The title is a silly pun.
Less Antman – whom I once picked up at a hotel* – has finally gotten around to posting some of the extremely clever things he has to say about freedom in one place. It’s a friendly mix of philosophy and politics. Great ideas for presenting libertarianism in startling but nonthreatening ways.
A tasty sample:
Many people say the housing crisis and subsequent credit meltdown were caused by inadequate regulation: they’re right. In a free market, business behavior is severely regulated by the potential to lose money when bad decisions are made. What the government did was eliminate that regulation by guaranteeing people against losses, thereby encouraging outrageously risky behavior.
*There is no footnote. I just wanted to create the expectation of some salacious** details. You’ll have to use your imagination.
**OK, I just really wanted to use ‘salacious’ in a sentence***.
***I’m channeling**** Wes Benedict.
****Ouch.
Last Free Voice 
Susan, maybe I’d think that was funny if I knew what salacious meant. I feel like you’ve initiated force against me–forced me to get out my dictionary again. I just had a big salad. Is that salacious?
I just looked up salacious in the dictionary. It says: “prurient; lascivious.” Whatever. Dictionaries suck.
Like salad; yes.
Anarchy: society’s carminative:
http://www.readbookonline.net/read/152/4416/
Less Antman was always a clever spin doctor. Can we have more of his observations?
@ Roscoe
Thanks, I’ll try: my time is extremely limited for libertarian writing until November, but over the long term, I’m going to do my best to provide some accessible material to aid libertarian persuasion on that site. Some of my attempts are bound to fall flat, but I hope I’ll develop some usable material in the process. Anyone who wants me to give it a shot on a topic they’re having trouble addressing should email me using the address in the About section of the Anarchy Without Bombs web site. My posts on this site are limited to LP strategy and tactics.
In the meantime, the spin technique is pretty straightforward, with a little thought.
Q: “Don’t you believe we need a social safety net?”
A: “Absolutely, that’s why I oppose government welfare programs. They divert the natural compassion we all have into programs that provide less than 25% of their budgets to the intended targets, set neighbor against neighbor, and destroy the social relationships that depend on mutual respect. Before government welfare programs, we had mutual aid societies and charitable associations throughout America that provided essentials such as disability protection and medical care to people in need: government intervention destroyed the social safety net. ”
Q: “Why do you object to the minimum wage?”
A: “The minimum wage is, and has always been, zero, and criminalizing the employment of people below a certain number increases the number of people making zero.”
(Sorry for the quick and dirty examples: each can be cleaned up and improved with a little thought.)
Obviously, the idea is to take the term the questioner is using and define it more accurately in free market terms.
The war and the attendant contraction–immigration hysteria, no new tariff cuts, many hidden tax rises to get revune such as the tax on second homes causing panic selling–is by far the major factor behind the crisis, the rest is either inside financial baseball or a diversion.
We’re not in prblems because some working class guy got a loan on a house with a second rental a bit over his head. It’s because his boss is laying people off because he can’t compete, is taxed out and can’t get good in cheaply, and is losing immigrant labor (which also left the rental), and so let him go to and he can’t pay his bills no matter what the mortgage is.
I’m not saying that’s every case, but I know a lot of people in the mid-levels of the business and that’s what they say is the real picture more often than not that no one wants to talk about.
A war causes a recession. Now what a surprise to us Libertarians, eh?