Glibertarians.com 2017 Archive

Author: PieInTheSky

Sex? Gender? Bit of both? Neither?

[GLIBS STAFF NOTE: Whirling vortex of angry moved to moderation – including this note.]

There is a lot of talk about sex (there’s a song in there somewhere) and gender in the news recently. People are using them as basically the same, as completely different, or as “it’s complicated.” My point of view is that it is purposefully and needlessly made more complicated than it needs to be, that there is way too much talk of it, it is not that relevant in the grand scheme of things (it really really, really isn’t, no part of the so called culture war is), and, occasionally, I go the route of “oh my god let’s just drop it already.”

Now this post may be a bit controversial, but hell what is the point of just agreeing with everything? So, of course, here come the disclaimers. This is not a scholarly work and it will not have any reference to studies or other articles. None of my stuff does. I just do op-ed.

I am not a biologist or a neurologist. I am not, thank your deity/empty meaningless void of choice, a social scientist. I am an engineer and, stereotypically, I hold most (not all) social science in disdain. I don’t see them as reliable enough to be fit for purpose, and most of it of little use, besides pushing political agendas. So this is not going to be in any way based on professional experience.

Trigger warning: I am about to state my view of things and I do not care whether people agree with me or find me offensive. It may be long, rambling and incoherent. And I will try to include jokes as I go along, most likely bad ones. You have been warned. Also the spell check keeps trying to get an “u” out of behaviour, but I am keeping that “u” in, so there!

Another thing that I am is an individualist. I believe that the individual is the basic unit of humanity. In my view, only individuals can act and be responsible for their actions, only individuals can have rights and, in the end, individuals suffer when the shit hits the fan. Groups cannot act; they can, at most, try to coordinate their action. I do not believe the group is higher than the individual and I believe a group needs to be seen as simply an aggregation of individuals.

I understand that human brains create categories and, as you cannot know every single person in the world, everyone will resort to generalisation. But one should try to minimise it and drop it when one actually does know the person. Also, stop worrying so much about people you don’t know, and you will not need to categorise them. I really do not care a jot about the average wage of a man, a woman, and the difference thereof. I care mostly about my wage – to low if you ask me, and maybe those of people I know. That’s about it. While one can draw general average statistics over large populations, I find them meaningless, outside pushing politics.The general destroys the particular, as someone else said once. The average shoe won’t fit many. But this is a topic that can go for many pages, keepin’ it brief!

Now after ample disclaimers and such, let’s get to it, dive in the deep end, as it were.

What the ever-loving fuck is all this sex and gender stuff? And why should we care? (spoiler alert: in a better world, we shouldn’t. Unless we plan on having sex. Which sounds gross.)

We have a bunch of words. Some of them are man and woman, “male” and “female.” Back in the day, words used to mean something. That was their point. An accurate description of these words I got from someone else was “bimodal population pattern based on anisogamy and the traits correlated with it.” Humans, like all other mammals (you and me baby are nothing but .. gah sorry about that), have a reproductive anatomy based on this bimodal pattern, with associated gamete, hormones, chromosomes, a degree physical dimorphism and some degree of behavioural dimorphism. This is good and all, and should be uncontroversial. Ah, should…

Of course there are small numbers of people who do not fit clearly as male or female, this is quite true, but the number is small enough to not be that relevant for the vast majority of cases. Bimodal in not necessarily binary, and there are outliers.

Now the complicated part kicks in. Gender, baby. Gender is more of a linguistic designation, which was used to describe some elements of identity and behavioural bimodality somewhat separated from the physical. This was, throughout a majority of human history and a majority of cultures, strongly correlated with sex. It still mostly is. In Romania, not being so far down the road of social science, most people still see the terms as almost interchangeable, although young urban progressives are working hard to change this.

In the modern mind of the social justice crowd, gender has been completely separated from sex, which makes it much more flexible, not being bound by any biological limit. I would say good luck to em, use it whatever way you want. But keep in mind that being so flexible and undefined, in time there will be little to separate gender from a personality type, a mood, a fashion statement.

This brings me to my main question: What is the goddamn point of even having it? Sex is a clear biological designation. It is needed as human sexuality is strongly linked to it. There can be medical reasons – different treatments, ailments, etc. based. Males will not get ovarian cancer.

But what is the goddamn point of gender? They say gender, as different than sex, is a valid concept, but I just don’t see it, especially unless quite clearly defined and delimited. Unless it is to utterly confuse everything. If it has no biological boundaries, no conceptual boundaries, no nothing, then yes, you can identify with any of the 33,498,227,345,456 genders. But what is the use of it, at this point? If there were 2 or 3 or 7 genders with specific designations, I would see it. But if it is a vast, continuous spectrum, there’s no point to it. Each has his own personality. Leave it at that.

Well, what about gender roles? What about them? Fuck gender roles as well. Do whatever the hell you want, just leave me be while doing it (unless you are an attractive female and what you want to do is me, in that case you can bother me about it).

Sex is a biological descriptive category, which is now turned by progressive in an oppressive prescriptive category. Which leads them to the conclusion blank slaters get about everything: it is a social construct. One example is having gender supersede sex, as far as sexual desire and behaviour. Sexual attraction and behaviour is based on biological sex and anatomical features, whatever those may be. Now I am a bit of a shitlord. I believe in biological difference between men and women. I also believe sucking a penis is gay, even if it identifies as vagina. And I also strongly believe there is nothing wrong with that, if that sort of thing is your bag.

That being said I am the epitome of live and let live. I don’t care. My only problem is that fewer and fewer people seem to take this approach. I let them live, but they won’t let me. This is annoying, especially since besides activist profiting for this, all this drama is not helping anyone.

I have no problem with people switching sex, gender, what-goddamn-ever. Out of politeness, I am willing to treat them with respect. But there are more and more attempts to codify this into law, and with that I have a problem. I would not, were I a business owner, refuse to employ someone because they are transgender. But I do believe it is the right of some other business owner to do so, for whatever reason they may have.

Now, although I have no problem with it, I do think that sex is a biological reality and you cannot truly change it. I think there is a mental problem with someone who thinks they are of a different sex. This is not, of course, any reason to disrespect or bully someone, just like you would not bully someone with autism. I think it is awful issue to have. I cannot imagine how it feels, but it must be very bad to feel like you are in the wrong body. But that cannot change my view that reality is reality.

There are brain morphology issues that may actually justify this belief, beyond a vague notion of mental illness. But I cannot see how mutilating one’s body in a significant and irreversible fashion is not the result of having a serious problem. Although I accept that this process may actually help the person, it may be a drastic treatment, but treatment nonetheless. Chemotherapy can also be debilitating. That being said, I am highly circumspect about it being applied to prepubescent children, who may be confused as much as anything else.

