'The Most Crucial Gap in Politics'
April 11, 2006
8:56 a.m., MT

I've enjoyed Gene Callahan's writing at LewRockwell.com (LRC) for years. His essays seem to always have an enjoyable twist. His more technical pieces on economics or philosophical issues at the Ludwig von Mises Institute web site also shine illumination on whatever topic he chooses to address. In addition, he also writes an occasional humorous piece at LRC, or makes worthwhile shorter observations at his group blog: Crash Landing.

So, when I found his latest essay at LRC making some of the most cogent, insightful and persuasive remarks on the most fundamental question of politics: "Should there be politics?"; I wasn't terribly surprised.

Give it a look and enjoy!

Endervidual

Comments: 9 people have contributed to the conversation

On Tuesday, April 11th, at approximately 2:08 p.m. Mountain time, Wolf DeVoon said:

Tom, please delete your archive of my articles and Sunni's review of MST. Callahan or me, not both.

On Tuesday, April 11th, at approximately 2:56 p.m. Mountain time, Endervidual said:

Do you mean to say that I must chose between expressing my enjoyment on this blog of the essay by Mr. Callahan to which I linked here, or keeping your archive of essays at Endervidualism?

I don't understand that. I've not published anything by Mr. Callahan at Endervidualism. (He hasn't submitted anything for me to publish.)

I'm not sure what bothers you about this blog posting? Is there some piece of information about all this that I'm missing?

In contrast to removing essay achives, I was planning on asking all those with archives at Endervidualism if they have any item they'd like added to their archive when I upgrade them to the new format. I surely did not wish to offend anyone and am somewhat mystified by this.

On Tuesday, April 11th, at approximately 3:12 p.m. Mountain time, Sunni said:

Color me confused also.

On Tuesday, April 11th, at approximately 6:07 p.m. Mountain time, Wolf DeVoon said:

Friends, I wish you well in any case but nothing makes my blood boil like praise for Callahan, Murphy, or Kinsella. I'm not offended by your choices or thoughts. Peace love etc but I don't want to be party it.

On Tuesday, April 11th, at approximately 6:58 p.m. Mountain time, jeffrey smith said:

I'm not sure why Mr. DeVoon's blood would boil, but I do think Callahan has seriously mis-stated the minarchist position. Minarchists don't believe that aggression is ever permissible; but they believe that adequate defense from aggression requires some form of organized government, and that the anarchic ideal is too unrealistic--there's too many people out there who would not respect the ZAP to make it workable. But such a government would not, for instance, necessarily need to levy taxes or conscript people into its army, especially if the territory it covers is fairly small.

On Tuesday, April 11th, at approximately 7:59 p.m. Mountain time, Sunni said:

Wolf, thanks for elaborating. Having read some material by Kinsella, I'm inclined to agree there; Murphy I don't know; but I've long been on record as greatly enjoying Economics for Real People. I've not read many of his LRC pieces, so I'm probably ignorant of whatever has caused your ire regarding Callahan. I would hope, though, that a pointer such as Tom's doesn't cause you to stop visiting here, because you often add to the conversation. I don't see how Tom's entry makes you a party to his praise, but do see how you wouldn't like to see it. I imagine several folks in the blogroll aren't exactly happy about all the company they're keeping.

Believe it or not, I've gotten ultimatums from a few readers over various actions here, and my response is consistent: if you don't like it you don't have to visit. I'm not going to ask any conspirator to self-censor for fear of aggravating or disappointing someone.

On Wednesday, April 12th, at approximately 1:30 a.m. Mountain time, Endervidual said:

Although intellectually I have occasionally found myself (sometimes uncomfortably) on the same side of some questions as Mr. Kinsella, without intending any offense to anyone, I think I may understand what you mean in his case.

I've not found Mr. Murphy to use the same style. I don't always agree with him, but still appreciate many of his economics essays.

I wasn't aware that they made some sort of "team" with Mr. Callahan. Perhaps, since I've no way of knowing everything about Gene Callahan, I should have confined my "Callahan enthusiasm" to the specifics of the essay I posted. In any case, I do find that essay to be persuasive.

Although I regularly go through LRC and LVMI web site essays, I seldom read either the LRC or LVMI blogs. (Neither are listed on the Ender's Review blog list. I offer that info only as evidence that I don't regularly read them.) So, if what leads you to group those individuals together happened on either blog, I'm not aware of what might have occurred.

If you still want me to remove your essays from Endervidualism, I will; but I'd rather publish another from you, of your choosing. However, if you do want them removed, could you give me a URL(s) to which I can redirect traffic for those readers who may have bookmarked or linked to the pages? (I don't like making "holes" or broken links.)

In any case, it seems unfair to include Sunni and her book review in the consequences for something I did.

I was speaking only for myself and not meaning to imply any sort of association for anyone else, whether Sunni or another conspirator here, or any writer who has had essays published at my site.

On Wednesday, April 12th, at approximately 6:58 a.m. Mountain time, B.W. said:

As someone almost completely ignorant of the various personalities at play here, I have to say it seems ironic that the first reaction to an essay about coercion would be an attempt to coerce: "Callahan or me, not both." How would silencing Callahan - or taking one's toys and going home - advance your own position? If anything it makes me curious to see what Callahan says that provokes such a reaction.

On Wednesday, April 12th, at approximately 9:59 a.m. Mountain time, Michael Paladin said:

Claiming that all "Statists" are the same is vastly oversimplifying for the sake of argument. For one thing, I think that the definition of government is too restrictive: people constantly form governments, i.e., they form groups, make rules, and try to coerce other people into obeying them. The first thing that people in the frontier did was form "governments," and they did enforce their rules with violence. I wouldn't put it past the neighborhood beautification committee to make you mow your lawn at the point of a gun if there were no State to stop them. Even the anarchist paradise of Somalia has militias.

It might be better to live in a society of competing forces instead of one which claims a monopoly, but I think the reason people have generally preferred one State is that then they knew who the enemy was and they could keep an eye on it. Would a Stateless society stay coercion-free? Maybe, but I doubt it. Telling other people what to do seems to be a human obsession.

Home
Previous entry: "Poking at the Paralysis"
Next entry: "Stepping Outside the Health Care Swindle"