David McElroy

Laughing at the ‘rapture cult’? Those who believe in the state are no different

By David McElroy · May 21, 2011

Everybody from atheists to fellow Christians has had a good time laughing at the deluded group who follow Harold Camping‘s predictions about the end of the world. For those who believe in the power of the coercive state, though, it should be an opportunity to pause and realize that they’re not much different from those who follow Camping.

You would think that people who find their leaders’ predictions to be false would lose their belief in the leaders and the doctrines they preach. We certainly think that when we look at Camping’s group. But how is it any different when those who vote for political leaders to rule them through a coercive state keep believing that the politicians’ predictions and promises are going to come true this time?

Keep Reading

Share on Social Networks

What’s at the root of objections to real freedom? Paternalism

By David McElroy · May 20, 2011

I’ve realized that the objections to allowing people to have real individual freedom are all rooted in a bias toward top-down thinking. If you believe that you must know about (and approve of) the plans other people would make for themselves before you’re willing to allow everyone to live as they want in a free society, it means you want to substitute your judgement for what others might decide.

Share on Social Networks

What books would you recommend for someone who’s just given up on the state?

By David McElroy · May 20, 2011

I’d like to put together a reading list that could be useful for people who are just starting to explore the idea of life without the state, and I’d love your help compiling the list.

When an intelligent person comes to a realization about something, the first thing he normally wants to do is read more about the idea — to make sure he’s on the right track and to learn to explain his new beliefs. For those who’ve just become libertarians and want to join the political process, for instance, there’s plenty of reading material. But I’m not sure what all is out there for those who’ve decided to reject the state political process and investigate alternatives.

The first book where I encountered the notion that the nation-state was eventually going away was “The Great Reckoning,” by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg. The book came out in the ’90s and the economic situation hasn’t played out as bleakly as the authors expected, but the book’s analysis of the future of the nation-state was an eye-opener for me.

Another book that was influential for me was Harry Browne’s classic from the ’70s, “How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.” He was coming from such a different perspective — one outside the larger political and economic system — that it was unsettling at first.

What books have influenced you on your path toward giving up on the state? What would you recommend for others who are just starting to struggle with it and want to firm up what they believe? You can answer in the comments or send me email. I’ll compile all the suggestions and post them for everybody after I have enough to make it worthwhile.

Share on Social Networks

We are ruled by the dumbest and most incompetent people among us — and we have a system which allows stupid and irresponsible people to force the costs of their idiocy onto smarter and wiser people. Can we get away with that? Yes, for quite some time. But we eventually reach a point at which the dumbest of the dumb — who are habitual liars and mentally ill fools — lead us to the disasters and destruction that some of us have seen coming for years. We are approaching that point. And yet most of the idiots around us still wave their rhetorical banners of support for the evil people who are leading us to ruin — and all of them point their fingers at someone else, never noticing that their own enthusiastic support of evil is to blame. When things finally fall apart, blame yourself for your blindness to the evil, not whoever happens to be in power when it happens.

I’ve been making some changes to the site lately and there are more changes coming in the days ahead, so don’t be surprised if you some small differences. This is not a wholesale redesign, but rather the addition of some features. Since they’re smarter than I am, I’ve put Oliver and Alex in charge of the technical work, which you can see in this action photo from the control room of our media complex. I recently added a series of landing pages for readers who randomly discover the site from an Internet search. I’ve also changed the YouTube link at the top of the page to go to the new YouTube channel for video essays that reflect things I’ve already published here. (Here’s a little bit about both of the YouTube channels I’m working on.) In addition, I’m trying to move away from using Instagram, so I’m experimenting with photo plug-ins that will eventually allow me to host the pictures — cats, dogs, sunsets, whatever — that I often take. So don’t be surprised to see more changes. Thanks for your patience. Let’s hope Alex and Oliver know what they’re doing.

I have no use for the theocratic and repressive government of Iran. The people who run the country are cruel at best and evil at worst. The Iranian people deserve freedom. But I have no personal quarrel with anybody in Iran. While I’m not thrilled about a future Iranian government having nuclear weapons, I’m just as concerned about nukes in the hands of politicians in Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. I’m not even thrilled with the U.S., Britain and France having them, either, because I don’t trust any politicians to be responsible with such terrible weapons. All I can say with certainty is that American taxpayers have no business attacking Iran, especially since we’re being forced to pay for this attack in order to benefit the politicians of Israel — and nobody else. If Middle Eastern countries want to fight among themselves, that’s none of my business. It’s not the business of the U.S. government, either. I have no quarrel with anybody in Iran — and having the government which claims to represent me launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country will only make all Americans less safe in the near future. This attack is poorly conceived and morally unjustified. Remember that when the Iranians launch attacks that we will then condemn as “terrorism.” What the U.S. is doing right now looks like terrorism to me. And let’s not forget that the attack is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional wars by various U.S. presidents — who have no legal power to declare war on their own, according to the U.S. Constitution.

A child having a tantrum understands only one thing: Did I get my way or not? He doesn’t understand the issues involved. He doesn’t understand the reasons that went into a decision. He doesn’t understand any of the things that mature and reasonable adults have to understand in order to live healthy lives. By his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down his disastrous tariff scheme, Donald Trump shows himself to be — once more — a screaming child having a tantrum. Outside the world of mob bosses who expect to get their way every time, normal adults don’t act this way, but Trump isn’t normal. He’s an angry and vengeful man who has narcissistic personality disorder. And we are in danger as a result. Trump doesn’t understand the legal issues involved in this ruling. He doesn’t understand economics. He doesn’t understand rule of law. He doesn’t understand that he can ever be wrong. All he understands is that he didn’t get his way. And he is now a narcissistic and raging little boy who also happens to hold life-and-death power over most humans on this planet. He’s dangerous — and the system which gives him that power is even more dangerous.

Is it an attempt to blur the gender line between men and women? Or is it some weird tribute to the traditional Scottish kilt? It’s hard to say, but fashion designers keep pushing for men to wear skirts in the last few years. Both men and women in modern fashion seem oddly androgynous, as though it would be offensive for a man to look manly or for a woman to look feminine. A CNN article about the latest fashions from Paris caught my attention Monday and left me wondering about the ugly clothes the designers are hawking. If a man wants to wear a skirt — or a kilt — that’s OK with me, but I’ll stick with a traditional dark suit with a white shirt and tie. (Well, when I’m not wearing t-shirts and sweats, of course.) I always wonder who actually buys the outlandish garb from fashion designers anyway. I would be humiliated to be seen in any of this stuff, but I obviously have no sense of high fashion.

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts