Posts Tagged: of


"Libertarianism seeks to make decision-making decentralized, ideally down to the point of the individual making all of his or her own decisions. Thus, it is a philosophy of true personal responsibility, not the phony kind bandied about by politicians and preachers. Real, true experiential decision-making for people, and the trial and error process that comes with it, is what libertarianism is all about."



The Law of Equal Freedom, as Adopted by The Libertarian League

Since life itself contains the impulse of physical growth and the development of faculties and therefore needs room and freedom to function; and since liberty is necessary to the exercise of faculties; and since the exercise of faculties is essential to happiness; therefore, to attain happiness one must have liberty. And since liberty, being essential to the individual, is also necessary to the race; and since this necessitates limiting the liberty of each to the like liberty of all, we therefore arrive at the sociological Law of Equal Freedom.

Libertarian Principles:

Freedom of thought is essential to the discovery of truth.
Freedom of speech is essential to the vindication of truth.
Freedom of the press is requisite for the dissemination of knowledge.
Freedom of assembly is essential for the discussion of public questions.
Freedom in education is essential to the development of correct principles of study and teaching.
Freedom in science is essential to the demonstration of fact, through investigation and experimentation.
Freedom in literature, art and music is necessary for the highest expression of conceptions and emotions.
Freedom in amusements and sports is essential to the fullest enjoyment of recreation.
Freedom in religion is necessary to avert persecution (as, e.g., for adopting and professing religious opinions, and for worshiping or not worshiping, according to the dictates of conscience).
Freedom of initiative and association is necessary for efficiency and economic in individual or co-operative enterprise.


- Kenneth Gregg, Charles T. Sprading

We Won't be Fooled Again - but the Bosses Will!

Tired of having to work for phony references or even good ones? Or maybe you have burned too many bridges to get good ones? Got some spare cash lying around? Of course you do!

All of these reasons and more is why maybe you should consider faking your job references*:

For a small fee, promises to not only craft an elaborate lie based on your exact job specifications but to see it through for as long as necessary. The site will provide a live HR operator and staged supervisor, along with building and hosting a virtual company website—complete with a local phone number and  toll-free fax. CareerExcuse will even go so far as to make the fake business show up on Google Maps.

*use your own moral discretion for these types of things, folks…


"So just what does this mean for us adjuncts who love to teach? Simply put, education is in the beginning phase of an evolution. With information technology, harnessed by the public, a more decentralized society is on the way – liberty is winning, naturally. Our libertarian society will of course emphasize education. Human beings long for creative labor; it is a biological universal. No longer will education be a tool to prepare us for the workplace. Education will become the life-long pursuit of our interests and creative ingenuity. We are programmed with curiosity and the desire to learn and communicate. Public consensus will naturally cultivate a new academic culture and those who aspire to teach will be in demand."


For me, the response is simple. All ideas are false, that is to say contradictory and irrational, if one takes them in an exclusive and absolute sense, or if one allows oneself to be carried away by that sense; all are true, susceptible to realization and use, if one takes them together with others, or in evolution.

Thus, whether you take for the dominant law of the Republic, either property, like the Romans, or communism, like Lycurgus, or centralization, like Richelieu, or universal suffrage, like Rousseau,—whatever principle you choose, since in your thought it takes precedence over all the others,—your system is erroneous. There is a fatal tendency to absorption, to purification, exclusion, stasis, leading to ruin. There is not a revolution in human history that could not be easily explained by this.

On the contrary, if you admit in principle that every realization, in society and in nature, results from the combination of opposed elements and their movement, your course is plotted: every proposition which aims, either to advance an overdue idea, or to procure a more intimate combination, a superior agreement, is advantageous for you, and is true. It is in-progress.


So long as the confusion between free markets and plutocracy persists – so long as libertarians allow their laudable attraction to free markets to fool them into defending plutocracy, and so long as those on the left allow their laudable opposition to plutocracy to fool them into opposing free markets – neither libertarians nor the left will achieve their goals, and the state-corporate partnership will continue to dominate the political scene.

That’s why we need a left-libertarian alliance.

An adequate, non-simplist, mutualist theory of what is proper to individual human beings, seeking to do justice to the range of things we denominate by the word “property,” will have to account for the nearly unbridgeable separateness that we experience in consciousness, as well as the inextricable interconnection which is our material reality. It will have to, in essence, respond to Max Stirner and Pierre Leroux (or any number of other advocates of a roughly ecological universal circulus.) The “gift economy of property” proposal seeks to base a form of “self-ownership” on two generalized “gifts:”
  1. A conscious ceding of all that we might claim of our own in others; and
  2. An affirmation of the right to err in the process of learning to manage one’s own.

On this basis, “self-ownership” would actually be an elegantly appropriate phrase, highlighting the ways in which the notion brings together two aspects of property, the “I am…” and the “I own…,” without being able to simply merge them. And it would indeed be “property,” according to the definitions used by Proudhon, combining the elements of “use” and (socially limited) “abuse.” 

There might be ethical arguments for denying one another one or both of these “gifts,” but I suspect there are very few that would meet any very rigorous standard of mutuality.


"As a toddler Julia will begin a twenty-odd-year sentence in institutions designed to process her into a ‘human resource’: Someone encultured to view the existing institutional framework and power structure as natural and inevitable, who trusts and obeys the state and takes its self-justifications at face value. Someone who takes orders from authority figures behind desks, and has been trained — at taxpayer expense — in the skills employers want in their human resources. Both Obama and Romney enthusiastically support the need for this school-to-HR treadmill to ‘maintain global competitiveness.’” …


Intellectual Property Rights Debate