But I do think bodily mutilations can be ehm… problematic in general. Speaking of mutilation, I also think most piercings in general are terribly unattractive. Tattoos I am split on, I have seen some sexy tattoos, but overall most are not. Also, if male, you should not get a tattoo unless you can deadlift twice your bodyweight, at least; nothing worse than tattoos on guys with no muscle. And those people who want to look like lizards and such are crazier than most. But this is all beside the point.

So, in conclusion, you do you, have sex with whomever you want (as long as they want to, as well, obviously) and ignore all this gender crap, would be my advice. Also no piercings.

Now… feel free to school me on what I got wrong in the comments. Give it to me, so to speak.

August 17, 2017
Offense, harm and free speech – a confederacy of wimps

10″The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” – H. L. Mencken

Let’s start with a couple of quick, short, non-scholarly definitions. What is free speech? I would say the right to express whatever you goddamn feel like. Wait a damn minute! “Obscene speech is not free speech!” (it like totally is), “hate speech is not free speech!” (I beg to differ) or “you can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded theater!” (I tried it once, it seems I could).

Great Balls of You Cant Say That

Is hate speech really free speech? Mea culpa, as the ancient Dacians used to say. There is, in fact, no such thing as hate speech, as there is no possible objective definition of it. There is no such thing as obscene speech, intolerant speech, and offensive speech. All these things are in the ear of the behearer (yes, I know it’s not a word, it be jokes). There is, in fact, such a thing as fire.

To support speech which is free is specifically about the one you personally find offensive and disagreeable. It’s no great feat, no feat at all, to graciously allow speech you agree with. The whole goddamn point is to defend the “bad speech”. And I do not mean “a bit rude, but makes a good point”. I mean gratuitously stupid and offensive speech, the one that is nowhere near a good point, which is offensive just to be offensive, just to push boundaries, contradictory and half-baked, vile and inflammatory. This is the litmus test of free speech. Respecting speech when you just can’t even.

Here is a good place to state that I am one of the good guys, an ally (Or is it axis? I get confused) and I do not agree with any speech anyone might find offensive, although I think they have the right to say it, and please buy me cocktails – nothing too sweet and girly, mind, an old fashioned works, or maybe a Sazerac. I had a decent cocktail once with rye whiskey, bitters and something called Sirop de Picon, but this is all besides the point.

The main issue of free speech is not of theaters, but of government. Whether private individuals can set rules in their private sphere – I can kick you out of my home if I don’t like what you say – government should not attempt to ban speech in the public sphere. This is understood by some, not by others.

But! There is often a but, and this one is sort of thicc. The fact you can avoid speech you don’t like, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so. It is good to strive towards a society where the government respects freedom and expression by law and private parties respect it by custom. Yes, twitter/youtube/facebook can and often do police speech on their platforms, as is their right. But maybe, just maybe, it is a bad idea to do so. And while it is not directly a right infringement, they can be criticized for this.

I Had the Right to Remain Silent…But I Didn’t Have the Ability” – Ron White

Private actors, people and companies, can deny a “platform” to speech they don’t like, but I believe people should have the default view of: let’s hear the asshole out. If you are confident in your opinion, you can listen to another one, no matter how shitty. One grows by being exposed to as many ideas as possible, as opposed to avoiding anything different, while screaming to lung capacity about how stupid or ignorant or hateful others are. I always found it quite amazing how certain some are of the superiority of their views, when they refuse to even attempt to understand others. It is like the view you developed in high school, probably the very first one you came across, was perfect and there is no need for further inquiry.

Just shake it off, or something

All that being said, it is every snowflake’s right to insulate xerself in whatever echo chamber xir chooses. I think it is stupid, but you do you and like whatever. Fine, but–ehm–how about speech that is violence and promotes actual harm? I feel threatened! That tweet is literally violence! Check mate, free speechers!

I do not have much shit to give in general, but sometimes I worry about our society and the people in it. How, well… soft everyone is becoming, how delicate, how fragile, how lacking in introspection and self-awareness some people are. Like or loath Nassim Taleb, there is something to be said of antifragility. Or resilience.

In the new intersectional reality, it has become a mark of social status to claim victimhood. Everyone wants as many oppression brownie points as possible. I do not understand this and do not think it is healthy. Time was, it was a matter of pride to overcome adversity. You had it real tough and you made, conquered every obstacle. Now it seems to be the opposite. This is not the way forward. Victim status was something to be avoided and conquered, not celebrated, because the individual gains most from overcoming adversity, not whining about it.

The most annoying thing is that for a good number of these people there is no adversity. They try so hard to claim oppression – the very thing one should overcome – when none exists. But what are the optics of that? How does it help women, for example, when some feminist screams hysterically about everything? Makes ’em look real rational, doesn’t it? Claiming you can’t handle even mildly offensive speech. I get they are professional activists and this is their bread and butter – screaming hysterically and grievance mongering – and most likely they don’t give a shit beyond themselves, but do they think it is a good look?

How weak are you, how pathetic, if I may be a little harsh, to claim online speech is literally violence and caused you real harm? And this is not about credible threats. It rarely is. How incapable of self-control are we if hearing an opinion – no matter how bad it may be – makes us feel threatened, fearing for our safety? Or causes a breakdown? Or mental illness, PTSD, whatever. Rotting in a trench and hearing bad things are basically the same.

Look a bit at human history. I’ll wait. People have gone through some bad shit. War, famine, disease, genocides, gulags, torture and suffering we cannot fathom. And we get all up in arms about tweets? Seriously? Of course, each society has its problems and things to improve. I am not saying that because we have it better than 100 years ago, we should never complain or not try to improve things. Constant improvement is a goal. But just a wee bit of perspective here and there does not hurt. And you hurt no one as much as yourself by being a snowflake.

Safety used to mean you are not in imminent danger of bodily harm. Now it somehow means not hearing what you don’t want to hear. How did society get to that point? How the hell can opinions trigger PTSD in people with no imaginable reason to have PTSD? And if they do have it, we need to see how in the modern world people are so mollycoddled as to get PTSD for no apparent reason.

Now, I perfectly realize all this shit is massively over-represented over the interwebs and it is not a representation of general society. Yet. But it is growing and should be nipped in the bud. And sadly, it is growing more than usual in schools.

Offense is purely subjective, and it is taken meaninglessly in most contexts. Being offended – and this goes for most people – is bullshit 99% of the damn time, and it leads to a lot of unnecessary drama. Just shake it off, as the philosophers say. And this comes from someone who is very far from the stereotypical tough guy. Seriously. Some asshole said this and that? Fuck him, who cares?

August 10, 2017
This is why there are no female libertarians – feminism and liberty

I was thinking of starting a quick discussion about libertarianism and feminism and how the two go together, because well it could be rather entertaining.

Disclaimer: I am white, male, Romanian, and an engineer, with a huge penis. I mean massive. You should see this thing. So I maybe do not have the full nuances of Americanese society or the blessing of an education in intersectionality at a social sciences college. Which I think is a good thing, as I talk general principle not the particularities of this or that society. Onwards, then.
Also disclaimer: while I use terms like men and women in the article, it goes without saying I do so for the sake of brevity, do add how many ever other identifications in there.

Feminists for liberty

So let’s get ready to rumble. In the blue corner we have a lot of libertarians who are against the concept of feminism, for a wide variety of reasons (from philosophy to actual misogyny). In the red (well pinko mostly) corner, feminists like good ol’ Lizzie NB from you know which site, who says feminism is part of libertarianism, I think. She has that whole feminist for liberty thing going.

Personal view: I am not a feminist. I do support full liberty and rights for women. I do not believe men/women are superior/inferior in any way, though I believe there are some biological differences. Those differences are irrelevant from a philosophical point of view. Beyond the State and the Law, the main concerns of libertarianism, I think people should respect each other and treat each other as equals.

So what is my disagreement with feminism? And to be clear, I do not qualify this by stating third wave/radical/intersectional/postmodern/critical theory/whatever feminism. Feminism period. Well, it is the same with my disagreement with any form of identity politics. Any form of group politics, group rights. The way I see it, it is quite inherent in identity politics to devolve into tribalism and collectivism. It is just human nature. In the end, these movements will fill with self-interested people who profit from them and with people with various ideological ideas beyond the scope of the movement. These people will be interested in grievance mongering, keeping conflicts, and hijacking the movements for other reasons. Inevitably, the demand for positive rights or privileges appears.

Women were not equal to men throughout history. The fact that I believe feminism is not a solution does not mean I discount the problem. Saying communism was a disaster for Russia is not saying Tsarist Russia was just great. I think actually advocating liberty for all is the solution, without going down the path of identity politics. I am sympathetic to arguments that liberty for all is fine, but a certain group’s liberty is more restricted/infringed than other groups, and it should be highlighted, but, in the long term, doing this via identity politics can be counterproductive. You can highlight it strongly without different terms for this. The liberty movement has a long history of supporting equal rights, and can attack a particular injustice without attaching it to identity terminology.

Unlike feminists for sharia

Also, it goes without saying that most of these movements – sex, sexual orientation, race – will be inevitably taken over by ideological leftist – which is the standard left MO – and high jacked for entirely different purposes. The reaction of the left-wing press to organizations like Pink Pistols is quite relevant. Or the environmental movement dominated by watermelons (you know, green on the outside, red on the inside). In the end capitalism is the true problem, because of course. It always is.

Now Lizzie, or people like Christina Hoff Sommers, may say at this point that there is plenty she disagrees with from left feminists and they claim they want a different type of feminism, which is in fact about equal rights and liberty. But that, to me, is like saying oh we don’t want the current big bureaucratic state, we want a competent efficient big bureaucracy. Not gonna happen, as the problems are inherent in bureaucracy and will inevitably reach this point. The same goes for feminism. What the world needs is not more labels and groups and tribalism.

I do not want to suggest that people who identify as libertarian feminists are not real libertarians or something like that. Just that the second label is unneeded and can be quite counterproductive.

About sexism, it is quite important to define it because “anything some feminist does not like is sexism” is bullshit. To give an example, I have heard many a feminist call sexism that a man tells another man a joke that a woman overhears and finds offensive, even if not directed at that woman. Well, tough shit. I my-very-self sometimes like to tell improper jokes, transgressive, or jokes which are offensive just for the sake of being offensive. Jimmy Carr built a very lucrative career on this. If you are bothered, that is your problem and none of mine. I will have to go with the thicker skin thing here. I mean honestly, the world is a nasty place, and it ain’t gonna change soon. So I think a thicker skin is universally useful advice.

Patrice was offensive to women, but it was funny

That is offensive to women, is an oft heard claim. Which women? Are all women offended by the same thing? Who made someone official spokespersons for all women (good gig if you can get it)? Another thing is men will not behave towards women exactly like they behave towards other men and the same goes for women. This is not sexism, it is just nature. It is, as they say, OK.

Is there sexism in the libertarian movement? Well yes, like everywhere. Except the US Democratic party, where there are zero sexists. Furthermore libertarianism attracts a lot of… let’s say non mainstream people, due to not wanting laws against non-violent behavior, irrespective of how in poor taste that behavior may be. Can libertarian men change towards being less sexist / offensive to some women? Sure, probably some of them could.

But here is the problem: I hear many claim casual sexism is what turns women from libertarianism. I am sorry, but this is nonsense. If casual sexism puts you off your principles, your principles were not strong in the first place, and inevitably you would repent and write for Salon about being an ex-libertarian. A community is nice and all, but principles should somewhat transcend that.

Now, of course, ideas reaching people is important. If someone is exposed to libertarian ideas they may become interested in researching further and thinking about it, and in the end developing the principles, so it is important not to turn people off directly. This can use some work for libertarians, including better outreach towards womenfolk. Also, it should be a basic goal in life not to be a complete asshole, sexism or otherwise.

Sadly, the notion that libertarianism is not popular mostly because of marketing issues rings hollow to me. Most people, men and women, do not really have strong principles, do not really research and think about why they believe what they believe. They are just not interested in what libertarians are selling. The movement is small and even doubling the numbers will keep it small. And better marketing will sadly not change much. Looking at the major challenges of spreading libertarianism, casual sexism is not one. Which is sad because it would probably be easier to fix. Of course, that does not change the premise of trying not to be offensive for no apparent reason. This is basic politeness.

Anyway. Thoughts? Do share…

August 5, 2017
Life and economics on an escort forum

This may not be a fully appropriate subject on such a family friendly blog, but I think that information gleaned on an escort forum can give some minor insight into markets, human nature, and general understanding of the economy, which might explain why libertarianism makes little headway in the world – not that this is some great mystery.

I have to start this by the unambiguous disclaimer, which goes without saying, that not me, but a friend of mine, visited an online escort forum over a period of time, for purely economics and psychology research purposes. An in-depth look at such a website, like many other forums, to be honest, can be seen as a microcosmos of a lot of what goes on in general society.

But wait! Escorting is very illegal in Romania. A reasonable person might ask: why is there a forum for something that does not exist? So, lo and behold, the first bit of insight, based on the very existence of the forums, and the quite significant activity involved, is that maybe, just maybe, prohibition might not always work. It may be that, perish the thought, extensive black markets fill the void. Black markets with the works, full option if you will, organized crime, dangers for both buyers and sellers, shoddy product. I, myself, am shocked. I need my smelling salts right now.

