Gary North: The Libertarian Taliban
^^^
So in other words:
"Guys can I be mainstream yet? I gave you the keys to my house, my moms car, all of my dad's booze and porn. Don't you guys want to hang out with me yet? We're friends, right?! Hey where are you guys going?"
I'm no fan of North, but these "SkepticalLibertarians" are so pathetic.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Bert: Gary North: The Libertarian Taliban
+1
Jargon: So in other words: "Guys can I be mainstream yet? I gave you the keys to my house, my moms car, all of my dad's booze and porn. Don't you guys want to hang out with me yet? We're friends, right?! Hey where are you guys going?" I'm no fan of North, but these "SkepticalLibertarians" are so pathetic.
I'd never heard of that blog before that article. But just from that I have no idea what you could have against them. Could you please demonstrate what was so wrong/pathetic about that piece?
P.S. (to everyone)
Is it just me, or does Gary North remind you a lot of Robert Wenzel?
Yes North is a psycho. It's not so much that I have a problem with the piece but that it was written in the first place. Half of this websites articles are like big red advertisements to anti-libertarian folk, saying "Hey you missed a spot over here by the christians, racists, conspiracists, insert fringe elements here. Oh yeah, also, that thing that all libertarians say all the time isn't true. Have a good one!" Maybe they're right and maybe they're wrong on an article to article basis. Maybe many libertarians do get a lot of stuff wrong. But "Skeptical Libertarians" are far too eager to present their enemies with the soft, juicy, underbelly of the libertarian community. By sacrificing the lambs of conspiracists and racists, they gain the mantle/boy scout badge of "rational" and "open-minded". Meanwhile, no one actually thinks that libertarians are actually less "kooky" or "racist", because hey, the folks at SkepLib just pulled the sheets back on half a dozen of them, but at least we know that those SkepLib folks are modern, palatable, rational, sensible, moderate, insert platitudinal attribute here. Assuming that anti-libertarianists have the sense of charity or subtlety in their politics or reflection to see all of these veritable gifts of obvious targets presented to them by the sensible moderate SkepLib and separate them from Libertarianism (in a broad sense) is pure naivete or willful destruction libertarianism for personal self-aggrandizement. Or a combination of both.
This isn't to say that one should be intellectually dishonest. If someone makes a valid criticism of your points you are honorbound to reply with honesty. We see this to be very different from bursting out of the gates, calling attention to all the undesireable or unpalatable aspects of libertarianism and then offering only the most accepted and basic criticisms of the mainstream (like marijuana legalization or minimum wage advocacy). It makes libertarianism utterly redundant. It crumbles it from the inside. It gains nothing for libertarianism and a nice chunk for its opponents. It is so blissfully naive or perhaps maliciously aware of the nature of politics, quotations, short-term memory span, etc.
EDIT: +1 on the North/Wenzel thing.
Internal criticism is extremely important. It is much better to have 'internal' criticism first of these kinds of issues than to be silent of them and have criticism come from the 'outside'.
The mistakes here are made by Ron Paul and by Tom Woods. The only way to make them rethink their decisions is to publicly point out the mistakes. They obviously don't understand the mistakes or else they wouldn't make them. No personal message to them will change their mind on it.
Another link from long ago: http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning
I'd never heard of that blog before that article.
Marko: The mistakes here are made by Ron Paul and by Tom Woods. The only way to make them rethink their decisions is to publicly point out the mistakes. They obviously don't understand the mistakes or else they wouldn't make them. No personal message to them will change their mind on it. Gary North is not a libertarian, but I don't know that that proves that he can not be useful in coming up with a home school curriciulum agreeable to libertarians and that it was a mistake to collaborate with him for this purpose. I think a post reminding everyone about North's non-libertarianism has positive value, but warning against working with him before the results can even be seen is a little bit alarmist. Also I note that North seemed perfectly capable of holding his pro-theocracy views to himself when he was collaborating with libertarians in the past, eg when invited to speak at the LvMI.
Why have a non-libertarian be the person running the show and giving a lot of the lectures when their #1 teaching goal is "Liberty vs coercion in Western philosophy".
Furthermore, North states explicitly in the introductory video that they want to teach Biblical values (interpreted by them, of course).
This is a statement by Ron Paul, which could be read on his Campaign For Liberty website when it was still up: "I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate." source
Clearly, Paul, North and co are not seperating out their ideas on religion in these courses. Woods himself also has his own spin on the 'blessings' of Christianity in the middle ages, which you can find on Youtube. And Woods is teaching those ideas in this curriculum.
You may be able to say these people are able to withold some of their views when speaking at LVMI, which is targeted at adults AND is uploaded publicly to Youtube. This project is different however. They're targeting children and are explicitly including their religious views.
Me and fellow unschooler Skyler Collins are planning on making a podcast about: Why have a curriculum at all? It doesn't allow children to form their own identity, particular interests and confidence. See here.
Jargon:It's not so much that I have a problem with the piece but that it was written in the first place.
I can see where you're coming from, but people like North exist. Would you rather them be outed by enemies, or libertarians? Personally I think if you have idiots distorting a philosophy you advocate (that is, claiming to hold the philosophy while advocating things against it), it is much more beneficial to be the first one to call them out.
Not only does it show your integrity, but it takes away an opportunity for your enemies to have an exposé.
Half of this websites articles are like big red advertisements to anti-libertarian folk, saying "Hey you missed a spot over here by the christians, racists, conspiracists, insert fringe elements here.
I voiced a similar argument when someone here thought it was a good idea to create a Reddit for the sole purpose of documenting every time a libertarian said something that could be perceived as "not nice."
It is in that realm that I think you have a point. But here, with lunatics like North, they kind of need to be called out before someone else does. As I said, they exist whether you like it or not, so the only thing you can do is acknowledge them as quickly and as loudly as possible, and make it known as best you can that you do not endorse or even entertain their idiocy, nor do you even identify with what they claim to represent i.e. Guys like North do not represent libertarianism.
(Many have made the argument, or at least asked the question, as to why the majority of muslims do not do this in response to the atrocities committed by their "radical" brotheren. When you're looking an undeniable facts like this, what you say does not speak as much as what you don't say.)
By sacrificing the lambs of conspiracists and racists, they gain the mantle/boy scout badge of "rational" and "open-minded".
conspiracists and racists ==> good guys who happen to say something snotty
"open-minded" ==> "morally superior" and "nice"
Now you could be talking about someone else.
Assuming that anti-libertarianists have the sense of charity or subtlety in their politics or reflection to see all of these veritable gifts of obvious targets presented to them by the sensible moderate SkepLib and separate them from Libertarianism (in a broad sense) is pure naivete or willful destruction libertarianism for personal self-aggrandizement. Or a combination of both. [...] This isn't to say that one should be intellectually dishonest. If someone makes a valid criticism of your points you are honorbound to reply with honesty. We see this to be very different from bursting out of the gates, calling attention to all the undesireable or unpalatable aspects of libertarianism and then offering only the most accepted and basic criticisms of the mainstream (like marijuana legalization or minimum wage advocacy). It makes libertarianism utterly redundant. It crumbles it from the inside. It gains nothing for libertarianism and a nice chunk for its opponents. It is so blissfully naive or perhaps maliciously aware of the nature of politics, quotations, short-term memory span, etc.
No argument there. Again, quite similar.
Marko:Serves you right for vanishing from the forum. Link 1, 2, 3.
Aww, did you miss me?
(P.S., you do realize only one of those actually links to the forum, right?)
John James: I can see where you're coming from, but people like North exist. Would you rather them be outed by enemies, or libertarians? Personally I think if you have idiots distorting a philosophy you advocate (that is, claiming to hold the philosophy while advocating things against it), it is much more beneficial to be the first one to call them out. Not only does it show your integrity, but it takes away an opportunity for your enemies to have an exposé.
I think that it depends. I think that the expediency of 'outing' or 'disowning' someone depends a lot on how much they are already in the public eye. For instance, if Ron Paul tomorrow said that the Federal Government should grant the top 10 banks in the country all the assets of the lower banks, a total disowning across the libertarian blogosphere would be good. If however, there's some guys digging up some digitalized Libertarian leaflets from 1977 Texas dappled with perjoratives towards blacks mexicans and asians, solely for the purpose of disowning them - then I think it is harmful. One might have had one's political opponents be blissfully unaware of such advantageous ammo.
