Cybernethics / Cybernéthique

Socialists are not just liars and absurdists; socialists are slavers. They claim that one man should live at the expense of another man -- and pick precisely those best men in society as their sacrificial victims. The penalty for enslaving innocents should be death. How much more should be the penalty for targetting specifically the best friends of the very poor you claim to protect? Socialists are the enemies of those they claim to save as well as against those they explicitly target. They are criminals against mankind. A good socialist is a dead socialist. A very dead socialist.

Oh, in a free society, people are free to say whatever they want. Socialist liars will be free to spread their absurd religion. Their predicament will be met with laughter. The laughter of free men who will kill the bastards the second they are caught plotting to implement their crazy utopias by force -- and particularly so by public force. "Democratic" socialists are just connivers trying to subvert supreme force to enslave all other people in the country, and they deserve hanging for their attempt, just like any attempted crime calls for the penalty of the successful crime -- in this case, high treason against the society in the name of which they claim totalitarian power. Their displayed "good intentions" are worth the smile of any con man and should be considered aggravating circumstances -- fraud in addition to violence.

Socialists, do onto yourself what you propose to force upon others: go live in your phalanstères, your kibbutzim, your cooperatives, your autarkic or trading "intentional communities". And leave others in peace -- or be crushed as the mass criminals you are, have always been, and will be again every time you are let loose.

Between socialists and honest men, no peace is possible. They know it all too well. We ignore it at our own risk.

Wretchard illustrates an essential principle sorely missed by all the beautiful souls who hate seeing evil so much that they'd rather put their head in the sand than do something, and take such pride out of it that they feel they can despise those who actually go out and fight evil. And I mean quite a lot of so called liberals, and also much too many libertarians. Law considered without law enforcement is a chimera. And neglecting law enforcement as trivial and subordinate to law is but rationalizing the previous case. Law enforcement has a cost; it has consequences; the means required to enforce law induce severe constraints on what law can effectively be in reality, as contrasted to what it purports to be in its official declaration; the consequences of a law are the effects its actual enforcement have, not the wishful cover stories displayed by whoever lobbies for the law. Confusing a human edict for a godly edict, thinking that some kind of formal utterance transubstantiates human words into divine words and change the very essence of the world... that's an anerism. Justice without Police, Peace without the means of War, social order without self-defense... they are the same delusionary principles, that in reality mean only one thing: the claim of the inalienable right of criminals to successfully attack their victims.

In his latest article on immigration, A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders, LewRockwell.com, September 1, 2005 (see also this followup), Stephan Kinsella admits that though the government is illegitimate, there are things that are more or less good for it to do, and that in particular it must use its force for various things it has claimed monopoly upon, instead of being passive, until it eventually recedes. He even admits the criterion according to which the state does best when it acts according to the preferences of those it has robbed from their property.

Well, the government has claimed monopoly upon war with foreign dictators and terrorists. Waging war with foreign dictators and terrorists is a legitimate activity, that many americans -- including the majority of voters -- prefer to inactivity. Of course, it would be better if government would let us do the war efficiently, instead of wasting lives and resources doing it badly. But it's still better that it should do things badly rather than badly fail to do them. Clearly, Kinsella uses the same argument as we do, albeit in a different instance. Could he possibly begin to see the light?

Note: this article was originally posted on the forum of the Imperialist Libertarians.

A random correspondant argues against picking the least of two evils. Quote: you don't have to align yourself toward fighting the worst evil to be morally correct. if you're fighting evil you're fine Yeah sure. So you can help the greater evil prevail and feel morally justified. And he even acquiesces to this conclusion. That's moral bankruptcy. And I'm sorry to tell that this and the rest of his discourse sounded terribly like LRC to me: the very libertarian economists who should know better are not exempt from this failing.

Morality is about making choices between available opportunities; it is the very same as the Human Action of austrian economists. Thus, there is no good but the best available choice. Comparing outcomes to a pipe dream utopia, finding none to be good, calling everything evil, and then feeling justified in doing anything whatsoever, because whatever you do, you can construe one evil that you're fighting -- that's but a rationalization for abandoning any and all sense of morality. It's a trick to evade the necessity of examining moral options actually available in the context of the real world, instead of mere general abstract approximations thereof that are wantonly oblivious of the specific constraints of reality.

I repeat, morality is about making choices and directing behaviour in a world of actual choices and real phenomena. Anything that denies the nature of morality is anti-moral. A good choice is one that leads to a better world, as compared to other available choices. A bad choice is one that leads to a worse world, as compared to other available choices. This is why morality is based on economic reasoning, and why people who deny that morality is rooted in actual choices are doing accounting fallacies.

For Memorial Day, I leave the floor to Omar.

