He may be a raving misogynist asshole who seems to spend most of his free time scanning through PlentyOfFish profiles for women he can insult. But I’ll give Zero Tolerance Man props for one thing: his blog, NO MARRIAGES.COM, is very easy to read.
Not because he’s a brilliant writer with the clarity and grace of a latter-day Orwell. Because he uses such huge fonts, offering those with tired eyes a haven of sorts from the tiny text you find on most websites. The only real trouble is that, reading his posts, I can’t help but imagine him shouting them out at the top of his lungs.
I thought I’d give you some of the highlights — that is, lowlights — from recent posts, in a normal sized font.
I would compare most American women to septic tanks or dumpsters. The ego of the typical American woman is out of control, especially with the on-line dating sites. they get a few emails from pathetic desperate guys and right away, they are a princess waiting for their dream man.
The bathroom isn’t good enough to pump out that titter milk for these American bitches? After all, if I’m at work and I feel like busting a nut, I have to go into the shitter, close the stall door and pump away. But now, that isn’t good enough for a woman and her little womb turd!!! …
American women are essentially worthless except as a fuck and dump, so why are we bothering with this shit? Leave the little bastard at home or if the bitch just has to drain her tit, let her squeeze it out into the shitter.
Besides, it’s just another body fluid like the piss, blood, and yeast infections that drain from her overused overpriced PUSSgina right into the shit pot. I’m sick of giving these “ladies” deferential treatment.
MISERABLE AMERICAN BITCHES!!!!!
I am sorry, but unless a woman is here to service my needs, she has no more value than shit in the sewer. … We should treat American women like the crap they are and work on lowering their self-esteem.
You wouldn’t buy a dented can at the supermarket! Why would you choose a single mother? Single mothers are for losers. …
Think about it! …
Her pussy is stretched out from shitting out the kids or she has a big UGLY scar across her belly. Also included at no additional charge are stretch marks and varicose veins for your entertainment pleasure. …
Some of these bitches have 120,000 miles on their odometer by the time their husband (s) or the guys they fucked have put them in the recycle bin where they belong!
You can see these bitches walking down the street with their noses stuck up in the air with their snooty, snotty grins as if to say “look at me, I am wonderful and if you are a man, you are a pig”. I wasted years of my life and lots of money trying to please these monsters.
Only a MADMAN would marry one of these creatures.
Oh there’s more, much more. Including a poem. But I’m saving that for a future post.
Wingnut bullshit is never new and never increases learning. It’s the same old bullshit that’s been hocked for centuries by the men in power who want everyone to just be quiet and let them stay in power. Women are better and happier if they stay in the home? Funny, didn’t feminism start to exist because they WEREN’T?! You go and live your life as you please, and I’ll live mine, and if I happen to be someone who makes choices you disagree with, please feel free to ignore me. It’s that easy! I’m not jonsing for your attention, I don’t care what you think about how I look, speak, act, or my attendant fluffiness.
I also think you are a small, weak, little person who’s afraid of the word shit. I mean, really? You talk like a really old dude, but, as my four-year-old nephew says “Everyone eats, and everyone poops!”
I started looking up some of these authors you mentioned — bunch of racists, homophobes, and misogynists. Nice company, Meller. Anyway, why would I waste my time reading an “evictionist’s” (great theory, BTW) book about how privatizing highways will solve all our problems when I already know from looking at historical fact that every time a government privatizes a public service, it goes to shit?
Oh yeah, and I can buy those racists’, homophobes’, and misogynists’ books from a website that tells me that my life is improved by Exxon’s philanthropic service of selling gasoline to me (if I can afford it), and therefore I shouldn’t concern myself with details like Exxon’s constant externalizing of environmental costs, its incredibly low tax schedule, the fact that its CEO makes 450 times what its average worker makes, the fact that — although it is considered a person for many legal purposes — it cannot be held liable for human rights violations as a person would (or, you know, I guess we’ll see for sure after the Supreme Court decides Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum), etc.
God, yeah, thanks for the suggestions, Meller, but no thanks.
Shove your wingnut “reading” list, Meller. Oh, right, you don’t hate anyone. Pull the other one, jackass.
All of your woes are the results of existing failure. Police brutality–they are government (or corporate) police.
government “privatization”–it was already explained that is NOT what is meant by privatization, and why anarchist privatization would be, in many ways, the opposite of the corporate privatization youall cited.
