Francois Tremblay: ''But Who Will Build The Roads?''

I have never come across the guy until amazon said I might be interested .... is this good? anyone recommend it?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Market-Anarchy-Explained-Build-Roads/dp/1425769403/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287479336&sr=1-3

Thanks :)

He visited the forum recently, to dodge questions & act a fool.

I'm going to assume the answer to your question is "no".

Another question I'd have is, does he believe in IP? If no, then at least we could find out how good it is, without sending him money.

I've read the book, its alright. 

The issue is, if you have a point of contention with the book, good luck trying to get him to understand you because that is just about nigh impossible. Speaking from first hand experience. 

As someone who didn't know Tremblay at all - I just accidentally found the book on amazon - I must say I wasn't all that satisfied. He makes some interesting points, but some others who I think are blatantly wrong. The book is also not that well structured. 

If you have a high opportunity cost; then I wouldn't advise reading it. If you read a lot, then you might want to squeeze this one in too. 

Public goods can be bundled with private goods (example, bundling roads with real estate). Public goods can be produced alongside public bads (advertising). Some public goods can be made excludable with some minor adjustments (outdoor vs indoor movie theaters). Etc... Roads are so cheap that they are trivial. Their benefit is so much larger than their cost.

The only public goods the market will fail to provide are those who's benefit only slightly exceeds their cost... which really just means that communication and coordination costs are too high.. and the market can be structured to reduce THOSE as well.

For example, instead of each individual purchasing services, they can get intermediaries to do it for them. Like an apartment complex deals with utility companies, sometimes electricity, etc. So instead of each individual haggling and trying to figure out what the best services are, and then paying for them individualy, its wise and cheaper to organize as a group and purchase things collectively.

He had a podcast called "The Machinery of Freedom" which helped me become completely anti-state, but when I started posting at the Grave of the Gods message boards, I learned that he is an anti-social asshole. He's a hardcore mutualist and considers having children to be immoral.

Looks like a vanity press retreading of stuff people have already written about before.

"He's a hardcore mutualist and considers having children to be immoral."

 

Good for him, then. I don't think we'll be any worse for wear if he doesn't reproduce.

This useless windbag has a book out?  I guess they'll publish anything, nowadays.  

AdrianHealey:

As someone who didn't know Tremblay at all - I just accidentally found the book on amazon - I must say I wasn't all that satisfied. He makes some interesting points, but some others who I think are blatantly wrong. The book is also not that well structured. 

If you have a high opportunity cost; then I wouldn't advise reading it. If you read a lot, then you might want to squeeze this one in too. 

Just ignore him and read Carson if you want something intelligent from mutualists; Carson also happens to be a far better writer, imo.   

For some context, Tremblay wrote that book quite a few years ago and has significantly changed his overall political position since then, although his meta-ethics hasn't changed and he still clings to certain things in a new way. He wrote the book as a post-objectivist ancap, so it's not representative of his current views.

Oh, and his current views and behavior aren't representative of mutualists either, and most left-libertarians I know of consider him an embrassment to one extent or another. He has mostly isolated himself from everyone, including would-be allies, as a consequence of his own antics.

"For some context, Tremblay wrote that book quite a few years ago and has significantly changed his overall political position since then, although his meta-ethics hasn't changed and he still clings to certain things in a new way. He wrote the book as a post-objectivist ancap, so it's not representative of his current views."

Btw, we can't thank you enough for copying and pasting a bunch of stuff Giles Stratton said here, labeling it 'mises forum' and 'anarcho-capitalism', and then posting it on your polycentric blog.  As we saw reprised on this douchebag's blog.

Btw, we can't thank you enough for copying and pasting a bunch of stuff Giles Stratton said here, labeling it 'mises forum' and 'anarcho-capitalism', and then posting it on your polycentric blog.  As we saw reprised on this douchebag's blog.

There is another thread about this that you can find one page back.

But the post I made the compliation on might have had those as tags simply because they're relevant. And the quotes were from more than just Giles Stratton. In either case, the culture surrounding this institution does attract more conservative crackpots than many people would be comfortable with. I don't regret highlighting this fact.

Brainpolice:

In either case, the culture surrounding this institution does attract more conservative crackpots than many people would be comfortable with. I don't regret highlighting this fact.

Do you recognize that the culture surrounding the ALL attracts more economically-illiterate Bohemian crackpots than many people would be comfortable with?