Of course, as any fool knows, and by fool I mean libertarian, the market, black or otherwise, has always been here and always will be. The market is a generic term for human economic interaction; it is a fundamental expression of human nature. Government may screw with it, but won’t get rid of it. So where are we at this point? Well, we have established at least one thing: there is a market for sex (and even married men use it, to the chagrin of certain Catholics who visit this fair blog). And where there is a sale, there is ehm… information asymmetry let’s call it, which needs to be addressed. Quality control is the name of the game and was usually done, I assume for thousands of years, through let’s say word of mouth.

Enter the mighty internet, which makes things a lot easier and a lot … harder at the same time. How does one quality control the quality control information? The internet has too much stuff and nonsense. Like in all markets, there is false advertising – this may come as a surprise, but not all the pictures on escort sites are of the actual escorts. A rule of thumb (or finger, if you will) would be: if it looks too good to be true, it probably is, or you can’t afford it. This is where reviews come in, but many of them are as false as the picture. Look at it this by way of analogy, if you can’t trust a yelp review what can you trust?

Reputation on such a forum is required for both escorts and reviewers. This works up to a point, but not fully, as trusted reviewers may not be so trusted, and often end up asking for free or discount service in exchange for good reviews or by threat of bad reviews. There is also a noticeable presence of personal taste and subjective preference (ass > tits fyi), which need to be accounted for when evaluating reviews. Like in all markets.

Quality control also has a stronger ethical component than usual, due to the inherent issues in the industry. Despite the ‘all escort customers are filthy exploiters” rhetoric, many are quite aware of sex slavery, trafficking, and pimping, and are quite actively trying to avoid such situations. It is often hard to tell, and obviously there are hits and misses – more so than if the biz was legal and upfront – but people do try. There is also the ever-present possibility of underage escorts, which most avoid like the plague, or better said avoid like 10 years in prison. There are a lot of STDs to watch out for, the risk of getting robbed as part of the deal, and much more, making a trustworthy review system essential.

Beyond reviews, many escorts – or their respective pimps/madams – come to engage with customers on the forums, which sometimes lead to actually improved services. It seems there are escorts out there who are not trafficked or forced by various bad circumstances to offer this particular service, but choose this activity for a variety of their own reasons and want to do a good job at it. Of course, the real problem is, in fact, capitalism, which causes people to need money and as such do various things for it. In socialism, we all know, everyone would be rich and happy and poor women would not need to sell sex for cash. But alas, we do not live in the wonderful socialist utopia but under the heel of filthy capitalist pigs. But this is not the purpose of discussion.

To sum up: the situation somewhat works. Could have been a lot better if legal, obviously, but it is what it is. Baptists (Orthodox really but the principle stands) and bootleggers (politicians on the take). Until now, this is nothing anyone didn’t know. For me, a more interesting aspect was to observe how truly economically illiterate people are, how entitled and how assholish they can behave, which explains a lot about the greater world. This is most visible when it comes to price.

The usual deal is kind of like this: new girl in the business (or, you know, a dude, whatever floats your boat really, I did not research this, as I have heard that going to male escort websites can make you catch the gay and become ultra-gay yourself, a risk I am not willing to take). As many a beginner in a field, there is entry level price, lower than one may want, to get initial customers. If the service is of adequate quality, the number of customers increase and, drum-roll, so does price. Supply and demand, how does it work? No one knows, apparently.

If one can get higher prices for product, in any field, one usually tries to do so. Escorts also want to carefully manage the number of customers, due to many reasons. And, to be fair, if there is one damn thing one should be able to set whatever price on, it is this, the basic human right to fuck who you want in whatever conditions you want. If the price is too high, demand dries up and signals the need for it to be lowered. Markets, man, they freak me out. Pretty standard stuff, you would think. And you would be dead wrong.

With any and all price increases, the whinging starts, presumably by people who routinely go to their boss each year and demand a higher salary. After the complaining, anger rears its ugly head. Of course, not by all forum members, obviously, but by a sufficient number (I have decided I do not have sufficient disclaimers in my posts). There are, I noticed, 3 main types of reactions.

The most amusing by far it’s not fair reaction. Why does something I want cost more than I want it to cost? Why should I pay more? I don’t want to pay more! It’s not fair! It really is not! And no, I am, sadly, not joking. It’s not fair!

The second is pure rage directed to the escort. How dare she, that good for nothing, filthy, goddamn whore. Who the hell does she think she is? As her superior, why I should get to fuck her for whatever price I want. This bitch needs to be taught a lesson. And so on and so forth. Waves of messages full of insults from people who seem to have a remarkable amount of time to spend on this subject.

The third is anger at the other customers. Why it is clear that if all you goddamn morons would not pay, these escorts would not charge that much. Which, I used to think, is a meaningless truism. Every price is something people are willing to pay for. If people were not willing to pay top dollar for prime real-estate, why, it would not be so prime. Which, well, duh. But this is how the world works. People want something, they are willing to pay extra to get it. Who wants it more pays more. And some people will not afford it. Thems be the breaks.

Amusingly, the very same people, before the price raise, complain about long wait times. This escort is impossible to book! Well, high demand, limited supply, prime real estate, Economics 101. And so, prices move towards and ever changing never reached equilibrium point.

This in the end tells you a lot about the world. People entitled to get what they want for what price they want it, and unlike on escort forums, in the wide world these people can do something about it. That something being give power to some asshole or other who promises to address their grievance. Because it just isn’t fair.

August 2, 2017
On reading old books – The Compleat Angler

The title is taken from C S Lewis I think, although it has been used multiple times on multiple people. I like the sound of it and the message – old books can be quite underrated these days. First of all, there is something purely of age, as people like old things. At the very least withstanding the test of time shows that there is a bit of quality. But mostly, if one is interested in humanity and human nature, it is a small view in the minds of past people.

History taught in Romania schools can be very limited from my point of view, concentrating on some major events which are considered notable. It is mostly rulers, battles, and lots of dates to be remembered for no particular reason. Also dates must be constantly converted from Julian to Gregorian calendars, because why the hell not. As a result most children don’t like history class and often do not learn history at all. I like history, but learned most of it outside school. School history annoyed me like it did most of my mates. And I always liked to read what was known for a given time period about how people lived and though, the laws the culture the economy. Not whoever was the big boss.

Old books can help a lot in understanding past people, sometimes more than histories. History books, while valuable, can be highly biased. Most chroniclers were paid by this king or that lord and wrote to please the patron. There is much boasting, exaggeration, and general nonsense.

Now, while it may be interesting to have actual old books, dusty ancient tomes of forgotten lore (I just wanted to use the word lore) around, I do not have any. But there is project Guttenberg and a new invention of the ebook reader. So making due.

