I am curious to see what you all think about this because I noticed Mike99 has a "9/11 was an inside job" avatar. Conspiracy theories are something that libertarians are (unfortunately) often associated with because we tend to question everything. And that's a good thing. Unfortunately this noble quality can often morph into things much more... retarded... than a reasonable person would entertain.
It's too easy to generalize conspiracy theories as being poorly backed crackpot theories--but, make no mistake, there are certainly many things that the establishment hides from the general public for ulterior motives.
However, dramatic, overblown conspiracies like the moon landing, 9/11, illuminati, aliens, etc. tend to be based on the same sensationalism that the mainstream media uses to rope impressionable people in. This is nothing more than the outright exploitation of naturally existing fear and doubt.
I find it funny that libertarians, the group ones that consistently decry the efficacy and competancy of the state--the same state that cannot even make the goddamn mail come on Sunday--believes that the state masterminded the greatest conspiracies the world has ever seen.
As Penn Jillette said, "The Government couldn't even fucking cover up a break-in to a psychiatrist's office in a fucking cheesy hotel! Watergate is the answer to all this shit. If they couldn't cover that up, they fucking can't do anything."
"Snot conspiracy theories that you are mad at. It is the truth."
This topic is common on the Free Talk Live radio program and I agree with their answer:
It is pointless to subscribe to conspiracy theories because there are only three possibilities for any conspiracy:
1. Government is correct and there is no conspiracy at all. Well then holding to the theory was a waste of time from the beginning.
2. There is a conspiracy and huge cover-up. Ok so what. How does that change where we are now? Did the knowledge of any conspiracy ever lead to a decrease in the size/scope of government?
3. Part conspiracy and part truth. This is worse than 2 as government can focus on the true parts.
The only things of interest are the reasons for the original lie in the first place and how government reacted to it.
Besides these events are known conspiracies with lies and cover-ups and nothing changed when the proof of the conspiracy surfaced?
1. Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
2. Attack on US Liberty.
3. WMDs in Iraq.
Now the one conspiracy that came to light that angered the public to a high degree was Watergate where Nixon was forced to resign. Again, SO WHAT? The Gold Standard was not re-implemented. Medicare is still with us. The EPA is more powerful than ever. The Executive branch of goverment has grown more secrative.
Well I don't believe in aliens or that the moon landings were fake. On the illuminati, I do buy into the collectivist and one world government theory. And as for 9/11, I now believe there was something fishy going on. For years, I thought truthers were nothing but a bunch of Alex Jones type wackos. But after doing some recent research into the science of destruction, I've concluded that it is near impossible that WTC 7 could not have come down because of fires. It would take all bottom steel columns to destruct at the same time, which it did, in order to bring the building down in as neatly and quickly as it did. It throws doubt into the truthfullness of any bit of the official report. Also, you may want to research Marvin Bush, the brother of W.
"I prefer to call it realistic analysis of what's happening" - Murray Rothbard
It's too easy to generalize conspiracy theories as being poorly backed crackpot theories--but, make no mistake, there are certainly many things that the establishment hides from the general public for ulterior motives. However, dramatic, overblown conspiracies like the moon landing, 9/11, illuminati, aliens, etc. tend to be based on the same sensationalism that the mainstream media uses to rope impressionable people in. This is nothing more than the outright exploitation of naturally existing fear and doubt.
So, you're positing a conspiracy theory where the Establishment at least does nothing to to stop misinformation and false conspiracy theories - or perhaps even encourages them - in order to cover up its actual misdeeds? I agree!
The State is incompetent only in its stated aims. The mantra of general State incompetence arises from going along with the polite pretense that the governments's stated aims are, in fact, it's only aims. But this is simply not true. The government is not incompetent at all once its true aims are rightly understood. In fact, the State is astoundingly competent. Imagine trying to collect money from hundreds of millions of people and waging wars and covert actions around the world affecting the lives of billions in such a way as to keep expanding your turf and keep quelling dissent?
Well, I have nothing but respect for Penn but I think he falls into the trap of attributing good motives to government; once you realize that the government does not, in fact, have good motives, then you realize that its true aims are not its stated aims, and that explains the chasmic difference between its competence in its true aims and its stated aims. Contrast, say, the SEALs with the TSA. Get it?
Clayton -
nothing but a bunch of Alex Jones type wackos.
Now you know the true purpose of Alex Jones type wackos or, at least, their ring-leaders. ;-)
But after doing some recent research into the science of destruction, I've concluded that it is near impossible that WTC 7 could not have come down because of fires. It would take all bottom steel columns to destruct at the same time, which it did, in order to bring the building down in as neatly and quickly as it did. It throws doubt into the truthfullness of any bit of the official report. Also, you may want to research Marvin Bush, the brother of W.
You just can't get from "scattered office fires" to "symmetrical collapse." It's possible in exactly the same sense that it's possible that you could win the Megabucks jackpot 10 times in a row.