 

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/20211/370807.aspx#370807

That's the thread if anyone wants to know. It started off about his post on some blog, then Esuric and Epicurus brought it off topic, and started another thread. He's very rude, and not a debater.

hmmm, good thing I asked peoples' opinions. He seems a bit odd. Is he a professor or something? I search his name and it didn't link me to any academic institution or somehting?

Fluke:

hmmm, good thing I asked peoples' opinions. He seems a bit odd. Is he a professor or something? I search his name and it didn't link me to any academic institution or somehting?

I'm not aware that he has a career.

last i heard, franc tremblay spends his working hours bagging groceries and stocking shelves.

Brainpolice:

Oh, and his current views and behavior aren't representative of mutualists either, and most left-libertarians I know of consider him an embrassment to one extent or another. He has mostly isolated himself from everyone, including would-be allies, as a consequence of his own antics.

Not for nothing, but the man (Tremblay) called me, personally, a "vile breeder" not too awful long ago.  While I found it quite humerous, I can't sympathize with a person whose moral compass leads him to believe that procreation is morally reprehensible.

Just to add my two cents there.

As for reading his pre-voluntary-human-extinction-movement work...  I would read it if for no other reason that to continually challenge my own positions.  :)  Though admittedly, I haven't read a physical book cover to cover in some time.

Aposiopesis:

"He's a hardcore mutualist and considers having children to be immoral."

 

Good for him, then. I don't think we'll be any worse for wear if he doesn't reproduce.

 

 

Not just that , currently he believes that parents law teachers are immoral for the mere fact of them being what they are.

 As a left-libertarian I think of  him as  an example of the crazy among the  left-libs.Carson is more readable and takes many better positions than Tremblay.

 

 

 

Grayson Lilburne:

Brainpolice:

In either case, the culture surrounding this institution does attract more conservative crackpots than many people would be comfortable with. I don't regret highlighting this fact.

Do you recognize that the culture surrounding the ALL attracts more economically-illiterate Bohemian crackpots than many people would be comfortable with?

 

 

Both of you are right.

 

 

Both of you are right.

Say now, that sounds downright reasonable!

I find it funny that both suggestions ignore the phenomena of some people eventually using both the ALL and the Mises Institute as intellectual pit-stops, & some move onwards to either different sites or to one or the other, etc.  

A good deal stay at either or for the company, though :)    

I think the name-dropping of Mises and the Austrian School by Ron Paul is partially enough to explain any sort of conservative influence here, let alone the whole libertarianism & conservative alliance that was tried out more than a decade or so ago, so you already many literal statist-conservatives doing some sort of advertising, anyway.  

You know Nitro, my observation is that there are a lot of middle age and older conservatives who have read Mises and Hayek, and very few progressive liberals who have.

That I think is why there is a conservative influence here.  It's the demo most likely to research these ideas.

Even the LL / Austro-libertarian split seems more about the degree to which economics is applied to the development of ethics.  Austro-libertarians generally have a very consistent economic perspective which drives their ethical judgments, whereas LLs tend to work from the other direction, and develop economic paradigms to suit preferred ethical outcomes.

 

Scott F:

Aposiopesis:

"He's a hardcore mutualist and considers having children to be immoral."

 

Good for him, then. I don't think we'll be any worse for wear if he doesn't reproduce.

 

 

Not just that , currently he believes that parents law teachers are immoral for the mere fact of them being what they are.

 As a left-libertarian I think of  him as  an example of the crazy among the  left-libs.Carson is more readable and takes many better positions than Tremblay.

Suit yourself, I think of him just as an example of crazy. :P I don't really let someone like that influence my opinions of a group just because they say they're associated with said group.

liberty student:

Even the LL / Austro-libertarian split seems more about the degree to which economics is applied to the development of ethics.  Austro-libertarians generally have a very consistent economic perspective which drives their ethical judgments, whereas LLs tend to work from the other direction, and develop economic paradigms to suit preferred ethical outcomes.

 

While this can be true it's largely wishful thinking on your part.God help us if austro-paleo  vulgarism and reverence for corporations to the point of ignoring corporatism is driven by ethics.In some cases it may just be a desire not to dig deeper than the state and sound leftist.

As for LL's some do come to it ethics first then economics later.This may be good or bad.For me since I agree with Austrian economics and am Left- Rothbardian not mutualist or georgist I don't think there's much many here could disagree with.

Aposiopesis:

 him just as an example of crazy. :P I don't really let someone like that influence my opinions of a group just because they say they're associated with said group.