‘racist, homophobes, and misogynists’, Good Heavens, aren’t you forgetting ‘demons, warlocks, evil spirits, devils, specters, ghosts, and things that go bump in the night? Aside from the fact that some of the racistshomophobesmisogynists observe the same problems that you non-racisthomophobesmisogynists find so dismaying, they may have some ideas that you overlooked.
If you always do what you’ve always done, you will always get what you always got!
Put in other words, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results!
Let’s stop doing the same thing (or believing in the same thing) repeatedly, look for something better, and obtain better results.
I have no idea where you get the idea that I am a corporatist! On every one of my posts, here, on the Spearhead, on Stormfront, mises.org, and everywhere else, I denounced corporations in a way that would make Ralph Nader sound like a chief corporate PR flack!
However I understand, for starters, using the example of Bee above, that Exxon (and other government agencies and corporations) are only able to externalize environmental costs because of the ABSENCE of recognised and enforcable property rights in the polluted areas! Government (and its favored corporations), have always prevented the emergence of private property rights–and even really private ownership, as opposed to ‘leasing’– in unowned resources, allowing both overuse and environmental damage, which could not take place if it violated the rights of other property owners. If we don’t work out sound and universally recognised proceedures for creating rights to private property that didn’t exist before, pollution problems won’t be solved, no matter how many “green” advertisements there are, or how many people clean up public parks on “Earth Day”.
The legal privilege of the corporation as a State created “person” cited above, has always bothered me, along and a good many other people on the “right”, long before the (badly flawed) antitrust movement even got started in the late XIX century! In over a century of thinking about the problems you have just cited above, they certainly have come up with ideas, some very good, and others very bad, attempting to address these problems! They are NOT more of the same under different labels like yours, however! Denying government the authority to “charter” or “establish” corporations or trusts seems like a worthwhile way to go.
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. Don’t kill the messenger because you don’t like his message.
I might say that private property anarchism is “due” to become very widespread ideas in the coming decades, especially due to the failures of government generally, and democracy in particular, that youall so emphatically cite above! Being familiar with it can only help in dealing with ANY failures of government, whether discussed here or not! Who knows, there might even be some types of private property anarchist feminism discovered!
@DKM: insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results!
So that repeatedly posting here and repeatedly failing despite your expectation that you can convince anybody here of anything, makes you…..insane?
Makes sense to me.
Aww, DKM thinks racism and homophobia is IMAGINARY! How cute. 🙂
Ithilliana, you beat me to it.
Meller: The existence of competition, the need to seek willing customers, not enslaved taxpayers–what is taxpaying but ceding (the product of) one’s time and labor under compulsion to one who claims the “right” to “govern” you?–and the necessity of local polii and their member businesses to trade with each other would mitigate continuously and very strongly against such misbehavior in a completely private(ized) economy and society. Even polii whose people are committed to bizarre philosophies would (for starters) have to inform nonbelievers to stay away, and this information would have to be quite universal or else they would find themselves avoided by everyone else for reasons of safety, to say nothing of expensive conflict with non feminist (to use your example) security forces.
Right…
And why will I be willing to let your police enforce the laws? who will write those laws?
You can’t provide what you say you can. What you are talking about is anarchy; and what it leads to is the example I gave… the people who can pay the most, get to be in charge; everyone else has to suck it up.
I’ve read Mises, and the the Paulists, and the Randians. I know Patri Friedman.
What I’ve also done is read Hobbes, and Locke, and Marx, and Engels, and Madison, and Jefferson, and Hamilton. I’ve looked the Gilded Age, read “The Jungle” and the rest of the Muckrakers. I’ve read Orwell, and Hitler, and Mussolini.
I’ve also read Adam Smith. All of it, not just the bits the Libertarian Anarchists like to mine to make it look as if he was against gov’t, and thought the private market was the best of ways.
I have looked at history (and how the Magna Carta led to Parliament, and the way Wat Tyler ended up dead).
Your way has been tried. It leads to slavery. Anarchy = chaos. Without a social contract it’s the rule of the fist. All the writers you like believe in a fiction… that of the completely rational actor, possessed of all the facts and equal in power to those with whom he is contracting.
As Adam Smith said, “When two businessmen meet in private, you may be assured they are conspiring to cheat the public.”
Is there a computer bank somewhere just spitting out nonsense? Assuming you are an actual person, and not a computer bank, Meller, if you were in front of me right now, I’d throw a towel over your head until you stopped babbling.
