Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Libertarianism and Stalinism are equivalent as forms of governance

The purpose of this post is to argue that Libertarianism, as that term is used in the USA, and Stalinism are equivalent as forms of governance.

Stalinism is both a type of administrative/governmental system and a type of dictatorial rule used by Stalin to control the Soviet Union (SU). Stalin was a homicidal maniac responsible for mass slaughter of his own citizens. The discussion here is only about Stalinism as an administrative/governmental system, not about a personality and the specifics of Stalin's Rule. 

The term "Stalinist" is only inflammatory language in the USA and a few other places. In Denmark, for example, there is a small Stalinist political party. Stalin is the second most popular historical figure in the territories of the former SU. 

Many of the leading figures in the cryonics movement have been libertarians. This has been reflected in the leadership style that has been exercised and the organizational forms selected. The recent attempts by CI Leadership to exercise dictatorial control over communications among members is an example of that style. The structure of Alcor, which has a self-selecting board of directors, is a manifestation of an organizational form. Since that organization was dominated by libertarians at its founding, it is no surprise that a democratic format was not selected.

I have argued before that cryonics is revolutionary:

Marx is one on the leading theorists of revolution - thought he was wrong in many ways. Unfortunately, Leninism and Stalinism appear to be the most accurate descriptors in this case.

The Cato Institute, who's motto is "Individual liberty, free markets, and peace," a preferred think tank of libertarians, advocated a Leninist strategy:

"Lenin recognized that fundamental change is contingent upon ... its success in isolating and weakening its opponents. ... we would do well to draw a few lessons from the Leninist strategy. 

Stalinism refers to a type of dictatorship based upon the control of information. It was initially created after Lenin's death, in opposition to the democratic rule proposed by Tolstoy, who is also popular among conservatives:

Many neoconservatives like Stephen Schwartz, a writer for the Weekly Standard, still consider themselves to be loyal disciples of Trotsky. 

So, my analysis is that many calling themselves "libertarians" are, in fact, stalinists. Both progressive and conservative commentators argue that Libertarianism is a misnomer:

This is no surprise, as Libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. 

The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will support Libertarianism, a libertarian government could never be achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of authoritarian state, 

If we accept the interpretation that Libertarianism is, in fact, Marxism of the Right, then we can ask what type of Marxism it is. Lenin advocated that the "vangard of the revolution", an elite group of intellectuals, should seize power and "lead" the masses, whether they liked it or not. Traditional Marxists considered this to be right-wing deviationalism. This type of elitism is common in cryonics. It has resulted in the marketing failure of the Movement.

After Lenin's death, Stalin and Tolstoy were the two main contenders for leadership of the SU. Tolstoy favored democracy. Stalin formed a minority dictatorship. If my observation of the facts of the recent CI Elections are correct, then characterizing the Leadership as Stalinist is appropriate. They will resist any initiative that could create an alternative channel of communication within cryonics, since knowledge of their misconduct, which has been suppressed by censorship, would be revealed.

Monday, July 1, 2013

Gospel of Green—to save the Earth from humans.

The elitist environmental movement has always had a problem with its limited appeal to low-income minorities, few of whom identify with the upscale, Volvo-driving profile of environmental organizations’ typical membership. -

‘Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature’

Inspection shows only 41 of the 64 papers, or 0.3% of the sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. Criteria for peer review of papers quantifying scientific consensus are discussed.

In the scientific method, then, there is no place for mere consensus. A hypothesis that is demonstrated – such as Pythagoras’ theorem – needs no consensus, for it is true whether anyone believes it or not – i.e., objectively true. A hypothesis that is disproven needs no consensus, for it is objectively false.
“There appears to be little basis in the peer-reviewed literature for the degree of alarm on the issue of man-made climate change which is being expressed in the media and by politicians.”

Undermine sustainable forestry development and management in developing economies.

Under the pretext of safeguarding the environment, green protectionism benefits domestic suppliers while inhibiting developing countries from efficiently exploiting their natural resources. These protectionist measures conflict with World Trade Organization rules that forbid discrimination against foreign trade products, and they also undermine sustainable forestry development and management in developing economies.