Pinochet n'est bien sûr pas coupable quand les troupes contre-révolutionnaires commettent des exactions qui sortent du cadre strict de l'écrasement de l'usurpation communiste. N'ayant pris la tête des troupes qu'au dernier moment, il n'a pas pu les préparer -- et leur violence est une bien faible réaction aux exactions des communistes auxquels les contre-révolutionnaires faisaient face (meurtres, enlèvements, tortures, vols, confiscations, vandalisme, etc.). Il suffit que Pinochet n'ait commandité aucune d'entre elles.

Par contre, et ce qui compte davantage, Pinochet est pleinement responsable, parce qu'il a endossé ces crimes plutôt que d'en sanctionner immédiatement les coupables: pas la moindre dégradation, arrestation, amende, humiliation publique, ni même punition symbolique, ni réprimande pour ceux qui ont commis par abus (plutôt que par accident) des violences à l'encontre d'innocents. Aucune enquête face aux allégations d'abus. Aucune excuse. Aucun dédommagement. Pinochet revendique même ouvertement la responsabilité de toutes les exactions; il clame couvrir tous les soldats et officiers ayant participé à toutes les opérations de contre-révolution. Soit. (Quoique: ce qui compte demeure ce qu'il a fait ou omis de faire, pas ce qu'il clame.) Mais alors, s'il n'y a eu même qu'une seule victime innocente, parmi une quasi unanimité d'immondes crapules communistes dont le Chili est débarrassé à juste titre grâce à lui, Pinochet méritera la prison dont il va écoper. (En supposant un instant le principe d'une justice pénale plutôt que rétributive.)

Toutefois, j'espère que s'il est condamné, il le sera pour un tel crime, et d'un tel crime établi, et non pas pour la simple allégation de crimes, et non pas pour ce qu'il a fait de bien: sauver le Chili, à l'appel du parlement et d'un million de manifestants, de la sanguinaire descente dans l'enfer communiste dans laquelle il était déjà profondément engagé grâce à Monsieur j'instaure la dictature communiste par décret en méprisant le parlement qui m'a nommé et en bafouant la constitution que j'ai juré de respecter, fort de mes 36% de voix et de mes alliés soviétoïdes. Car un communiste n'a rien d'un innocent, et il n'y a rien de plus justifié que d'appliquer aux communistes en plein milieu de leur oeuvre criminelle les méthodes contre-insurrectionnelles que ceux-là mêmes appliquent avec bien plus de cruauté quand ils en ont l'occasion, et dans l'absence revendiquée cette fois d'aucun discernement quant à l'innocence ou la culpabilité individuelle de leurs victimes -- concept bourgeois s'il en est. Quand vient l'heure de la révolution, un bon communiste est un occis mort. Tirez les premiers, messieurs les communistes: tirera bien qui tirera le dernier.

PS: Reconnaissons au moins à Castro ce point positif par rapport à Pinochet: il a tué plus de communistes.

I admit that my previous post RIP, Aslan Maskhadov was so lacking of an explanation as to be easily misread. I admit that was based on an thinly ascertained opinion that might turn out to be wrong after further examination. And thus I thank my gentle reader averros for correcting me, though I'm not sure how much to trust his information. I am still looking for independent confirmation of his statements, but pending such confirmation, I stand corrected. I wrote the previous post hurriedly, because it was a hot reaction to some news. I knew I wouldn't be able to blog for some time, and I wanted to share my concern about an underdiscussed yet very relevant episode of our times, war in Chechnya. Now that I have more time, I would like to make it clearer what I did and didn't want to say on this topic, and what my opinion is now.

( Read more... )

NOTE AND UPDATE: This article has always been about why my message didn't suppose personal endorsement of Maskhadov, though my point was admittedly quite unclear from my previous post. I have since received contradictory statements about Maskhadov himself, and pending independent confirmation, I will refrain from giving a verdict either way about Maskhadov. I have changed the tone of the article several time, alternatively leaning one way or the other. I now explain clearly why I lean however slightly with my current sources, since that's what the whole point of sources, though I'm very open to other sources, if they prove reliable. However, and that's also a point, I will grant Maskhadov the benefit of the doubt, whereas no such doubt exists regarding the culpability of the KGB bastards.

Aslan Maskhadov. He wanted his people free from the KGB. The KGB refused any negociation. The KGB unleashed a horrible war of mass-killing. The KGB won.

The French officials call that National sovereignty. The Americans officials call that Saving the Union. I call that the same old pretense for the mass-killing of dissidents.

The usual leftist professionals of outrage aren't outraged a bit. And if anything is to be blamed about Russia, it's its wild "ultra-capitalism", they will tell you, not its criminal statism, and not the fundamentalist muslim terrorism. Puke.

