The Future of Freedom Foundation has links to bios of Herbert Spencer.

You know, the "Social Darwinism" guy. Although Will Durant (in The Story of Philosophy) says he's really a Social LaMarckist. And in the case of Society, I'd say that's pretty true. And also kinder than "the survival of the fittest". It implies that we are capable of learning as we grow older, and passing that knowledge on to our children.

I think Spencer's greatest quote is "the effect of shielding men from (...searching Freedom's Nest...)..." AH! "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

Oops! I linked the wrong book up there. Will Durant's book is this one.

Check out the audio at ARI.

The Ayn Rand Institute is getting guys on the air on the Thom Hartmann show for some great debates about the value of Free Markets. Don't worry, you'll think your guy won.

Here's something to think about

Apologists for terrorism against Israel have claimed that Palestinian
terrorists are merely Israel's--not America's--enemies.

But Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi demonstrated, once again, that
this claim is false. "President Bush has become Islam's biggest
enemy," he stated last week.

Another terrorist organization, the Palestinian Authority, which
President Bush entrusts with carrying out the "road map to peace," has
recently broadcasted from the mosques of Gaza the following call:
"Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like
them--and those who stand by them. They are all in one trench against
the Arabs and the Muslims." And just a few months ago Hezbollah leader
Sheik Hassan Nasrallah exhorted his Palestinians followers "to take
suicide bombings worldwide."

It is only a matter of time before Hamas and other Palestinian terror
groups will begin to systematically attack Americans--as they have
been attacking Israelis. Should America wait until that happens--as
America waited for September 11 to happen--before acting against its
terrorist enemies?

If we want to win this war with as few American casualties as
possible, we must turn our attention to what Palestinian terrorists
are really saying and doing. Then we will clearly see that Israel's
enemies are America's enemies too--and that by supporting Israel,
America would be acting in its own defense.

David Holcberg
Ayn Rand Institute

That's what I'm sayin'!

From The Angry Economist, "Media Concentration":

I will go out on an economical limb and say that a corporation never makes a "profit". Everything that comes into a company is owed to someone. Perhaps it's not paid out immediately, but no matter, an identifiable individual owns every bit of money. Employees get their salaries, salesmen get their commissions, suppliers get their accounts payables, banks get their interest, founders get their entrepreneurial income.

The Angry Economist is great!

I was trying to pay attention as Stephen den Beste rambled on about his old job making...whatever, when my eyes wandered over to his links, where I saw The Angry Economist. So I snuck out that way, while Steve was pointing at an exploded view of an oscilloscope, and discovered....

The guy's great! Don't miss the archives.

Here's a quote from "Where is the Freedom?":

...[M]any people still think economic intervention is necessary, and not just a power play on the part of the influence-makers. Hopefully, as more people understand economics, they will tell their government "No, don't do that for me -- I can do it better for myself."

Amen.

I am not a NeoWHIG! !@#%^&*!

I want it understood that I am in no way affiliated with these folks.

Free Progressivism maybe?

More from "A New Name for an Old Whig", by Samuel Gregg:

It is perhaps improbable that a single phrase that captures all the ideals and transcends all the difficulties outlined above will ever be coined. After all, we are seeking an expression which, in Hayek’s words, ‘[pieces] together the broken fragments of a tradition’81 that encapsulates Burke’s political reflections, Smith’s economics, Tocqueville’s constitutionalism, Hume’s scepticism, Ferguson’s evolutionism, and Acton’s view of history.

For Shame

I am ashamed to admit that I haven't read, though I own, the appropriate essays by Burke and Acton on Whiggism.

Well! This is better, don't you think?

Just making a few minor changes.

Whiggarchy! Isonomy! Fraternity!

Excuse me! Just Googling myself here.

Another obligatory explanation of the term "Old Whig". Here's more than you wanted to know.