Your central argument is wrong, and all the little side trips you took along the way rendered it pretty much nonsensical. Are you saying that government = corporate = privitization? Are you saying that federally leased natural resources are “unowned”? That the only thing standing in the way of a world without pollution is that the feds are leasing oil and gas rather than conveying fee simple title of mineral lands to oil and gas companies? That Exxon is a government agency?
Time to invest in a new tinfoil hat, Meller?
@Pecunium: I particularly like that Adam Smith quote. Businessmen aren’t always the advocates for capitalism since they are looking out for their own best interests. That leads to corporatism and then fascism.
The problem is that society (and nature by extension) have always been ruled “by the fist”. You can’t just make a government system that goes against human biology and expect it to work. You can only build a system that takes the negative parts of humanity and channel them into something that is more productive than violence.
Very good, Pecunium!!
Now let’s have a look at Gustave de Molinari (the Production of Security), shall we? Let’s have a look at Lysander Spooner-Letter to Grover Cleaveland and Constitution of No Authority.Lets look at Etienne de la Boetie-Politics of Obedience, a discourse on voluntary servitude. Let us look at Rothbard’s (almost unique criticism of Adam Smith and David Ricardo) from a radical free market perspective in his History of Economic Thought. Let’s look at Frederic Bastiat in-the Law, where he discusses how the law is perverted by special interests whenever there is a government, and why this takes place and must take place.
It is fine that you read The Jungle, and perhaps sundry other “progressive” works, but why stop there. Did you read F.A. Hayek in your travels, especially his informative anthology about historians and the industrial revolution-Capitalism and the Historians? How about William Graham Sumner and his writings like What Social Classes owe to each other and Conquest of the United States by Spain–still one of the best antiwar writings for Americans ever written, along with General S.D. Butler’s War is a Racket. We shouldn’t forget our cousins across the big water anyway, as both England and France had significant contributions to private property anarchism, including, but not limited to, Auberon Herbert, the founder of the ‘voluntaryist;’ movement, and more recently John Henry Mackay. France gave us, in addition to Bastiat, the incomparable Jean Baptiste Say, who not only offered a defence of entrepreneurship as central to the marketplace, but also gave a defence of sound money that people could benefit from today! It is good that you are familiar with Thomas Jefferson, but are you familiar with the Frenchmen who first interested him in the free market ,Condillac and Turgot. Both of those authors, and their literary gems are available, in English from http://www.mises.org/store.
More recently, there is, (short list) James J. Martin’s Men Against the State, a brief biographical history of indivualist anarchism, Murray Rothbards epic Man, Economy and State along with Power and Market is the first full-fledged praxeological study of stateless private property economics showing that, contrary to your assertion, it is at least possible, it is compatible with people working together through division of labor, private property, and free exchange altogether without the State in any form. This is expanded upon by writings of Walter Block, Morris and Linda Tannehill, Hans Hermann Hoppe and Roderick P. Long. Professor Long (I believe that his website is www/praxeology,net but I am not certain) may be especially interesting for you because he tries to interest people who are, broadly speaking, from the political “left” like yourself. There are also modern day ‘voluntaryists’ like Carl Watner, Wendy McElroy, Mark Sullivan the late S.E. Konkin III, et al. who eschew all political action, but who are private property anarchists nevertheless!
I didn’t load you up with all this to show you up as ignorant, but simply to make you aware that there is a centuries old tradition of private property anarchism (most of whose writings are still being discovered and haven’t yet been published, or translated into English. New studies and books are both being discovered and are being published every year! Believe me, all of the problems that you think would happen in an anarchist private property society are far more characteristic of STATIST societies like the kind we have now; societies that already have a government which is routinely used to exploit the very people whom it claims to be helping! They also have anticipated many, even most, of the objections that you–and many other people, much smarter than either of us, have made, and countered them! You are well informed, but only on ONE side of the story.
It is past time to look at the other side.
Happy hunting, and have fun!
PS-It is impossible to tell with certainty how private protection or adjudication services would deal with the problem you cite but one of the first things i should think would be upheld is that you would agree to comply peaceably with the instructions of any ‘police’ service until the matter could be arbitrated by you (and YOUR service) and the alleged victim(s). If the arbitration went in your favor, the opponent, and perhaps his police, would owe you for the costs of the arbitration and any associated costs. The reverse would hold true if it went in your opponent(s) favor. It is therefore to the advantage of ALL police and adjudication services to be as honest and efficient as possible as fees imposed upon losers–and their clients–would firstly, lose business, and secondly, and even more importantly, lose face or rreputation, and hence any chance for future revenue! This matter is covered briefly in Rothbard’s For a New Liberty chapter on Police law and the courts. and discussed more extensively in other works, especially the work on free market justice by Bruce L. Benson. If you were foolish and shortsighted enough to, REFUSE to heed the protection company’s instructions in their apprehension of you, and you wouldn’t agree to the terms of impartial arbitration, then nobody anywhere would risk any dealings with you, and the ensuing “boycott” would, I should think, bring even the most recalcitrant and stubborn holdout to see reason! I hope that provides at least a provisional answer to your objection above. I would readily guess, however, with the free market’s usual innovative and often surprising ways of solving problems, even better,and more peaceable and efficient ways of resolving disagreements over enforcement authority would become commonplace!