UPDATE: I stand corrected concerning Maskhadov, although I'm reserving my judgment pending further confirmation. Thanks to averros in the comments section below. I still call the KGB bastard an evil killer based on illegitimate claims of sovereignty; but so was possibly Maskhadov another evil killer based on rival illegitimate claims of sovereignty -- though further information is required for me to tell. However, it still seems very clear to me that the KGB bastard is a great evil, far beyond what Maskhadov could possibly be. Importantly, I still salute Joe Random Chechen Non-Murderous Freedom Fighter, though he might be rarer than I believe he is, and though the last one might have ceased to fight quite some time ago.

House of Fools. The greater madness takes place outside the walls. Made me laugh. Made me cry. What a movie.

Is it possible that Political Power be used in the interest of Liberty? Yes, sometimes it just does happen. Does that imply that on the whole, Political Power is good? Nope. But before you may reply to this kind of question, you have to be familiar with economic reasoning, as opposed to accounting fallacies. Then you will understand that before it may be answered, the question has to be refined: good as compared to what?

J'interromps vos programmes habituels pour vous rappeler qu'aujourd'hui, nous commémorons la façon dont l'Etat nous protège de la mort violente par des criminels. Dieu-L'Etat notre sauveur. C'est clair, sans l'Etat, ce serait l'anarchie.

The guys from the Libertarian Party, including their presidential candidate, and those who follow their line of non-interventionist nightwatchman government fail to be libertarians in quite an important way.

( Read more... )

( ... ) If I am to guess from the title of this movie, it tells the story of a foreign invader fighting some country's domestic tyrant. Sigh. Yet another movie about Bush's war in Iraq.

( Read more... )

Juste parce que j'affirme que Chirac est mieux que Le Pen (ou que Le Pen est moins mauvais que Chirac) ne fait pas de moi un chiraquien (ou un lepéniste). D'ailleurs, je n'ai voté ni l'un ni l'autre. Une préférence, affirmation descriptive, n'est donc pas une action, pas un engagement de ressource. Je n'ai "soutenu" ou "défendu" ni Chirac ni Le Pen. Face à l'alternative proposée, je ne réponds ni oui, ni non, mais Mu. C'est-à-dire que je rejette l'alternative et je refuse de cautionner l'un ou l'autre, comme je suis (heureusement) encore libre de le faire. En fait, je ne cautionne même pas l'élection: je boycotte les urnes par principe.

Et pour rendre la chose plus claire encore: entre Hitler et Staline, si on me forçait à choisir, je choisirais bien l'un des deux. Cela ne fait de moi ni un hitlérien ni un stalinien. Et d'ailleurs, ma préférence marginale pour l'un n'empêche pas que je n'ai rien fait pour soutenir l'un ou l'autre. Mu. Bien au contraire, j'engage ma part de ressources dans la recherche thérapeutique contre le national- et l'international- socialisme. (Si ce cas-là vous paraît trop difficile à trancher, remplacez l'un des deux par un méchant "évidemment" moindre mais toujours néanmoins monstrueux à vos yeux, que ce soit Mussolini, Roosevelt, Napoléon, Barbe Bleue, etc.)

Ceux qui forcent d'autres à choisir sont des criminels. Ceux qui interprètent une préférence comme un engagement sont des imbéciles.

J'aime bien cette cinglante de Tom G. Palmer:

I'm sure that I'll get the usual share of you're objectively pro-war email from the usual crackpots. I'm not. (I'm amazed that so many people assume that if you criticize a bad argument against the war, that makes you pro-war, rather than anti-bad argument and therefore pro-good argument.) But anyway, screw 'em; I've got better things to do than to worry about that sort.

Aux ceusses de tous bords (j'en rencontre surtout mais pas exclusivement des anti-guerre) qui ont du mal à vouloir comprendre mon mu comme réponse aux questions sur la guerre en Irak, voici une n-ième clarification, élaborée suite à une discussion sur liberaux.org (quelques précédentes clarifications, entre autres: 1, 2, 3).

( Lire la suite... )

Qui sont les résistants, qui sont les terroristes? Qui sont les assassins, qui sont les héros? Un indicateur qui marche souvent étonnament bien: prendre à contre-pied la presse nationale socialiste. Mais bon, comme passer de cet indicateur approximatif à un principe systématique?

( Lire la suite... )

Some people, including many libertarians, argue against the principle of "Preemptive Strike". To be just, you should never strike first, they say, for justice is about doing to culprits according to what they've actually done, and not according to speculations about what they could have done. Yeah, right. With such a principle, you should wait for the suicide bomber to kill hundreds and more, before you may punish him? I hope you can put together the bits to which he was the first to be blown. And a woman should wait for the rapist to rape her, before she may react? And then what, for a perfect reciprocal justice, what she gains is the right to rape him in return? How utterly stupid! Sure, Justice never strikes first. Judicial prosecution against innocents is a bad joke; it isn't Justice to kill a menacing criminal, or to put to jail a burglar who failed at his burglary, or a would-be rapist who was arrested before he could have his ways, or a fraud who failed to deceive his target. No it ain't Justice, and those who claim it is are morons or frauds indeed. But there is such thing as Police, and Police is exactly what these things are: preventing villains from doing harm.