Case in point:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/683

Many or more accurately most old books that were written and survived to our modern days are religious or philosophical texts, myths or epics, chronicles of whole nations. But once in a while there is a book that is none of that stuff. But a quiet book, more reduced in scope but not in insight. It is simply on how to fish and live well, a fragment of Merry Olde England, of the 1650s, give or take. Which is why I like it, being a non-fishermen and all. Fishing, to be blunt is boring. It takes a long time and you don’t catch anything. But it can be of use if catching is not the point, but it is more of a form of meditation. I like to stare at a lake or river sometimes, to empty my thoughts, but usually I skip the rod in the water bit.

Now where was I? Right, back to the book. The author is one Izaak Walton, an innkeeper ‘s son by origin, an ironmonger by trade, and a writer by vocation. He lived through the English Civil War, a somewhat hectic and troubled time – oft covered by the standard histories and history classes. You learn of the Roundheads and their 7 game series against the Cavaliers, you learn dates and battles, laws and beheadings. Of Cromwell (MVP) and parliaments, and maybe what happened in Ireland. But what do you learn of the correct way to snag a trout or cook a chub, I ask you?

After said hectic times, old Izaak retired to the countryside, and spoke about the slow life, calm, quiet, contemplative. Fly fishing was an art and a form of quiet meditation. Also, to paraphrase the philosopher Ron Swanson, you get to kill something.

The book is, mind you, a bit pastoral fantasy, a walk through the countryside of the time that is more than slightly idealized.

There really is a lot about fish. Which time of year a certain type bites, what bait to use, how to make artificial lures (apparently, duck feathers work differently from pheasant feathers.) He talks also of over-fishing and environmental protection, and references the tragedy of the commons – a problem, he states, with rivers being that which belongs to all belongs to none. He also covers the subtle difference between making and enforcing legislation– there were types of fishing nets that were illegal to fish with since 1400s, but still were sold in most markets.

The book is in the form of a conversation, and it is not, to be fair, what one would call an easy read, if one does not like the style. It is the type of conversation where many lines are actually long speeches, so it is not necessarily a natural conversation, unless that is how people conversed at the time. The main characters are the fisherman Piscator and the hunter Venator meet early in the morning while walking from the city towards the countryside, and are glad of company and conversation, as the road can be lonely. The plot –so to speak- is Piscator teaching Venator angling, after the hunter was somewhat dismissive of the fisherman’s pastime, considering his passion more noble and interesting. By the way of conversation on the road he is won over by the angler, who begins teaching craft and life philosophy (and why otters should be made extinct, as they eat too much fish).

Throughout the book they travel the English countryside, looking for good bits of river and good clean houses, with honest landladies. A good house had clean rooms, clean bed-sheets smelling of lavender, and the landlady should be able dress (as in cook) your fish and make good ale. Ale was essential back then and not made industrially. Each house made its own ale. These houses were not the large inns of fantasy literature or RPGs, but smaller affairs with a few rooms to rent, and each traveller knew a few good ones.

As always, not all fish were appreciated in 1600s England, the trout and eel being considered the best, the chub one of the worst. This is where cooking- how to dress your fish- became important, as almost any fish could become a good meal if you knew how. The key, as far as I understood it reading the book, was lots of butter – a quarter pound or more – and some fragrant herbs, maybe some wine in the sauce. But mostly butter.

For each fish covered, chub or perch, trout or carp, eel or pike, the standard chapter tells you when it is in season, how to catch it and how to cook it. Maybe braised in wine, baked in the oven should one be available, or roasted on a spit, often stuffed with herbs and mushrooms and oysters. Do remember the quarter pound of butter though.

I liked reading about the European carp, as it is a very widely eaten fish in present day Romania, and some of the things in the book still apply. It is mentioned that the fish caught in running water is better than from still water. At Romanian fish mongers, the price and quality ranks are similar, wild caught carp is better than farmed, river caught is better than lake/pond fish. The best is considered the Danube carp, usually at least twice more expensive the farmed one. Another thing casually mentioned in the book as anecdote is how Jews eat the carp roe because their religion forbids them sturgeon roe. I understand from this that Englishmen did not eat carp roe, but present day Romanians do, usually mixed with mayo and onion. Althoug pike roe is proffered for this preparation.

In the book mister Walton speaks highly of good ale, but also on the importance of moderation. He usually has one glass in the morning as his breakfast drink, and he will not drink another until dinner (midday meal), and maybe one or two more in the evening, with good company and good conversation. In the beginning of the book, the travelers plan a stop for the morning pint at a good, honest house – you needed to know of one nearby anywhere you were – before heading to the fishing grounds.

Anyway I shouldn’t go on about it too much. I recommend the book, it is free and available, and so give it a read if it sounds good to you, might be an interesting view of 350 years ago, give or take.

July 11, 2017
On the proper way to drink wine, libertarian wise

When it comes to imbibing the fine beverages of an alcoholic inclination, libertarians often hold their own. But I do seem to read about a bit of excessive consumption of barley products amongst them. Instead of fine wine, as the gods intended. Wine is in many ways superior to beer. It looks better, it smells better, and it tastes better. Wine glasses are more elegant than beer glasses. Wine takes longer to make and age than beer, another plus when it comes to judging quality. Like a fine aged prosciutto or jamon is better than whatever random ham.

Now, normal I would drop some of this fine knowledge on you lot during belly up to the bar, but if I am awake at 2 am on a Friday, I am not on Glibertarians, wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean.

Beer, my fine fellows, in many a circumstance, is not the drinks of the upper classes. As Any Fule Knos, libertarians are all selfish, greedy and, of course, filthy rich, and as such we are the upper classes. The exploiters of the proletariat. There is, I would assume, not one among us with less than 1 million dollars in the bank. And by bank, I mean gold coins in a secret vault, with a bathtub just in case. Otherwise, we would not be libertarians, would we?

As socially aware individuals, we can’t just go out wearing our finest vintage top hat and diamond encrusted monocle and order up a pint. That just ain’t proper. What you need is the fine nectar of the vines, a good red wine or a good white, depending on the food and weather. It goes without saying that rosé wine is unacceptable, as rosé is for communists and high school kids, people with little understanding of the workings of the world.

Now, if the situation may find you by the pool or near a grill laden with the flesh of birds and beasts, wearing a casual top hat and a sun monocle, maybe a good beer works fine, as refreshment and hydration. Also if there is somehow a requirement to watch a sporting event or other.

Going out to eat or socialize with our upper-class peers, wine is a must. The question would be what wine. Even for the person educated in such matters, the sheer number and variety of wines out there means the choice may not always be straight forward. Now I would assume a restaurant a self-respecting glib would visit has a proper sommelier, trained from a young orphan in the fine art of finding the perfect wine for libertarians. In that case, do not hesitate to ask for an opinion, even if you may not take it.

Some base rules for wine can be listed. Never buy the cheapest wine, like poor people, as that is just so gauche, or the most expensive one, as you risk looking like someone with more money than sense. This is important as you people represent the whole glibertarian community. We are an amorphous collective after all.

Try to have some idea of countries, regions, and grapes. You can also learn a few random factoids about the major regions, the ones which will likely appear on most wine list. It will give you the chance to appear savvy as you throw a random comment here and there while reading the wine list. Avoid wines with gimmicky names and overly elaborate labels, as you will want to be classy.

After selecting a bottle, the waiter will hopefully bring it to you and open it. When that happens, resist the urge of doing something profoundly silly, like smelling the cork – as some people, at least in Europe, somehow heard was a good idea. One would presume the waiter will not give you a corked wine, and one whiff of the glass should let you know if this is the case. If a decanter is available you can ask for the wine to be decanted if it is a fairly young tannic red. Or whatever really, if you like to see wine poured into a decanter. The waiter will pour some for you to taste – most decent ones do.

When you taste the wine – and any decent place should offer a taste before pouring- take a smell and maybe a small sip to see if the wine is in any way defective. Do not describe it, praise it or whatever, as that is not the point of tasting. Just give the waiter a small nod and say fine in a soft voice, glacially accept his offering. You are doing him, after all, a favour for not smashing the bottle to the ground.

If there is some fault, do not hesitate to return the wine. Now if the wine is fault free but you don’t like it, the opinions are split. Some would say return it anyway and try something else. I am not of this view. I believe if the wine is not defective, proper etiquette is to accept it, otherwise, the restaurant may waste a perfectly good bottle just because you do not know what to order. And that does not reflect well on the rest of us.

Once the wine is poured, you may want to describe in more detail it in order to impress others. If you are alone, just raise your voice enough so people at other tables can hear you. Start with the basics – oak, tannin, acidity and the like. Use words like mouth-feel, finish, aftertaste… these sort of things. Then casually slip in how you sense a hint of leaf covered forest floor in the Rocky Mountains, in May at approximately 4000 feet altitude after a light rain, at about 7 pm, as there is no smell like it and it is definitely present in this wine. No one will be able to tell you any differently.

Or you know, ignore the best advice and get a bottle of something palatable and drink it. What do I care? Just don’t come crying to me when your libertarian card gets revoked.

June 18, 2017
It was better back then: communism and nostalgia

The casual observer would, ehm… observe that late stage communism in Romania was not exactly Utopia. A good percent of the urban population lived in cramped concrete apartment blocks that were not quite heated in winter, water – especially of the hot variety – and electricity were not guaranteed, the lines were enormous for all basic goods, and shortage was the order of the day. Of course the leaders of the proletariat did not live in such conditions. They took over the villas of the pre-communism wealthy or middle class, and built a few more. It is quite understandable. After all, it is hard work, building equality; they deserved a better living standard then the hoi-polloi. Some animals more equal than others, you see.

Excuse me, what do you have in stock?

Shortage was the norm and queuing for hours was part of the social fabric. Good stuff, a friendly lefty will tell you. Got out of the house (the house was depressing anyway) socialized, met interesting people. And by interesting I mean hungry and bored. Obesity was less of a problem, the old commie diet works wonders. People had complex social rules for queuing. If you were lucky you found out in advance which store was about to get something. If you noticed a line, you sometimes joined it without actually knowing what it is for; there must be something to buy there. After standing in line you would ask the person in front what they had. In all lines you hoped that whatever was sold would not be finished before your turn. There was a standard shout of “Don’t give too much to one person so there is enough for all”. Anecdotally, in University we would shout that when going by the door of a room where a professor was grading exams.

If you wanted gas for your car, you had to stay at least overnight in line. Someone had to sleep in the car, otherwise you would lose your spot. Well this meant that least you had a car, which was not easy, so you were in your own fashion a petty bourgeois. If you happen to be caught with more than a few liters of cooking oil or a few kilos of flour, you would be shamed on public TV for the goddamn hoarder and wrecker you were. There is plenty they would say, if not for the hoarders, the greedy ones who do not care for their fellow man.

The stories are literally endless. Well not literally literally, but as close to it as possible. Also the jokes, though I feel a lot of them are repeated through European communist nations, so I won’t put any here. I was always fascinated as a kid by how the bread you could buy in stores was never fresh, always a day old. Maybe this way people ate less of it. This carried over after communism in a way. I was fairly young back then, but after bread shortage was no longer a thing, I noticed my parent always overbought bread and would usually throw away quite a bit, because there was some residual fear of running out of bread. Buy 3 just in case, we don’t want to run out of bread.

There was secret police and the fear of nightmarish jail for any dissent. People rarely trusted neighbors, even family, due to fear of them actually being an informant. This fear was not unfounded, after communism it was found that many were in fact informers and many ratted on their brothers and cousins and parents. This created a general atmosphere of distrust among people that I think still persists.

With all of that, you may wonder, how the hell there is still nostalgia about those times? How are there people who say it was better back then? Well it is not a simple thing. These things rarely are.

One of the ones that usually accounts for some nostalgia was youth. Back then people were young and healthy and now they are old and sometimes sick. Discomfort was easier on a young body. Hell when I was a university student I would holiday in accommodations I quite turn my nose at now. We were a bunch of young people, had some food to eat and cheap booze to drink, it was all needed. Back in the communist days, there was not much food and crap vodka and wine, but a young couple lets say would need little more. The apartment was cold but they warmed each other, wink wink. Life seemed good enough.

Another reason would be that radical change is hard on some. Communist life, as it was, was what people grew up with and were used to. The change was maybe too much for some. Further more, human memory is a fickle creature. People may selectively remember the better times, and selectively compare to the worst things the get now.

Of course, among the stronger reasons it is quite simple. Envy. Basic human envy sprinkled with some resentment here and there. Many did not have it worse back than in absolute terms, but had it the same or better in relative terms to others. Everyone was poor, many poorer than you.

This especially applies to the less than competent who do not do as well in a society were some level of competence matter. Why should they have less money just because they are less productive? They will say back than everyone had a job. Yes, they did. And most didn’t do much at it. Communism lasted as long as it did because of the few people who did their best out of principal. My father was one of such. But it was disastrous because these people were a minority.

A good number of the ones who did the jobs did reasonably well after communism. The others not so much and were nostalgic, it was better back then. They had the same pay for little work as the guy who did all the work. Sometimes more because he spent the time not working mingling, making connections, joining the Party, ratting out colleagues to the secret police, that sort of thing. My father always refused to join the Communist Party which cost him quite a bit back then. I have to admit, as a kindergartner I was a Falcon of the Fatherland, but never got the chance to be a Pioneer and join the party on account of my age.