“Whenever businessmen meet in private, they are conspiring to cheat the public”.How true!
How is that different from other people who are not businessmen? Don’t schoolteachers also work together for their perceived self interest? Cab drivers and truck drivers? Barbers and hairdressers? Policemen? Bricklayers? Legislators? Deli countermen or Bank tellers, to say nothing of the supervisors over them?
Businessmen work together to cheat the public? perhaps. But they certainly have a LOT of company everywhere, haven’t they?
Where do we go from here, knowing that everyone is (potentially) dishonest? Does having a government, or owning property in common, render each of us, and all of us, somehow more moral or honest? Maybe it just renders human evil or dishonesty easier to cover up and harder to catch and punish!
Bee, either read the materials offered, or go home and go to sleep. I have enough of a tough job believing that women are capable of abstract thought and conceptualization without senseless scribbling on your part! Every one of the objections you raised has been answered, or would easily be by my “racisthomophobemisogynist” reading list. If you can’t read them, go back to baking cookies or doing your ironing, or setting your table for dinner, or doing whatever else women do…
Hey Meller, learn paragraph breaks. Your wall of text makes your rantings even harder to read. Not like I’m missing anything.
Why don’t you go back to Stromfront or one of your woo websites for the evening? You’ve done enough “manly” bloviating.
How is it different Meller? It’s different because you, in your anarcho-capitalism are saying that business relationships can replace extant governments, and create a paradise.
I’ve read more than I listed. I’ve read Hayek. He’s a fascist.
Go back and look at my list, it’s not just, “progressives”. I’ve read Friedman, and Hayek, and Mises. I’ve read the libertarian utopias, and Moore.
I’ve also read, as I said, history. I’ve looked at what happens when one has a l’aissez faire state, and people don’t fare so well.
You can stew in your masturbatory fantasy that we don’t agree with you because we refuse to see The Truth, but the facts don’t support you. As your idols say, their systems work only if impossible goals (the completely informed participant in the completely fair competition, on a completely level playing fields) are met.
They can’t be. Someone will always be putting a thumb of the invisible hand on the scale.
You don’t even believe the things you say you do. You advocate for removing half the population from active participation in the wonderful world you tell us about.
Since you can’t be arsed to practice what you preach, why should we think other people will?
For those who want a quick overview of why I say Hayek is a fascist, and an idea of the sort of state Libertarians would make:
http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/>Why Libertarians Apologise for Autocracy
And this gem from Peter Thiel, one of the big money bankrollers for modern libertianism:
The education of a libertarian
This is the parent of Anarcho-capitalism… the Anarcho-Capitalists think the libertarians aren’t drastic enough in the ways they want to change society.
Interesting. Capitalism and democracy are incompatible as long as women vote and poor people get help.
I wonder if there’s any reasoning behind Mr. Thiel’s claim, and what on earth it might be.
I am interested in what form of government/economy Pecunium would like to see.
Every economic and government system has it’s pro’s and cons. Democracy isn’t immune to this either. Democracy suffers from the “Tyranny of the Majority” as well as the political landscape is fraught with demagogy.
As someone who likes the ideas of individualism, I find it rather immoral that a group of people can force someone to do or give something against their will (by force or by vote).
This is probably why I have 0 problems with people practicing tax avoidance and using other countries to shield their assets from their nations tax regime. The issue isn’t about shaming the individual because they do it, but re-structuring the tax regime so that the regime looks more appealing. The former is nothing but blame avoidance while the latter is being pro-active.
I do have to agree with one point David made. People regardless of their occupation are motivated by self-interest. This concept alone makes socialist style economic systems extremely difficult to implement. People will find ways to exploit the system as much as they possibly can. Since other people are paying for it, using government services in a socialist economy is basically free and has a small “barrier to entry”. As time goes on, more and more people will realize that it is easier to take from the government then to work. Thus, turning someone from paying taxes to taking services.