I feel like Gary North is like one of those guys who could have just slid by.
Jargon:I think that it depends. I think that the expediency of 'outing' or 'disowning' someone depends a lot on how much they are already in the public eye. For instance, if Ron Paul tomorrow said that the Federal Government should grant the top 10 banks in the country all the assets of the lower banks, a total disowning across the libertarian blogosphere would be good. If however, there's some guys digging up some digitalized Libertarian leaflets from 1977 Texas dappled with perjoratives towards blacks mexicans and asians, solely for the purpose of disowning them - then I think it is harmful. One might have had one's political opponents be blissfully unaware of such advantageous ammo. I feel like Gary North is like one of those guys who could have just slid by.
I don't disagree with any of those points except the last sentence. Obviously it wasn't any friends of Ron Paul who were digging up those newsletter quotes. And Gary North isn't some series of words in decades-old newsletters. I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. There is a big difference between pulling out some piece of literature (particularly something that the person whom it will be mostly attributed to didn't even write), versus calling out the philosophical beliefs of someone who is still incredibly prolific.
It's one thing to go looking for some small thing that was said a long time ago, that does not line up at all with what the person has been saying his whole life...it's quite another to call out an overall philosophy (that I doubt the person would deny).
Not only that, but obviously this article probably wouldn't have been written had North not come out as one of the two front men for a Ron Paul curriculum. Obviously that name carries a crapload of weight and influence. As the article alluded to, Ron's obviously not exactly hands on with this project, and he's already proven (multiple times) he's not the best when it comes to trusting people with his name and endeavors.
North pretty much has slid by for years...sure he's been called out in the libertarian sphere, and I believe Reason pointed out some of those writings years ago, but largely he's not very well known even in libertarian circles.
I think the point is, that can easily change when you stick the name "Ron Paul" on your letterhead.
P.S., you do realize only one of those actually links to the forum, right?
John James: Not only that, but obviously this article probably wouldn't have been written had North not come out as one of the two front men for a Ron Paul curriculum.
Not only that, but obviously this article probably wouldn't have been written had North not come out as one of the two front men for a Ron Paul curriculum.
Ok that's a good point. Part of my post, as was probably obvious, was reaction at yet more SkepLib pawing out of its own toiletbowl and onto the/our floor.
I have to say that TSL has been a growing favorite blog of mine in regards to libertarianism and other "fringe" areas of interest. I think the reason a lot of people don't like them is that they are willing to call out libertarian scholars with a reason why on various topics, whether cultural or political. People don't like that libertarians are showing the faults of other libertarians, but hell it may be time to face up to them. Libertarian Moron of the Day is pretty amusing too.
Bert: Libertarian Moron of the Day is pretty amusing too.
Libertarian Moron of the Day is pretty amusing too.
This is exactly the shit I'm talking about.
Reminds me of a Russian joke:
The American says "In my country we have free speech! I can go to the white house and say 'I hate Ronald Reagan!'"
The Russian says "Oh, we have free speech too! I often go to the Kremlin and shout 'I hate Ronald Reagan!'"
"Libertarian Moron of the Day is pretty amusing too." sounds like the influence of hater culture to me.
Their overuse of buzzwords is a major tell of just how lame they really are. Quack, conspiracy theorist, etc. It's like they have them macro-ed to hotkeys. Almost feels like I'm reading Bill Maher or Chris Matthews.
Of course, any conversation of the type could go on forever, so the easy solution is, just look at them: http://www.skepticallibertarian.com/contributors
And then reading their bios, it's like a shrine to conventional thought. They can tell you up and down about monsanto and 9/11 but couldn't find a decent barber and the discount rack at sears was the extent of their wardrobe budget.
Yeah, I've been following that blog/group for a few weeks as well. Mixed feelings about it overall. I think there is some value in the group introspection--I'm more interested in what's true, and if libertarians are in fact wrong about something, I'd rather have it corrected than tolerated. So far I've found TSL's views on vaccines, flouride, conspiracy theories (there's some really stupid ones) and climate change to be quite "sane".