( Read more... )

In my series of ideological analyses of popular shows, here is one about Troy, the latest movie, which I saw a few weeks ago, right before breaking up (Brad Pitt is a difficult rival to beat). Just like an earlier Troy movie, it takes sides with the Troyans, and strips the godly quarrel from the story, to make it kind of a realist and romantic war film. My friend David already did a nice review of the movie (in French; beware: spoilers), so I'll only add my opinion and a few more spoilers.

( Read some spoilers... )

J'ai déjà publié sur ce sujet (voir ces articles: 1, 2, 3), mais suite à une intervention sur un forum, voilà un résumé.

( Lire la suite... )

Topic of a recent discussion with friends, anti-americanism in France (even among people with libertarian trends, as long as they are well-endoctrinated by the media). Here are stuff to read on the topic.

Sujet d'un débat récent avec des amis, l'anti-américanisme en France (même chez des personnes pourtant à tendance libérale, pourvu qu'elles soient bien endoctrinées par les médias). Voici quelques lectures sur le sujet.

( Read more... / Lire la suite... )

In case you missed the news or rather its coverable by sensible people, We Got Him! Great news. See what Glenn Reynolds says. Pictures at 11! And of course, the happiest people about it are the Iraqis. Check what THEY say (also here and all over the blogosphere).

One national socialist dictator down the drain. When will they come and garbage collect the rest of them? From Cuba to Zimbabwe through North Korea and Palestine, there are a lot of them...

Additional links: Hussein Exposed, By Jim Hoagland via Citizen Smash; Defiant? He's a Ba'athist who won't bath, by Mark Steyn via Ase.

Argument étatiste typique, tellement souvent rencontré: "Mais, sans état, il risque d'y avoir la guerre!" Parce qu'avec l'état, il n'y a pas de guerre peut-être? Encore un qui a raté 6000 ans d'histoire. L'état fait-il disparaître la guerre, où lui fait-il prendre au contraire des proportions gigantiques, mondiales?

( Lire la suite... )

To counter the disinformation that is omnipresent in France, and whose unique object is anti-american propaganda, here is Iraq as seen from the inside, in English, from various iraqi points of view: Healing Iraq, that is much deeper than the nice well-known Where is Raed?. See also The Mesopotamian, Iraq At A Glance, Iraq The Model, Hammorabi, Baghdad Burning. For the US soldiers' point of view, see Lt Smash, Chief Wiggles. As for news and comments, there is also Today in Iraq, Command Post, Iraq, and on the higher-level political side, Daniel Pipes. The list grows everyday, and though I updated it several times since the original post, you will be better off following the links for a wider coverage. OK, so the iraqis who publish are educated english-speaking iraqis. Do you think that the opinion of an illiterate uneducated poor guy who isn't open to the world will bring more relevant information?

Pour contrer la désinformation qui règne en France et qui a pour unique objet la propagande anti-américaine, voici L'Irak vu de l'intérieur, en anglais. (Suivre les liens de la version anglaise.) Sinon, en français, un bon site d'analyse du fait militaire en général est CheckPoint Online.

Au cours d'une conversation, un ami m'affirme que Si 80% des anglais sont prêts à combattre Hitler, grâce à l'État, les 20% restant devront contribuer aussi; et c'est 20% d'efficacité supplémentaire pour la bonne cause. Bien. C'est ce qu'on voit. Comme d'habitude, Le problème c'est tout ce qu'on ne voit pas.

( Read more... )

Les socialistes ont profité du 11 septembre 2003 pour verser des larmes sur Allende suicidé 30 ans auparavant (sur ordre de Castro) et rebaptiser une place de Paris à son nom. En contrepoint, ne manquez pas la lecture de "Le 11 septembre... 1973" d'Ase (trouvé grâce à Turion Lugol), et en anglais de "Chile under Allende" de George Irbe. [Mise-à-jour: plus complet, "The Allende Myth" (archive) de Val (trouvé via MiF); voir aussi "Chile's Socialists Speak Frankly" d'Erik Svane, ou Fidel, Pinochet & Me de David Horowitz, Le Chili et Pinochet, l'histoire non dite de Philippe Chesnay (trouvé via MiF), ou encore Salvador Allende - The Herald of Pinochet (via Catallarchy), ou enfin ce site essentiel, CHILE 1973] [Lire mes autres billets sur ce sujet.]

Pour moi, Salvador Allende est le meilleur des chefs d'état possibles: un chef d'état mort. ( Lire la suite... )