Sadly, yes. I'm also beginning to think some of the posters here may belong to AJ's inner circle. Especially the ones who present absurd hologram plane theories.
Also, pardon my grammar error. I was half asleep. I meant to say it is near impossible that WTC 7 could have come down because of fires.
I second most of what Clayton said. However, you (OP) must realize it is not the entire government in all of its standard channels of bureaucracy that commit the "conspiracies" that we discuss. It is a loose knit group of people with connections to and of power that are able to use that to their advantage when "conspiring."
Also, the language used in official documents is differnt from the more colloquial terms that conspiracy theorists use.
For instance,
Chemtrails: should really be called (Unilateral) Geoengineering.
Orwell talks at length about how demotic speech is avoided when explicating "sinister plans" this way the layperson doesn't get what is going on.
. I'm also beginning to think some of the posters here
Yup, yup.
@Aristophanes: Be that as it may, it's crucial to underscore that the actual purpose of government is to lie, cheat, kill and steal. The bureaucracy is itself just a thin veil around the official functions of government.
@Clayton
That Rothbard video makes some good points. I agree that "conspiracy" is a loaded term because of its negative connatation. However, conspiracies cease to deserve that negative connotation only once they've actually proved that they possess substance--otherwise, the reptilian truthers are only "analyzing what's happening" and are spared the much simpler and fitting moniker of "retarded". Either way, I think this point is one of semantics and of little importance.
I meant to focus more on 9/11 itself--the mother of all "analyzing what's happening" theories to see what you guys think about this particular controversy. But since we're here...
As much as I respect you, I'm not entirely sure that I agree with you here. Hear me out:
I do not believe that the state is collectively evil. I simply believe that the state is predisposed to act in its own interest--as immoral as we may deem these may be. I believe that the reason the state strays from its stated claims is because it is simply too far removed from liability and is perverted by individuals who are endowed with too much power. We all know man is greedy. This is not a bad thing. However, the state simply enables man to use his greed in ways that are unethical and harmful not possible in a free market.
I think that it is the fault of the people for falling for the state's rhetoric over the past centuries and allowing it to become the leviathan that it is. I honestly do not think either Obama or Romney are evil. They are simply a product of a terribly off track system. Just like Penn, I do not believe that "evil" exists without equally "evil" cause. The American system, constantly devolving, is the enabler. The current leaders of our nation are simply filling in the spots that the political system has created.
@Willy Truth
We know from an a priori analysis that the government must act in order to attempt to fulfill its own self interest in a praxeological manner. We also know that regardless of the intentions of those in power that their actions are likely to have massively negative repercussions from the standpoint of prettymuch everyone. These problems are exacerbated, but not caused by man's inherent greed and propensity to be corrupted
Clayton: The bureaucracy is itself just a thin veil around the official functions of government. Clayton -
The bureaucracy is itself just a thin veil around the official functions of government.
I'm not sure about this. The hypothesis of statism arising from the subjugation of agricultural societies by militarily more powerful groups makes sense to me. However, those military bullies which did subjugate agricultural communities, in doing so, often exterminated competing armies. The result of this was an establishment of some normalcy in present and foreseeable future. There can be no trade or improvement generally without the belief that one's actions won't be wiped out the moment they become attractive.
None of this is to say that decentralized co-existence is impossible, but before the enlightenment and the popularization of the concept of mutual benefit, conquest made a lot more sense to people. The rise of large polities meant a widespread subjugation but also the diminution of competitors in the field of rulership. This meant a degree of order and security in property, which is necessary for improvement to begin.
Is it plausible to you that the results of statism sought by statists are those which you claim they are, but there are also peripheral effects brought about by the consolidation of rule which outweigh those original negatives?
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Medieval Europe was relatively decentralised and was a period of enormous economic and population growth. We can say very little about the conditions in the era before the emergence of states. In my view the state contributed nothing to the spread of commerce, and that the latter certainly existed across significant distances before states had any sway over large geographic areas (and in most parts of the world, large states appear well after the emergence of historical record in those areas). But whichever one of is right, such an inquiry is based almost purely on conjecture. On the other hand, we can clearly point to the European Middle Ages for an example of long-range commerce operating in an environment of decentralized states (see in particular the Lex Mercatoria), and this alone proves that not only are such undertakings possible under that environment, but that they can flourish (take the Mediterranean peoples during the era of Archaic and Classical Greece as another example).
"was a period of enormous economic"
Do you have a source for that?
You can start with Bartlett, The Making of Europe. And that's only the early Middle Ages.
Thanks
No problem. It's not directly on the economy, but in general on the transitions and changes across Europe in the Middle Ages, much of which is demographic and economic (which is what I mentioned). It has a very good bibliography for further resarch into the Medieval economy.
Conspiracy theories actually have utility for the intellectual opinion crafters and journalists.
If you can be successfully labeled a conspiracy nut, then they don't have to take your other opinions seriously. Indulging in conspiracy theory therefore has the effect of draining you of all credibility. Because it marks you as one easily taken in by things for which there are little to no evidence.
