Shameless Self-promotion Sunday
Here's a pretty old post from the blog archives of Geekery Today; it was written about 14 years ago, in 2010, on the World Wide Web.
It’s that time of the week again. You know the deal: time to get as Shameless as you wanna be.
What have you been up to this week? Write anything? Leave a link and a short description for your post in the comments. Or fire away about anything else you might want to talk about.
Follow
I just finally started to try to figure out what agorism is, and I really dig exactly how it fits into my personal activism and politics. So, I’ve decided to start a new blog with the intention of integrating my politics with all of my DIY hippy loving bullshit. :) The link is here: http://domesticinsomniac.wordpress.com. I literally /just/ launched it a few days ago and am hoping I can make it successful.
PS- A+ on getting the Radgeek fan page running! FBook fan pages just make my life easier because they allow be to truly be as lazy as humanly possible. hahaha!
I’ve got three things this week. First of all, I posted a couple of videos of Ghassan Hage, an anthropologist who studies the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the first, he discusses the role of anthropology, and in the second he discusses the Gaza crisis and post-colonial critical theory. In both he comes to some very unique and interesting conclusions. Second, I posted a request for definitions of work. This is for a project I’m working on, so I’d appreciate any contributions. Finally, I discussed the Latour’s ideas on scale in a post titled Discarding Scale: The Global is Local and the Local is Overflowing. Hope you all enjoy! Jeremy
Have been working on the article version of “Natural Law and Non-Aggression” and on my APEE presentation, which needed updating in light of Kevin’s great C4SS piece “Capitalism: A Good Word for a Bad Thing. Elenor and I are about to head out to Irvine to see The Ghost Writer.
I’ve put up three installments of “‘Two-Gun’ Mutualism and the Golden Rule,” a rereading of early mutualism, highlighting its ties to earlier texts and traditions, and emphasizing some of the complexities of mutualist ethics. There will be more, treating the various later attempts to confront those difficulties, but the first three sections hopefully get the issues on the table.
I wrote Dear Libertarians, Don’t Puss Out. In it I argue that only through being radical can anything be accomplished. It was also posted to fr33agents.com.
I read Molinari for the first time — The Production of Security.
Reminds me of Don Fanucci demanding $200 from Vito Corleone in return for his protection. Vito declines. Produces his own one-man security agency. Kills Fanucci in self-defense.
{Competing security agencies in its rawest form}
“Private insurance CAN NOT make medical insurance available for everyone because its motive – profit – when combined with ever increasing knowledge of who is likely to get sick and by how much – combine to guarantee those who need it most will be unable to afford it while those who need it least will.”
http://blog.beliefnet.com/apagansblog/2010/03/the-spiritual-side-of-last-nights-victory.html#more
Discuss? Serious facts of reality to consider for even left-wing market anarchists.
No?
I do not want to wade back into all the technical details of market LTVs and definition of profit lol
That’s all seemed more than a bit mystical for me on occasion. I’ve read Carson and thought about it, but it just doesn’t click all that well.
Charles,
You are STV? Right?
Natailya,
Either a condition is predictable or it isn’t predictable. If it isn’t predictable, then there will be a market to insure against it, where the cost is based on the estimated costs weighted by the estimated risk. If it is predictable, there’s no reason why the condition should be insured against. That’s not a reason why it shouldn’t be cared for; it just means that availability of care shouldn’t always be tethered to what insurance will or won’t cover. There are other ways: in particular, by paying it out of savings (which may be either individual or mutual), through non-cash-based arrangements (based on norms of reciprocity, mutual aid, solidarity, whatever), etc. Most left-libertarian writing on health care thus far has emphasized the importance of grassroots, consensual alternatives to for-profit insurance as means of getting medical needs met — for example, not-for-profit mutual aid associations and community free clinics — as well as reducing the skyrocketing medical costs (by eliminating the government privileges which make them skyrocket), which make put people seeking medical care in such a constant state of financial emergency in the first place.
On value theory: I don’t have a strongly held view. I agree with marginalist and subjectivist analyses of economic value, but I’m sympathetic to Kevin’s subjectivized reconstruction of the labor theory of value. I don’t know whether or not I agree with everything he says under that heading (since I haven’t yet spent enough time thinking about everything he says under that heading). But I am convinced it’s good enough to support most of Tucker’s economics, and that common objections to Kevin’s reconstruction seem to be ill-conceived and under-argued.
(However, my own angle on Tucker and mutualist economics is to come at mostly the same conclusions, but typically from different lines of argument, which don’t dive much into the details of competing theories of value.)