An exerpt:

The designation Old Whig was first coined by Edmund Burke in his An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs. The canon to which Burke ascribed—the doctrine of the ‘ancient Whigs’6—was partly a product of the 17th century political conflict between Crown and Commons that culminated in England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688. United by a horror of arbitrary power, the Whigs, according to John Locke, fought for freedom of men under government . . . to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society . . . and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, arbitrary will of another man [as well as the principle that] whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth is bound to govern by established laws promulgated and made known to the people and not by extemporary decrees.

Mop up in Iraq?

Just in case nobody has seen Glenn Reynolds' link to this article, TechCentralStation has a great article by a former Green Beret on the mop up in Iraq.

[edit: the title is new as of 5/2010]

Natural Spirituality

Whoever continually strives to achieve a clearer and clearer vision of reality and his or her place in it--whoever is pulled forward by a passion for such clarity--is, to that extent, leading a spiritual life. ...

Nathaniel Branden, The Art of Living Consciously.
Thanks to The Light of Reason.

I was gonna ask: Does Stephen den Beste know everything? Here's a sociological tour de force from the master of the Clueless.

Scroll down.

Or, rather:

Folks, check out Free Market Communism.

My answer:

Dude, they take tax money from me to do that. They call it Public-Private Partnership.

Dude, they take tax money from me to do that. Check out Free Market Communism.

They call it Public-Private Partnership.

Townhall.com has three articles worth reading today: Thomas Sowell on the Lincoln Memorial tribute to Martin Luther King; Bruce Bartlett on the high cost of outsourcing to foreign countries; and Doug Bandow on U.S. military priorities.

The Ayn Rand Institute has an Op-Ed out encouraging us to make it known that we are celebrating the Mind on Labor Day. Entrepreneurship, inventiveness and perspicuity in business matters are essential to societal progress.

Anybody know what Walter Cronkite said the other day. Jason Lewis (live streaming here 5-8PM weekdays) pointed this out. Real dog bites man stuff:

I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we consciously have chosen that particular color in the political spectrum. More likely it is because most of us served our journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier side of our cities - the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the hungry, the underclothed and undereducated.

We reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of the inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality for all. So we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful.

Then he says some pious things about accurate reporting. Jason pointed out that, having seen the daily close-ups, the reporters then go home to their middle class (or ritzy, for some) neighborhoods where capitalism is succeeding and write their gripes about the few places it's not. It succeeds where it's not banned folks. How many entrepreneurial activities are allowed in the ghetto?

Cronkite ends with:

Incidentally, I looked up the definition of "liberal" in a Random House dictionary. It gave the synonyms for "liberal" as "progressive," "broad-minded," "unprejudiced," "beneficent." The antonyms it offered: "reactionary" and "intolerant."

I've always suspected those fine folks at Random House of being liberals. You just can't trust anybody these days.

Amen. They failed to mention the more modern definition: socialist; marxist. Oh, that's right, that's what the progressives were. Or were they racist, populist authoritarians?

Here's an article that should be divided up into chapter and verse and snuggled in between Philemon and Hebrews:

In a world where instability is feared, politicians promise security, dressed up in campaign fusillades of "time for a change" because the challengers acknowledge there's been no security during the previous term. If everybody's always looking for a change, does it ever get done right? Of course not. But success is always just around the corner for the subjugated, albeit in a classic, Greek, Sisyphean sorta way.
...
When utilitarian arguments fail, vile politicians appeal to morality. Country X is using slave labor. Country Y tortures dissidents. Why do we need politicians to make moral decisions for us? These choices must be made individually, with the confidence that their combined effects will be felt by the market. Trade interference is simply an extension of the popular delusion that it makes sense to have the fewest options. No politician is going to represent your opinions on everything, so why bother? You represent yourself. You make buying decisions considering everything that's important to you, and that's the most vote you can ask for. Cherish it. Cherish the complexity and fine granularity allowed when nobody speaks for you but you. Savor the wonderful things that can happen when the fine tolerances of the market are left to function with their natural delicacy.
...
Under coercion, gone are the happy and surprising relationships grown and cemented by commerce. Think of the friendly interactions because of trade and mutual dependence among disparate parties in your local environment – the same dependence which anti-traders point to as a pending disaster! Those with eyeballs connected to brain know it as the prevention of disaster; nothing contributes to peace better than knowing you will have lowered your standing while defeating your enemy. So why does the ruling class perpetually strain against the obvious and lead whole populations to ruin? One need only know that they do, and that we must resist.