But other times, they can be shockingly over-critical (assuming the criticism is even correct) to an extent that's totally counter-productive and damaging. The vitriol is especially thick against anything remotely touching religion (as if it automatically disqualifies you from being a rational person), and that wears thin for me even though I'm not terribly religious.
They often preach about relying on science, studies, and emperical evidence, but sometimes you get fed links like this apparent defense of intellectual property law, which has seemingly zero hard evidence or data to back it up as far as I can tell.
Quite appropriately, drawn on a napkin (since we're just casually making up charts, I don't even agree on the shape or position on the curve):
I'll probably stay subbed to their group (unless I get sufficiently annoyed some day) just for the alternative perspective and news links, but it's definitely something to take with a grain of salt.
Translation: “First, it’s cheap, and with so many people to kill, you’ll need to be economical.
This line really got me.
oh yeah, why is Ron Paul associated with this man?
Is there really such a ridiculous xmasian fundamentalism that i somehow missed over these last few years? I mean, I knew Tom Woods was a Catholic or whatever, but they cannot be that crazy can they? Have I been lulling myself into thinking that major religions are innocuous except for issues like astrophysics and evolution?
EDIT: Holy shit, I just looked it up. Ron paul doens't believe this sort of thing does he? I wonder if psychoanalytically we might think that when poeple succumb to the fear of all of the conspiracy shit that they turn to religion in such forms.
Slightly relevant:
Bob Wenzel refused to approve / post my comment in response to his disastrously inept: Ron Paul on IP - http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/04/ron-paul-on-ip.html . Further proof he has zero intellectually honesty.
Wish I had saved it... but in short form without much prose: essentially that's not Ron Paul on IP; that's Gary North.
Gary North's terms of use. Ron Paul Curriculum terms of use.
95% exact same with a bit more legalese on North's page.
As for the 'quote' it's the exact same.
Regarding the "proof" "implication" that Ron Paul supports copyright; so banal.
Gary North is not a libertarian, but I don't know that that proves that he can not be useful in coming up with a home school curriciulum agreeable to libertarians and that it was a mistake to collaborate with him for this purpose.
I'm glad you're amused. That should be healthy for you. But actually I'm using the Walter Block criteria. That North thinks what he wants to do involves "shrinking the state" is irrelevant in the view of his inability to distinguish between defense and offense. Stoning blasphemers to death is not NAPpy.
Don't be silly, Marko. Blasphemers aggress against God, and it's up to the righteous to prosecute on His behalf.
@Aristophanes Just looking at TSL's blog entry myself (this is an example of why I stay subbed), and while "Paul's involvement in the project appears to be minimal", I am quite disappointed that he would so wrecklessly associate with this Gary North guy, after having being burned similarly once before. It reminds me of the old newsletter scandal stuff.
Even though it doesn't disprove solid logical arguments, this kind of stuff is fodder for the stupid lobby and is exactly the kind of thing used to manipulate the ignorant democratic majority into thinking "all libertarians are like this". It doesn't matter that it's a logical fallacy--the reality is that many people buy into adhom attacks against libertarians. It can't be helped!
For someone who rarely endorses anything or anyone (why shun Gary Johnson?), Paul needs to be MUCH more cautious. I'm fine with religion "lite", but I would never associate myself with or endorse a closed minded fundamentalist bigot. Wiki says North is "Co-Founder of Christian Reconstructionism". To hell with that crap--NO THANKS! Ron needs to reset this thing and disassociate with people who have hidden agendas. The only thing that has a chance of doing that is media pressure (which I hope does not happen, since it will be further damaging) or honest internal critique such as TSL's.
But I've never seen any evidence that Woods or Ron are in the same crazy camp as North. That's the problem with generalizations of large diverse groups like "Christians" - I think the majority is mostly innocuous (not North). "Christians" as a group makes up what, 1 billion people? Most aren't nuts and wouldn't endorse the crap North has called for in the past.
@Malachi
Hey, we don't need hater-shaming on these boards!
Based on my interests in other areas:
1. Whenever I see "skeptic" I immediately think "defender of orthodoxy," "unconvincingly biased," and/or "the opposite of skeptic." Their minds are already made up and no bit of evidence will every convince them of anything. They are, frankly, comical in the same way their opponents are to them.