My father is an electronic engineer and worked in a factory that designed and produced industrial automation devices. Back then the workers got better pay than the engineers, more access to holiday accommodations, better apartments and extra rations. So they felt good. After communism when engineer pay rose above worker pay, they had, led by the union, a strike before the factory, screaming we do all the work, we don’t need engineers, fire all the engineers. The competent engineers left the still government owned factory by themselves in time, and it closed down. Before my father left a group of assembly workers asked him respectfully about maybe staying to keep the factory going. He reminded them of their strikes, and they realized their mistake. But it was a bit late for that. Others did not, and took small anticipated pensions and are now fairly poor, bitter and talking about how it was better back then. Even with their current poverty they probably have the same amount of goods, but now there are so many things in stores they cannot afford. Empty stores of communism did not have this effect.

Off course, a lot of people are much poorer then they would be if an actual free market reform took place instead of the government dominated crony capitalism system we have in this country. Started by Mister Iliescu, may he rot in Hell, who wanted to replace the old system with something called socialism with a human face. Which meant the right people get all the wealth and power, mostly the ones who had it before. Still, the new system did lead to development and allowed some actually get a better life. But it did take some effort.

I feel sorry in a way for a lot of Romanians, because they were educated in communism and kept that kind of thinking. Many were kept poorer by the system and the government, it was not fully their fault. It never is. Humans do adapt to circumstances. But then again, they voted for the system in great numbers- no vote rigging needed – and expected things to happen by themselves. On the other hand there were plenty of people who did not believe all the communist indoctrination and did change their thinking after ’89. And a lot of them willfully did not and became hateful instead. While in communism they took only the “to each according to his need” part, skipped the work part, and spend time trying to climb the hierarchy while being snitches. So my sorry feelings are ambivalent to say the least. Heartless libertarian such as I am.

June 2, 2017
Selling liberty: Small government, good government

When I wrote a while ago about the general wish for liberty, some of the comments reminded me of several difficulties in doing so. One of these, something often told to libertarians by the left-leaning, is government should be more efficient and better, not smaller. Better government versus smaller. I have yet to be convinced of the possibility of achieving this. This is not an in-depth post in any way, shape or form, just a quick thought, let us say.

Personally, and as a libertarian, I think it is hardly possible to make big government efficient. Which I assume shocks no one. It is not even a given that it is desirable to have big efficient government, as Frank Herbert may have observed in a book or two. As for better, it is one of those things that do not have clear, universally accepted, definitions. Like common sense, it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. I often get countered with accusations of being ideological and few clear, concrete measures to achieve this mythical good big government, besides boilerplate feel good nonsense like “if we all work together” blah blah blah.

My argument is that it is not really possible to make government efficient in a significant without making it smaller because the size is often in itself the source of inefficiency: large numbers of regulations, large numbers of agencies with overlapping functions which not even the government can keep track of, complex bureaucratic organizations, and no inherent checks and balances, as one would find in a market. Man-made checks and balances are given as an alternative, but these are as flawed as the humans who design them, and equally as crooked. Experience does not show this to be a source of efficiency. I say in a significant way because, as inefficient as governments currently are, it should be possible I suppose to make them somewhat less inefficient.

Now, I’m sure we can make this quite efficient

In general, the larger and more complex a system is, the harder it is to manage. This is equally true of big corporations, which can become quite the bureaucratic nightmare and highly inefficient, but they are occasionally forced by the market situation to do something about it. This is rarely the case for government, and when it happens it is with much wailing and gnashing of teeth. It is even harder to do by bureaucrats with all sorts of agendas, with the incapacity of economic calculation, with little interest in efficiency and much interest in other things, and without any inherent constraints, as exists in the market.

When the last financial crisis hit, the corporation I work for quickly found hundreds of millions of wasteful spending brought by the previous boom. It cut more than any government did. One of the problems with corporations – one that is increasing in frequency- is precisely the need of government to intervene when the market attempts to correct something.

But, to get to the point of this post, for the sake of argument, we can give the left the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say they want good efficient big government. My problem is that they never show it. The standard should be: we believe government can be efficient and well prove it to you doubters. We will do everything in our power, leave no stone unturned, to achieve this!

We will look at every expense thrice to make sure we don’t spend unnecessarily. We will review every law and regulation to make sure it is as simple and clear as possible. We will review all the laws and regulations to see they are not deprecated, overlapping, confusing. We will work tirelessly to spend money better and regulate better. This happens approximately once in a blue moon, give or take. For all the efficiency rhetoric, they are quick to advocate for any expense that they like, for any regulation no matter how dumb. The left wing should be always ready to criticize what government does wrong, but libertarian publications seem to do a much better job of this.

Bureaucrats being a base of votes for the left, they seldom seek to make bureaucracy efficient. And this would be crucial in efficient government. Get rid of any agency not needed or overlapping. Simplify bureaucratic procedures. Reduce the number of meaningless forms, analyze all processes in an agency. Hire external auditors and consultants and improve constantly. This happens once in a never.

So where is this desire for efficient big government? Even if such a beast would be possible–which I say it is not–it is certainly nowhere to be seen outside empty rhetoric. Didn’t the old cliche use to go “actions speak louder than words?” If people demand good, efficient big government–not small government–we have to tell them that “there ain’t no such thing.” And no one trying to achieve it.

May 24, 2017
Do people want liberty and can libertarians sell them some?

Like all ideologies out there, there are those within libertarianism who see the, how should I put this… the modest reach of our ideas to the general public as bad marketing, or insufficient awareness. That people would like liberty if the right message reached then. This view is also shared by other ideologies. Every time the majority rejects some policy or other, someone complains about the message being bad or propaganda from the other side or whatever.

But is it really marketing? Do people support liberty – actual liberty — but don’t know it? I sincerely doubt it. Granted, the libertarian message has more limited reach than the others, less exposure in schools, media and such. Also granted, there are people in the movement who couldn’t sell water in the desert, let alone an idea which is mostly counter-intuitive to many. But will a better message make a huge amount of difference? Some *cough* sites out there seem to think so and do their darndest to make the message more appealing. Colour me skeptical.

Liberty, baby

Most people claim to like liberty, even support it. It does not sound good to say you are against it. Then … well, then that pesky little but comes in. And one can usually stop listening. People don’t like liberty as it is, they like a better class of liberty, improved to their standards, of course. They want moderate amounts of liberty, a little here, little there, liberty that is just right. Preferably organic, GMO-free, without anything unpleasant attached. They often like liberty for themselves, but not for others. They certainly don’t approve of unrestricted liberty or the consequences of being free. Consequences can be bad, you see, and we can’t have any of that.