 

Fair enough.Neither do I.The point I was making is that there is crazy people among an-caps,among austrians,among paleos and among Left-libs.The problem is people tend to associate the fringe elements with the mainstream elements.

Scott F:

While this can be true it's largely wishful thinking on your part.

What is?

Scott F:

God help us if austro-paleo  vulgarism and reverence for corporations to the point of ignoring corporatism is driven by ethics.

What are you talking about?

Scott F:

In some cases it may just be a desire not to dig deeper than the state and sound leftist.

I'm unquestionably anti-state, and I don't want to sound leftist because leftism is a lot of bullshit in my opinion.

Scott F:

As for LL's some do come to it ethics first then economics later.

Which leads to all sorts of logical fallacies.  You can't construct objective reality from subjective preference.

liberty student:

Scott F:

While this can be true it's largely wishful thinking on your part.

"What is?"

To think all left-libs are driven by ethical beliefs first and economics later -framed derogatorily -while the mises crowd is not like this.

 

Scott F:

God help us if austro-paleo  vulgarism and reverence for corporations to the point of ignoring corporatism is driven by ethics.

"What are you talking about?"

What Kevin Carson calls 'vulgar libertarianism'-Libertarians who support corporations ignoring corporatism.

 

Scott F:

In some cases it may just be a desire not to dig deeper than the state and sound leftist.

"I'm unquestionably anti-state,"

 What's that got to do with anything?

"and I don't want to sound leftist because leftism is a lot of bullshit in my opinion."

Is all of it wrong/not valuable? No. Is all of it valuable/true? No.

Scott F:

As for LL's some do come to it ethics first then economics later.

"Which leads to all sorts of logical fallacies.  You can't construct objective reality from subjective preference."

Well I dispute your interference that ethics is subjective.However in anycase your point doesn't bother me since I was into austrian economics then ventured to be LL expanding my understanding of ethics given my understanding of their valid points.

Plus Rothbard admits himself he came to libertarianism primarily ethics first,austrian economics later.Many austro-libertarians have.

 

 

Scott F:

liberty student:

Scott F:

While this can be true it's largely wishful thinking on your part.

"What is?"

To think all left-libs are driven by ethical beliefs first and economics later -framed derogatorily -while the mises crowd is not like this.

How did I frame it derogatorily?

Scott F:

"What are you talking about?"

What Kevin Carson calls 'vulgar libertarianism'-Libertarians who support corporations ignoring corporatism.

Kevin Carson has made a reputation out of erecting strawmen to beat up.

Scott F:

"I'm unquestionably anti-state,"

 What's that got to do with anything?

It contradicts your claim about Austro-Libertarians.

Scott F:

"and I don't want to sound leftist because leftism is a lot of bullshit in my opinion."

Is all of it wrong/not valuable? No. Is all of it valuable/true? No.

It's this sort of double think that is so irritating.  You maintain it may not be valuable or true, and yet you still identify with it.  You're basically saying you're irrational.

Scott F:

"Which leads to all sorts of logical fallacies.  You can't construct objective reality from subjective preference."

Well I dispute your interference that ethics is subjective.

Can you objectively prove ethics?

Scott F:

However in anycase your point doesn't bother me since I was into austrian economics then ventured to be LL expanding my understanding of ethics given my understanding of their valid points.

What are the valid points?  What are the invalid points?

liberty student:

Scott F:

While this can be true it's largely wishful thinking on your part.

"What is?"

To think all left-libs are driven by ethical beliefs first and economics later -framed derogatorily -while the mises crowd is not like this.

"How did I frame it derogatorily?"

As if approaching it ethics first then economics later leads to errors or irrationality you even said so.

Scott F:

"What are you talking about?"

What Kevin Carson calls 'vulgar libertarianism'-Libertarians who support corporations ignoring corporatism.

"Kevin Carson has made a reputation out of erecting strawmen to beat up."

 

He's not wrong on that.I've seen it here in the forums and on mises.org. As Roderick Long says however it's more of a tendency rather than systematic.

Scott F:

"I'm unquestionably anti-state,"

 What's that got to do with anything?

"It contradicts your claim about Austro-Libertarians."

Ok.Well if your pro-corporation(as exists currently) I fail to see how your anti-state.

Scott F:

"and I don't want to sound leftist because leftism is a lot of bullshit in my opinion."

Is all of it wrong/not valuable? No. Is all of it valuable/true? No.