Why should anyone take your opinion seriously on anything if you're a conspiracy nut.
Libertarians should be cultivating intellectual credibility, not indulging in conspiracy theory.
This is like the reasoning of an anorexic - "I can still see fat. Look at when I sit, there's a fold of skin at the bottom of my stomach. My friends could still call me fat and you know what, they'd be right!!"
No matter how far back we retract our claims, no matter how carefully we circumscribe our every word with "facts" and "evidence," the fact remains that the apologists for State power will never stop calling us "conspiracy theorists" until we actually join them as apologists for State power. So, to hell with them and their bully-words. Heretic. Traitor. Witch. Spy. Terrorist. Conspiracy Theorist. These are all intimidation-words, power-words, words whose function in language is analogous to the function of the night-stick in the police-officer's hands.
Convenient reasoning for Mises.org's #1 conspiracy theorist.
It's late on a sunday morning, but that's excellent Clayton.
+1
Well historically speaking the two biggest conspiracy theorists were Hitler and Stalin. Hitler saw a giant globe-spanninsh Jewish conspiracy and Stalin saw an infinite number of slightly smaller conspiracies. So I think libertarians would do good to fight conspiracy theories... of the state ("Iran will make a bomb and nuke Israel!"). It is always the first order of business.
avert your eyes! Conspiracies dont exist as it is actually very difficult to have a series of private conversations!
No matter how far back we retract our claims, no matter how carefully we circumscribe our every word with "facts" and "evidence," the fact remains that the apologists for State power will never stop calling us "conspiracy theorists" until we actually join them as apologists for State power.
I understand where you're coming from; you are saying that conspiracy theorists are simply rebelling against the state's monopoly on truth. This is great in principle. The problem is that it is an open ended battle that is often not fought against the state but any and all facets of reality itself.
Literally any batshit crazy theory can be said to be knowledge that the state "doesn't want you to know", so this is a slippery slope and should be used with caution. As a libertarian I obviously think that the state is deceitful in nature and has proven to be a source of lies.
The difference is that it's often not Big Brother who is labelling people conspiracy theorists in order to marginalize their message. It's rational, independent members of society. Skeptical people who keep other skeptical people in check.
The Niburian Council conspiracy theorists, the reptilian NWO conspiracy theorists, the 2012 end of the world conspiracy theorists--they are just that--conspiracy theorists.
Funny how Penn and Teller, who are well-known for their skeptical point of view, turn around and call conspiracy theorists a bunch of fucking assholes. As for me being a conspiracy theorist, I've never liked labels, but I think questioning things should always be appreciated, no matter what Bill "Tool" Maher thinks.
turn around and call conspiracy theorists a bunch of fucking assholes.
Didn't think about that. I guess I believed that they meant what they said because in a casual interview, I heard Penn reference how he still thought conspiracy theorists were nuts.
I strongly dislike Bill Maher as well, but that clip demonstrates the mentality of many 9/11 truthers: go into a live taping of the show and yell garbled and disembodied phrases like "Building 7!" and "Plane in New Jersey!". Not only is this antiproductive for spreading 'awareness', it's crude and obnoxious. I'd throw his ass out of my show too.
@Malachi, I agree that most conspiracies are not based on actionable information. Sort of the whole mysticism idea that can never be proven nor (wait for it...) DISPROVEN! And that's the crux of the problem because Conspiracy Theorists tend to be satisfied for this to be good enough evidence to merit yelling about it.
I just watched a David Icke documentary, and there was an interview with Alex Jones. Jones said that Icke is like a turd in a punchbowl (eloquence) because he has some great ideas about the way the state can blind people to the truth so that they can operate illicitly. However, he turns it all sour when he throws in the blood drinking lizard rapists. This, essentially, is why I dislike libertarian 9/11 truthers and their kin; they discredit and disparage the reputation of libertarians with their tin-foil hat sensibilities.
...Is everyone here a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?
I'm more inclined to think that 9/11 was caused because of blowback from the imperialistic U.S. foreign policy.
Oh, of course 9/11 was the product of US foreign policy blowback. But is this a conspiracy? To me, a conspiracy has to have a desired and conscious ends.
No, I'm talking about those who believe it was robots piloting the plane or that the plane was a projected hologram.
Willy Truth: No, I'm talking about those who believe it was robots piloting the plane or that the plane was a projected hologram.
I'm sure that's exactly what Clayton thinks happened.
/sarcasm
It all makes sense to me now. The moon landing actually happened, but as it turns out, Neil Armstrong was actually a cyborg. He landed at Area 51 just after the flying saucer was departing from Roswell, and then began overseeing the construction of the plane that would fly into the first tower. He then put on a disguise as a middle-eastern man and constructed the passangers of the plane, where they teleported themselves into the future and flew into the building.
Why didn't I see this before!?
Yes, these are the kinds of theories that I hate.
Mises.org's
There is absolutely no affiliation between me and mises.org.