2. Whenever I see "crazy" within the first paragraph of a hit piece, I immediately can tell how the rest will go. I hate to commit this unofficial logical fallacy, but some bad dudes used to use such tactics.
3. Whenever I see a "skeptic" use "crazy" within the first paragraph of a hit piece, I immediately stop reading. If you don't get why, then, well, sorry. I'm somewhat intellectually curious and mature. Very little bothers me.
Full disclosure: I like Gary North. I do not subscribe to his website or newsletter. His relentless attacks on and unceasing impatience with economic cranks of all sorts give me endless enjoyment. His historical observations are very intriguing. He's one of my favorite speakers and his talk on Marx the man from the '80s is still very powerful and reveal some of the most core problems with communism.
I could care less what his religious beliefs are. I am a non-believer and have gone through the logical work on my own to buttress my position. I am in no way afraid of the very small and almost extinct sect of Protestantism to which he adheres. I strongly disagree with a few of his positions; North's article critical of NASA/SETI is a good example (but not for the reasoning he puts forth).
These generally unemployable political science, journalism, and non-PhD economics majors at TSLB are for some reason, really, REALLY scared by that for some reason. Apparently "conspiracies" are nonsense and yet whatever North is up to is a singlular threat.
Pot kettle black much?
The authors are very afraid that Christian homeschoolers will be completely, to borrow a phrase from Rothbard, bamboozled, by North if they follow the Ron Paul Curriculum. Non-Christian homeschoolers as well. We'll soon be overrun by a new fundamentalist Christian potentiate.
Nonsense. Nonsense on stilts.
You don't like the religious bits? You're Jewish or Muslim or atheist or Spaghetti monster or Catholic or whatever? Leave it out. Simple.
You don't like the Curriculum after using it for a bit? Don't use it.
You don't like a program (cheers Nielsio)? Don't use one.
What's a basic libertarian idea? Advertising isn't brainwashing.
Another? People have free will.
Still more? Parents know what's best for their children.
Cast iron pan, singularity, really, really black.
Jerks like these kids are what give libertarians and libertarianism a bad name; not the spooky, cranky, "weirdos" they are so quick to deride in their "enlightened" zeal.
As for the equivocation with Herr Wenzel; that's kind of insulting. North at least has verifiable credentials and when he says he's done something, you know he's actually done it.
jfrega: 3. Whenever I see a "skeptic" use "crazy" within the first paragraph of a hit piece, I immediately stop reading. If you don't get why, then, well, sorry. I'm somewhat intellectually curious and mature.
3. Whenever I see a "skeptic" use "crazy" within the first paragraph of a hit piece, I immediately stop reading. If you don't get why, then, well, sorry. I'm somewhat intellectually curious and mature.
+3
I've never not seen the same logical fallacies attached to such language. Always the same oh-so-palatable platitudes.
Minus some random number because the quantity of nothing that people choose to post mean nothing.
So, you guys didn't bother reading the quotes or checking the context? I was surprised but the links are there.
I don't think Paul buys North's religios stuff on second thought.
Depending on the quantity which you subtract from the original, it does mean something.
the original what? made up rating? you are trying to be funny or clever, but if you use it more trhan once in like five minutes...it looses its appeal.
Whenever The Skeptical Libertarians are brought up, this line from Rothbard immediately comes to mind:
One of the things that strikes a person who first encounters Modal Libertarians is their surpassing rudeness, their overwhelming boorishness, their total lack of manners. It is libertarians, and only libertarians, who will call you up, as a perfect stranger, and proceed to denounce you for various deviations, or for alleged contradictions on page 851. It is only libertarians who, learning a few syllogisms about liberty, and having read next to nothing, consider themselves perfectly qualified to harangue learned men on their alleged errors. It is only libertarians who conclude, simply by virtue of announcing themselves as libertarians, that your house is their house and your possessions their possessions: an implicit assumption of communism of libertarian possessions. And oddly enough, or maybe not so oddly, the very people who are bleating most loudly against "intolerance" are some of the worst offenders. The "philosophy" is really a smoke screen, for the real problem is decent manners and their lack of them; and when some of us react against those boors, we are of course denounced for being "intolerant." The ill-mannered wish to ride roughshod over the rest of us, and then howl about "intolerance" whenever we decide to resist. Note the typical Modal ploy: shifting the focus of attention from manners and behavior to abstruse discussions of philosophy. This move enables them to focus on the charge that we are intolerant of their "ideas," that we are betraying our responsibility of engaging in continuing dialogue or "conversation" about ideas, when the real problem is them; their boorish Aaggression" and lack of manners.