Raoul: It’s the democracies, as they evolve, reject libertarian modes, as being exploitative, and destructive. If only rich white dudes got to vote, then democracy would be just fine.
I’d like a system more like the economy of the 50s, with more socially libertarian set of controls on people infringing other’s actions. So long as it doesn’t hit my nose, feel free to swing your fist.
I’d like to see the DHS dismantled, the various consolidations/militarizations of the police rolled back. I’d like to have single payer health care, a working safety net and prisons meant to reform, not warehouse.
I’d like to see Social Security kept in it’s actual place in the fiscal scheme, not used to mask other structural problems. I’d like too see real campaign finance reform.
I’d like to see the 435 member limit on the House lifted (make the smallest state equal to one representative, and divide each state by that to get the final number. It’s bullshit that one citizen from Wyoming = 6 from California). I’d like to see the filibuster returned to something with political cost; not a procedural device to let a minority be dog in the manger. You want to stop a bill, and damn the cost; then you have to be willing to get up on your hind feet and hold the floor.
I’d like too see a non-reactionary judiciary, which means I want to see an end to secret holds. I’d like to do away with the use of plea bargains.
I’d like to see the world Galbraith described, where corporations are more fond of infrastructural improvements than larger dividends to anonymous stockholders. I’d like to see smaller banks, and few “box-stores”. I’d like to see a “living wage” law, not a one size fits all minimum wage. I’d far rather see the “guaranteed income” Nixon advocated. Just think what entrepreneurial adventures could be done if no one was going to starve should their business fail.
In short, I’d like to see more socialist elements in the US.
@Pecunium: I can agree with a lot of that. I particularly like the idea of prisons at least attempting to reform people. However, I have dealt with a lot of people that have been in prison and they do fine for a little while after they get released, but then go hang out with the same dimwits they committed the crime with…thus increasing the chances they will be sent back to jail.
Unfortunately, you can’t really help people that don’t want to be helped. At the food pantry where I volunteer, I see countless drunks walking in to eat dinner at 5pm and the staff there is more than willing to help them go to detox or refer them to a AA meeting. But they choose not to because they like being drunk all the time. Help is available, but they choose not to take it.
Smaller banks (and smaller businesses in general) can be achieved by making the regulations they have to follow simpler and less time consuming. Large corporations have the means to comply with burdensome regulations while smaller businesses cant.
While in theory, I like the idea of a “living wage” but I can’t see it happening from a practical standpoint. If we raised the minimum wage to a living wage (say $15 an hour), then prices would increase because people would have more disposable income. In the end, wages and prices have an equilibrium.
I think the better solution is better job training so people can get out of McD’s style jobs. It is more beneficial to make someone more valuable in the job market, then to arbitrarily increase their wage.
I do not. I would like to see reforms in overcharging defendants but I do not want to see the end of the use of plea agreements.
Jesus, why do I just know that the “answers” provided by your “books” would all be precisely the wrong ones. Why yes, Exxon is the Fifth Branch of Government! And mineral resources owned by the federal government are completely unowned! And the government is corporate, and privatizing doesn’t mean corporatizing except when it does. No wonder my “scribblings” (I’m actually “typing,” Meller. On a “computer”) make no sense to Meller. After filling one’s head with paranoid ravings of nonthinkers afraid of their shadows, few things would make sense anymore.
Meller appears to think that excluding authors from one’s reading list just because they’re racists, homophones, and misogynists without any good ideas is a bit closed minded, although he seems to be a little afraid to come right out and admit it. Come to think of it, Meller also seems a bit confused about what it is women do. Not that I thought he wasn’t. It’s just … what a weird, arbitrary list of options he’s created. What fucking boring lives he thinks women live.
*And of course I meant “homophobes.” Most authors who are homophones are probably fine.
So, first post on this blog, but I feel that I have to throw my .02 in. The “read my list or I win by default” argument is a nice little iteration of the courier’s reply. In essence, when you use it, you’re saying “You’re not allowed to criticize or comment on any part of my argument until you’ve learned about every single minor facet, competing faction, revolutionary idea, counterrevolutionary idea, reactionary counterrevolutionary idea, crackpot theory, and half-baked idea that’s ever been put out there on the topic.” The problem with this is that if your argument is prima facie wrong, and there’s easily accessed historical perspectives, there’s really no reason to go slogging through a mountain of literature to find out about the little details. Long story short, you have to prove that the king has clothes before you can start talking about the fine embroidery upon his breast pocket.