What is liberty, some haughtily ask, on an empty stomach… Well, in my humble opinion, it is pretty much the same as on a full stomach, no more nor less, as the fullness of one’s innards does not define liberty. In fact, there are choices in life that lead you to sleeping rough and hungry. If you are not free to make those choices, you are not free. If you are free and are saved from those choices by government, it is at the expense of resources that come from someone else and their liberty. You are not free unless you are free to make bad choices and suffer the consequences.

Dying doing something you love

There are extreme sports out there that lead to many or even most practitioners to smash their skull on a big damn rock. But if you are free, you should be free to smash your head against a rock. Now, many of these sports are not banned. At least they died doing something they loved, am I right? But then, why ban other so-called dangerous activities? If you can smash your head on a rock you can choose to overdose on heroin. Well, this is a step too far for so-called pro-freedom folk out there, they cannot take it.

Liberty within reasonable limits, what more can you want? I think that fella Kim Jong Un is also all for liberty within very reasonable limits.

In the attempt to avoid saying I don’t like liberty, some people do the classic split between stuff they like and stuff they don’t. Separate certain aspects of life from others, in order to still support their preferred flavour of government intervention. The most common manifestation of this is to separate economic activity from other aspects of life, or better said financial outcomes.

Some who support let’s say gay marriage but government involvement in every single aspect of those married gay dudes lives, call themselves social libertarians or civil libertarians. Glorious, glorious modifiers. Social liberty, social justice etcetera.

The economic side is no less part of your life as the person you choose to have sex with, hell you usually spend more time doing the former rather than the latter. Almost everything a person does is an economic decision. The bread you buy the beer you drink is an economic decision. Procreation, sex, food… whatever

You cannot be free economically just because the taxes are small if you cannot spend your earnings as you wish – let’s say doing drugs and doing whomever you choose. As such, it matters not that Saudi Arabia has small taxes, for example.

But you cannot be free in your private life if the money you have earnt and the way you earn it are controlled by the state. If you cannot decide what to do for a living, how to use your money, how to raise children or plan retirement how can legal weed – but not heroin, never heroin – and gay marriage make you free. Or is it free birth control that makes you free? I forget…

You are free to do a job the government allows you to do – with the proper licencing and bureaucracy off course, we cannot have people working willy-nilly; you are then equally free to keep whatever amount of the money you earn the government sees fit to allow you to keep, and then are quite free to buy from a list of government allowed products at government inflated prices. Clean, nice, government approved liberty. Ain’t liberty grand?

So how many people would think about this and say hmmm that does not sound like liberty to me? I’m not gonna sugar coat it, I think the answer to that is very few. In the minds of most, the only alternative is pandemonium, chaos, anarchy. Do you want people to have Guns? and Drugs? Guns and Drugs at the same time? Insanity!

And after all, government is the same as society, and society is us, so government is us. As such, no one is really restricting our liberty; we just choose to limit ourselves. It is obvious, to the reasonable common sense individual, that bureaucrats are just doing what is best for us, and they know better anyway. We really need more government micromanagement, if anything. Oh not in this area I care about and anyway I want to be left alone, but everywhere else.

So, as a libertarian why keep arguing then? Well, it is human nature to argue and debate, especially with all this internet everywhere, it can be entertaining albeit aggravating, and maybe you make a little bit of headway. Maybe. Also, you get to say fuck off slaver a lot, which is always nice. But just don’t expect libertopia to kick in anytime soon.

May 19, 2017
But without government, who would build the People’s House?

Derp, unlike oil, is a resource no country truly lacks. Now I would not dream of going for the crown of the Derpetologist, but I am not above sharing some fine vintage local derp. Now, as in all places, we are spoiled for choice around here, derp wise. But I gave a good long 30 seconds worth of thought about it and decided to go with something representative.

You may not have heard, but Romania had a bit o’ ye olde communism going on a while ago. It may have been in the news over there, not that we got news back then. Anyway the fellar leading us through the multilaterally developed socialist utopia was a quasi-illiterate former cobbler called Nicky Ceausescu. Ol Nick presided over a country where food was a luxury, heating your apartment on a bitterly cold winter day a dream, and leaving the Utopia for the evil western countries a risky endeavor. Because what says Utopia like risking your life trying to get out?

Whenever communism is criticized – and believe you me there is plenty to go around- the death, the torture, the oppression, lack of basic goods and lack of liberty – the great counterargument rears its ugly head. Well, someone will say, at least Ceausescu built something. Apartment buildings and industry!! Apartments in hideous brutalist concrete shells. Tiny, difficult to heat, crowded. Narrow alleys, no parking – the proles didn’t need cars, a capitalist affectation – no parks or green spaces. But build them he did, a great act of urban renewal that lead to entire neighborhoods being flattened after the inhabitants were unceremoniously kicked out of their homes. There might be a mayor or two outside Romania who would give this a try given the chance.

Great Industry was built– randomly, badly placed, horribly inefficient and creating almost nothing of quality. But it was built. And then it rusted. But everyone had a job! Well, yes, people did pretend work for pretend pay. Everyone had a job; food was scarcer, but jobs were to be had by all, for all the good that did.

In Bucharest there is one of the largest buildings in the world. It is officially called Palace of the Parliament now, but most Romanians still call it by the communist moniker of The People’s house, or Casa Poporului in the local language.

Now where the derp got truly amusing was when I heard the argument: without a big government could Romania have built Casa Poporului when it did? The argument was followed, amusingly, by a bit of almost self-awareness. The guy actually told me “I don’t want to hear about the need or efficiency of the building, but the principle stands that you need big government for large project such as that.”

For what was before there, if anyone is interested, you can see more here (not my blog/pictures).

So I ask you, libertarians, without big government could you evict hundreds of families, tear down their homes, and waste a tremendous amount of very scarce resources a poor country could ill afford in order to build a megalomaniac’s wet dream of a pointless slab of concrete full of marble and gilded chandeliers, without bothering to ask questions of its need or efficiency. Well, my humble answer would be no. How the bloody hell is that a bad thing?

Funny enough, as a country gets rich enough, you will have some big pointless stuff being build, by rich people using their own money. But probably not to the scale of the Peoples House and probably not in the stage of development Romania was in.

Also, the Danube to Black Sea canal would definitely not have been built. That is the place where the enemies of the revolution were sent to dig hard soil by using spades and shovels, with evening beatings as the recreation and leisure part of the day, and starvation level diets to avoid obesity and diabetes and such. No one knows how many died at the Canal, and how many lived in fear of being sent to the Canal for no apparent reason. So I ask you this, without Big government, who would send the wreckers to dig the canal, huh? Checkmate, libertarians.

May 12, 2017