Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 694, October 28, 2012

"Libertarianism must, for the foreseeable
future, be a strategy for conservatives"

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

On "Gangsoops, Stopas, Level, i.e.,s, Brochureas, Lefties, Jihadics, Tyranniesideases, (and) Anywhichwayes"
Or, A Bit of Harshness for Ol' Dave
by Michael Bradshsaw
Speaker [at]

Bookmark and Share

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

[ Note: Most of the odd words in Mr. Brown's article were caused by him accidentally sending a rough draft, and Your Local Discombobulated Editor being more discombobulated than usual (I know, hard to imagine!). But everybody loves a good rant, so here we go.—Editor ]

In re David M. Brown's article in TLE number 693 the author seems to discuss the philosophy and personal preferences of Roy A. Childs, Jr. as commented upon by George H. Smith (whose first name and middle initial the [editor] somehow left out [ yes, I did!—Editor ]; although the rarity of the name "Smith" is such that we all should, apparently, recognize it at once as being George) and Ronald N. Neff, with whose name he also seems to have some trouble.

Sandwiched between two bits of discussion of Mr. Childs and his change of heart on the subject of anarchy (and George and Ronald's comments thereon), its practicality and moral comparison to the rule of a state, Mr. Brown wanders afield into his own value judgments on the moral virtue of aggressive violence as embodied in political states. He very adroitly combines the above with his utter abhorrence of political freedom and the vile and disgusting act of leaving other people alone.

As I am not directly conversant with the works of Mr. Childs to any extent, I will leave the evaluation of his thought processes and moral judgments to his friends and students. However, on Mr. Brown's value judgments, "understanding" of history and enviable ability to predict the future of alternate realities with cast-iron accuracy, I may take some umbrage and venture to disagree.

I will only "venture" to disagree because I am, in my vast ignorance of the English language and human history, not conversant with some of the more specialized words and phrases that he uses, such as:

"gangsoops, stopa, leveli.e.,, brochurea, leftie, jihadic, tyranniesideas, (and) anywhichway";

the last of which seems, to my dim intellectual vision, to be three English words run together.

Or the phrases:

"Libertarian Law Code, Mafia Defense Agency, PLO Defense Agency, Al Qaeda Defense Agency, [and] Allah Defense Code",

none of which I have heard of before. If I may venture a WAG (Wild Ass Guess) the first phrase above may refer to the body of custom and judicial precedent traditionally known as "The Common Law" in English speaking countries. I am probably wrong on that one. If, in my abysmal ignorance I have misconstrued some or all of the technical words or phrases and thus come to an incorrect understanding of Mr. Brown's ideas, I apologize. Mea culpa. Please forgive.

For my venture into disagreement with Mr. Brown I will confine myself to three apparent errors of reason and fact that I seem to find in wading through his turgid and opaque prose:

The good ol' straw-man argument form.

In Dave's defense of armed robbery, rape, genocide and slavery (the four functions of the "state" throughout actual history, rather than his fantasy of it) he attempts to refute the arguments of the libertarians, specifically the anarcho-capitalists. Unfortunately, being unable to find any actual unsupportable positions of that school of philosophy, he must set up straw-men to knock down; attributing positions to the anarcho-capitalists that they do not hold and actually oppose. He is claiming that governments, their agencies and at least one militant church are actually free market business firms that advocate private property rights and the absence of a government. His examples are, specifically: the mafia, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the United States Central Intelligence Agency (Al Qaeda appears to be a CIA front) and "Allah Defense Code"; the latter having no definite meaning or referent, but appearing to refer to the Muslim church and its canon law. None of these governments or churches are in any way anarcho-capitalist or have any interest in political liberty, other than to destroy it. His unsupported assertions therefor fail the straw-man and non-sequeter tests, as well as the "silly twit" test.

The claimed inability to distinguish between a thing and its opposite.

This overlaps with the straw-man "argument" described above. Ol' Dave asserts that things that are diametric opposites of each other are the same as each other. That the Israeli conquest of Lebanon is in fact the absence of a government in Lebanon. Hey, Dave! Israel is a socialist state, not the absence of one in that region. When Israel conquered Lebanon it ruled Lebanon to the extent that it was able. That is pretty much the definition of the presence of a government, not its absence.

Ol' Dave tells us that in the absence of a government, security firms will have to obtain a "license" to operate, and that if they violate the "law" they will have their "licenses" revoked, and be unable to operate. Gosh, Dave, in the absence of a government who will issue any license to do business? Who will revoke such a license? Who will forcibly (by means of military attack) shut down a business that operates without such a license? Dave has now told us that the absence of a government means the presence of a government.

The appeal to Dave's fantasy presented as "history". (AKA lies.)

Uh, Dave, can we try an actual "fact" or two, instead of your fantasies? A few points of fact:

  • Human written history extends back about 6,000 years, not the 3,000 that you apparently assert.
  • Political action (war) has been documented and measured to about 7,500 years ago in northern Mesopotamia.
  • People have been engaging in agriculture and living in towns for about 10,000 years. Living in towns is, kinda like, the very definition of civilization.
  • Throughout human history there have been many forms of government. None have been able to control all aspects of interpersonal relationships, although all have tried. There has been a broad range of control and restriction by governments, from very tight to very loose. There has therefor been a broad range of political and economic liberty in the various nations and at various times. All liberty varies inversely with the power (and in a rather absolute sense, the presence) of government. To the extent that you have one, you have less of the other.
  • Even under extreme governmental control and interference most human interaction throughout written history (especially considering economic exchanges of values) are ANARCHIC, as they do not involve government participation or direct control; only interference in the form of armed robbery (tax collecting) and threats of other violence for acts of commerce, sociability and family. Wealth is created and trade happens despite the state, not because of it.
  • Governments in general do, indeed, descend into tyranny and genocide. They also last about 200 years on average. The United States of America only lasted (at most, the date of revocation of the constitution is in controversy) for 144 years.
  • Constitutions do not work any better than kings, from the standpoint of decent people. They do not prevent tyranny or genocide. In the Empire of Usa, where I live, the constitution and bill of rights have been revoked. They are not the law anymore — as of 1933 at the latest. I have never lived in a free country, and may never see one up close; although I am working on that problem.
  • Even the Swiss are finding government more intrusive and violent as time goes by. They need a license to carry a pistol, now.
  • Only governments commit warfare, including churches where there is theocracy, the combination of church and state.
  • As technology improves, governments are able to kill folks more efficiently. In the twentieth century governments killed six times more people in genocides than they did in all wars: both foreign and domestic "civil" wars. The total killed (not wounded, maimed or ruined lives, just the dead) for the century is over 305,000,000 victims of government action. And counting in the twenty first century. See
  • Imperial Usa, to pick a random example, claims to be the old U.S.A. republic, and to be governed by the constitution of the old U.S.A. republic. It violates all of the restrictions on government action in that constitution every day as a matter of basic policy; and is committing genocide both in its undeclared foreign wars and in North America today.
  • Real history, not your fantasy, has shown that the wealth and happiness of the common people (the "scum" according to statists) varies inversely with the power and presence of governments and churches, not the other way around, as you state.
  • No constitution or similar law has ever been able to constrain the actions of politicians. They do as they damn well please.
  • The basic nature of the political process that generates and perpetuates states filters out the normal and decent people from attaining government office or high-level employment in the state, in favor of the psychopath and the sadist. Those who rise to the top in states are individuals who are both psychopaths and sadists.

That last historical fact is why the four functions of all government are:

  • Armed robbery
  • Rape
  • Genocide, and
  • Slavery.

No state has ever been organized to preserve human rights or political or economic liberty; false advertising (the Federalist Papers in Usa, for example) notwithstanding. They are organized exclusively for the profit and pleasure of the politicians and fascists who own them, and their vile servants. Your statements to the contrary are just lies.

Now, Dave, you have offered to present a constitution that you say will actually, finally, this time it's for real: constrain and prevent the new state that you propose to inflict on me from violating my rights, robbing me, raping me, enslaving me or killing me. So far, you have shown absolutely no proof or evidence to support your contention. I am supposed to buy a pig in a poke, paying with all that I have, my family and my life. After ten thousand blood-soaked years of hearing that scam (hey, I'm an old guy, after all....) I find it just a little bit hard to believe.

As in:
"Write out your proposal on expensive parchment, in excruciating detail (including your proposed constitution and enforcement methods)
with a quill pen,
and, after waiting for the ink to dry (we don't want any smudges), fold it until it is all corners,
Jam - It - Up - Your - Ass.
If, that is, you can get it past those jug-handle ears of yours!"

Now, some would say that I have been a bit harsh with ol' Dave, here; and I must agree to a certain extent. I have dismissed and replaced some of his alleged "facts", refuted his attempts at reasoning, countered his fantasy with history (an exercise in futility for him, no doubt), called him on his dishonesty, demanded that he come clean (Hey, Dave, come clean!) and impugned his mental health (psychopathology) and sexual orientation (sadism). Those last two being obvious, from his context as an apologist for the state, its founding "principles" and its works.

That said, it could have been worse. He could have been as bad as old Master John from some years ago, with his Marxo-slavery-freedom non-economic catechism. Both, however, obviously have the same goals in mind. You can see Master John's blithering government worship at: [this link] and my response at [this link] if you wish.

Have I been harsh with Ol' Dave as with Master John? Oh, yes. His strident ignorance, his blatant dishonesty, his vicious insults to those whom he would enslave and his simpering piety to the Holy State cry out for the harshest of rebuttal. I hope this might serve.

Michael Bradshaw
The King of Curmudgeons, and Curmudgeon to the King (Snort!)
(With apologies to Danny Kaye)

Michael Bradshaw is the Speaker (also the Lord-High Janitor) of the United States House of Repeals, . Copyright © 2012 Michael T. Bradshaw

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type


Big Head Press