by continued membership of the single market, and the City retains its role as Europe’s premier financial centre. This is sheer fantasy. If membership of the single market were a panacea, Britain would not have the weakest investment record of any G7 country. Nor would it be running such a big trade deficit.

As it is, Labour is now led by somebody who spent years in the political wilderness with a simple message: that there was something inherently rotten about modern capitalism; that there were radical solutions to that malaise; and that Europe was part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

Larry Elliot’s another one to add to the “Too Good to be Writing for The Guardian” club imo