I too find that North has some valuable things to say, and clearly many of the major players in the contemporary liberty movement think much the same.
Here's the article, so you can get a handle on what he means by "modal":
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch46.html
you two pussies, getting mad at people's manners on the internet cause you are defending some religious tirade, also on the internet.
Go outside Ari. Talk to some people, maybe even girls.
you guys are so funny I thought you might want an idea of who david and daniel bier are, or rather who they want to be
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/18/the-new-world-order/
A monument to human achievement and voluntary cooperation. I’m often attacked by conspiracy theorists for not accepting their vision of a world controlled by a secret cabal of ‘elites,’ who allegedly plan human events and run the global economy. Occasionally, one of them will accuse me of being paid off by the Illuminati (or whoever) to serve this ‘New World Order.’ I haven’t been, yet, but maybe my check is in the mail. While this is clearly paranoia run amok, there is a sense in which it’s true: I dobelieve in a ‘new world order,’ and I’m working to create it every day. I believe there is a very real prospect of a world in which goods, services, people, and ideas flow freely within and between borders, across oceans and rivers, over deserts and mountains, through the sky and (someday) the stars. I believe in a world where individuals are treated equally under the law, regardless of ethnic or national origin, religious or philosophical belief, gender or sexual preference. I believe in a culture that respects women and protects children, that celebrates ideas and cherishes liberty, that not only tolerates but vigorously defends free expression. I believe in a world where 10 billion people can be fed on less land than we currently use for 7, through new advances in fertilizer, irrigation, storage, and genetics. I believe in a world where wildlife and natural habitat can be conserved and even expanded. I believe in a world where emerging technologies can meet the challenges of climate change without halting economic growth. I believe in a world where water is clean, healthy, and abundant. I believe in a world where we can reduce or exterminate mankind’s worst enemies through the single greatest medical innovation in history: vaccination. I believe in a world where scientific discovery and economic freedom can together eradicate hunger, poverty, and disease. I believe in a world where war, cruelty, and violence are rare and reviled. I believe in a world where superstitions cease to divide people, where traditions no longer provide excuse for murder, where veneration does not give cover to abuse, where legend does not trump history, where delusion does not defeat medicine, where faith does not overcome fact. I believe in a world where people turn to conversation instead of violence, to one another instead of politicians, to reason and evidence instead of myth and dogmatism. I believe in a truly global civilization, united by trade and connected by travel, buttressed by an open-ended dialogue, sustained by humanist ethics, founded on the principles of reason, liberty, and mutual respect. I believe in an open society, a civil society, a free society. Nobody’s in charge. I believe that these things are not only good for the world, are not only possible, but arealready happening. I hope, in some small way, to contribute this new world order–an order defined by its spontaneous nature, created by individuals pursuing and expressing their separate interests, together. This order evolves from bottom-up processes, and cannot be replicated by top-down hierarchies. I believe this world is eminently worth fighting for, even if it sometimes feels like a rearguard defense. Over the long-term, we are winning this battle. But while I am rationally optimistic about our chances, victory is not inevitable. It is still possible for things to go spectacularly wrong, for the light of reason to dim or even wink out altogether in places, for the better angels of our nature to fall to the inner demons of our primate minds. I close with a quote from the great agnostic lecturer Robert Ingersoll that I often reflect on, and which continues to give me hope, even when things seem hopeless. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought–no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings–no chains for my limbs–no lashes for my back–no fires for my flesh–no master’s frown or threat–no following another’s steps–no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds. And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain–for the freedom of labor and thought–to those who fell on the fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons bound with chains–to those who proudly mounted scaffold’s stairs–to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn–to those by fire consumed–to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.
A monument to human achievement and voluntary cooperation.