"It's this sort of double think that is so irritating."

It's double think to have a nuanced view instead of knee jerk white washing of all potentially valid ideas? we're not Randroids here-that's one of their favourite tactics e.g. environmentalism,anti-IP etc  .I had hoped people here wouldn't do that.

"  You maintain it may not be valuable or true,"

 I same some aspects of it are and some aren't.Like most things including  ideas espoused by libertarians- we don't dismiss libertarianism because 1 person was pro-IP so we shouldn't do the same to currents of leftism.It's not monolithic.Plus as I have said repeatedly I am not a mutualist nor georgist nor an-soc etc.I am a left-rothbardian strictly STV neo-lockean austrian economics.I just find aspects of an-cap restrictive to be honest.

"and yet you still identify with it.  You're basically saying you're irrational."

I identify with leftist elements which are true in that they get hit on a concern but I reject their explanation of the causes/solutions oftentimes.Causes and solutions I approach from a libertarian stance.There are irrational horrible elements in all movements but unless it is inherent to the philosophy then there's no problem identifying with them.

Scott F:

"Which leads to all sorts of logical fallacies.  You can't construct objective reality from subjective preference."

Well I dispute your interference that ethics is subjective.

"Can you objectively prove ethics?"

You can prove it via reasoning,empiricism and linguistics.

So your bashing leftism yet hold relativism - an irrational (largely) leftist tendency.One which by the way I strongly reject.Well done.

Scott F:

However in anycase your point doesn't bother me since I was into austrian economics then ventured to be LL expanding my understanding of ethics given my understanding of their valid points.

"What are the valid points?"

Well I'll give a brief sketch since I've still in the process of writing a basic left-lib manifesto but:-

• State as reducing bargaining power resulting in biased work contracts,poor working conditions,overbearing bosses etc.
• Unions  and workplace democracy as valuable to counteract this.
• Current distribution of wealth and land largely due to state.
• Corporations defined as having legal personhood and state enforced limited liability are illegitimate in current form.'Corporations' would exist in a free market but as joint stock companies.
•  Strategic thickness- certain values can help(but not without libertarian principles) lead towards a free society and help maintain it.In contrast certain values are likely to disrupt a free society and/or lead to aggression e.g. racism .That's not to say that you must hold these values to be libertarian but it you don't it's weird and weakens what your arguing for(here I probably divert from left-lib orthodoxy)
• Thick Values which led you to being libertarian and are implied in libertarian principles lead you to wider concerns e.g. support for voluntary fair trade.
• Heavy emphasis on the marginalized.
• Stress on equalizing authority in relations.
• Globalization( in the sense of international corporatism/statism/protectionism) as a corporatist project and thus to be opposed.
• Discrimination as not being eliminated by a competitive market since we do not have one.
• The state results in fewer larger firms due to corporatism.
• Awareness that a freed market is redistributive in that it doesn't allow state privilege and that is spreads voluntarily wealth in the most hands.And also that since unowned land is freed up and stolen land returned wider distribution of land ownership.

Those are some of it's positions.All I would argue follow from libertarianism.

"What are the invalid points?"

• Mutualism: While in an anarchist society mutualists could live together agreeing to live by the occupancy theory of property were a mutualist to steal from  a neo-lockean this would obviously be theft.So while Mutualism need not be theft per se it definately could be and so I reject it.
• Georgism-It advocates a tax for god sakes!
• Anti-authority: I understand the desire to equalize authority.What I don't get is people like Francois Tremblay's opposition to all authority including property,contract,law,parents,teachers,schools,bosses etc.He argues they are inherently coercive and immoral.I don't buy this but I do accept authorities can act unjustly and I think everyone should admit this.
• Anti-propertarianism or anti-neo lockeanism.
• unwarranted often personal criticism of the Mises crowd : especially Hoppe,Block,Lew Rockwell etc.I'm strongly inclined to defend you guys against there attacks just like I defend them from your attacks.I'm not opposed to either per se.I think there's bad and good sides to each.
• Anti-religion.
• wage labour: often they oppose wage labour per se.Again I think this is somewhat residual leftism from the marxists.
• Radical Feminism:I don't understand there support for Radical Feminism.I reject it.Not that I'm not feminist but I do not take it to the extreme.I still think any Radical Feminism tends to be anti-male,anti-hetrosexual and hate motivated.I can't sign on to it's anti-porn anti-prostitution stance.I'm a sex positive Feminist.

That's some of my most substiantial criticisms.