I’m often attacked by conspiracy theorists for not accepting their vision of a world controlled by a secret cabal of ‘elites,’ who allegedly plan human events and run the global economy. Occasionally, one of them will accuse me of being paid off by the Illuminati (or whoever) to serve this ‘New World Order.’ I haven’t been, yet, but maybe my check is in the mail.
While this is clearly paranoia run amok, there is a sense in which it’s true: I dobelieve in a ‘new world order,’ and I’m working to create it every day.
I believe there is a very real prospect of a world in which goods, services, people, and ideas flow freely within and between borders, across oceans and rivers, over deserts and mountains, through the sky and (someday) the stars.
I believe in a world where individuals are treated equally under the law, regardless of ethnic or national origin, religious or philosophical belief, gender or sexual preference.
I believe in a culture that respects women and protects children, that celebrates ideas and cherishes liberty, that not only tolerates but vigorously defends free expression.
I believe in a world where 10 billion people can be fed on less land than we currently use for 7, through new advances in fertilizer, irrigation, storage, and genetics.
I believe in a world where wildlife and natural habitat can be conserved and even expanded.
I believe in a world where emerging technologies can meet the challenges of climate change without halting economic growth.
I believe in a world where water is clean, healthy, and abundant.
I believe in a world where we can reduce or exterminate mankind’s worst enemies through the single greatest medical innovation in history: vaccination.
I believe in a world where scientific discovery and economic freedom can together eradicate hunger, poverty, and disease.
I believe in a world where war, cruelty, and violence are rare and reviled.
I believe in a world where superstitions cease to divide people, where traditions no longer provide excuse for murder, where veneration does not give cover to abuse, where legend does not trump history, where delusion does not defeat medicine, where faith does not overcome fact.
I believe in a world where people turn to conversation instead of violence, to one another instead of politicians, to reason and evidence instead of myth and dogmatism.
I believe in a truly global civilization, united by trade and connected by travel, buttressed by an open-ended dialogue, sustained by humanist ethics, founded on the principles of reason, liberty, and mutual respect.
I believe in an open society, a civil society, a free society.
Nobody’s in charge.
I believe that these things are not only good for the world, are not only possible, but arealready happening. I hope, in some small way, to contribute this new world order–an order defined by its spontaneous nature, created by individuals pursuing and expressing their separate interests, together. This order evolves from bottom-up processes, and cannot be replicated by top-down hierarchies.
I believe this world is eminently worth fighting for, even if it sometimes feels like a rearguard defense. Over the long-term, we are winning this battle. But while I am rationally optimistic about our chances, victory is not inevitable. It is still possible for things to go spectacularly wrong, for the light of reason to dim or even wink out altogether in places, for the better angels of our nature to fall to the inner demons of our primate minds.
I close with a quote from the great agnostic lecturer Robert Ingersoll that I often reflect on, and which continues to give me hope, even when things seem hopeless.
For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought–no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings–no chains for my limbs–no lashes for my back–no fires for my flesh–no master’s frown or threat–no following another’s steps–no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.
And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain–for the freedom of labor and thought–to those who fell on the fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons bound with chains–to those who proudly mounted scaffold’s stairs–to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn–to those by fire consumed–to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.
interesting statement. note that he doesnt deny the accusation of being paid off, rather he suggests that the payoff might arrive at any time.
very interesting.
lol "we" dont use land to feed people, collectivism ftw. also, monsanto.
agenda 21.
unilateral geoengineering, aka state-sponsored pollution, aka chemtrails
I would love to know who Bier considers to be "mankinds worst enemies".
And then I vowed to grasp the torch
so he is a luciferian after all.
Seems silly to be worried about North's bona fides when a few listens to his lectures at Mises U (or his articles on lewrockwell.com) will show him to be one of the best assets the liberty movement has. My question is why his new website looks so terrible, like an internet nightmare throwback to 1997. Doesn't his circle include some young programmer/designer who could help spruce it up a bit, to maybe expand the appeal beyond the already preached-to choir?
Doesn't his circle include some young programmer/designer who could help spruce it up a bit, to maybe expand the appeal beyond the already preached-to choir?
What young person do you know that wouldn't have been beaten to death by this man according to his religious aesthetics?
Why am I not surprised you'd find a 71 year-old man who looks to weigh 90 lbs, threatening...