The Mises Institute article may have been earlier. I try to keep up with them. Read everything linked here. I love them all. I even enjoy the forays into anarcho-capitalism to which most of them were led by Murray Rothbard.

But I part ways with them when the Rockwell-Raimondo branch treat peace as a primary value. Peace is the result of Justice- individualized and personalized in the hearts of the populace.

What we got here is one populace that understands justice and one that doesn't. How do we teach them? When the whole lot of them are deceived by false philosophy.

When somebody's going apeshit you take 'em down and hold 'em down until they calm down. Then you can reason. Have those people (the Mises people?) never been in a fight? And if they try to kill you, you disable or kill them first. Then there'll be peace.

They need to learn a truer way.

Of course, what Mr. Binswanger fails to mention is that electricity is a special sort of commodity. It must be consumed immediately upon production. It can't be stored as inventory. Unlike haircuts or massages, say.
The point is not entirely original to me. It was suggested by one of the daily articles at Mises.org last week.

I thought I heard somebody say that Objectivists have no sense of humor.
Here's Harry Binswanger:

Dear Editor:

Post-blackout, some are calling for even more government regulation. A New York Times
editorial (Aug. 16) urges us to consider "whether the government should step in to
ensure the reliability of the nation's power supply" because, "the grid is so complex--
with hundreds of companies operating power plants or transmission lines around the
country--that it is extremely difficult to coordinate actions quickly."

Well, thank God we already have government regulation in the sock industry. A constant
team of police, federal agents, judges, and justices of the peace help keep the greed of
hundreds of sock manufactures harnessed to the public good. Otherwise, you can just
imagine the chaos that would result, given all the complexity: if just one thread in the
complex grid of woven sock were to break, a catastrophic failure could rip through the
fabric, exposing a toe or perhaps even an entire heel to the unforgiving inner surface
of shoe or slipper.

And it is thanks to government's police-presence that a constant supply of socks is
available at distribution centers (sometimes called "stores")--even as the public need
for socks waxes and wanes, not only with the changing seasons but with other, even less-
predictable factors. Only the superior intellect of our government officials could
assure the adequacy of the sock supply--with a reserve of socks for periods of acute
public need.

You can only imagine, in a nightmare scenario, what kind of sock-shortages and toe-outs
would occur if sock-providers were operated as a profit-seeking scheme, with owners out
only for themselves.

What's that? The sock industry *is* a profit-making enterprise? And it is the electrical
power industry that's been practically a branch of the government since forever? Oh.
Never mind, then.

Sincerely,

Harry Binswanger
Ayn Rand Institute

2121 Alton Parkway, #250
Irvine, CA 92606
United States
(212) 983-6429

Here's another:

Dear Editor:

The environmentalist take on the blackout? We're hearing it everywhere: "It was a
transmission problem, not a supply problem."

Which means: The supply problem should be addressed only after it too becomes a crisis.

Environmentalists have worked for thirty years to destroy every prospect for cheap,
plentiful energy. Now they would have us ignore the inevitable consequences of their
policies and do nothing--until it's too late. From such range-of-the-moment mentalities
are blackouts born.

Sincerely,

Paul Blair
Ayn Rand Institute
2121 Alton Parkway, #250
Irvine, CA 92606
United States
(212) 949-8154

My comment: I was once one of those environmentalists. Although I never saw fit to join one of their organisations, I was perfectly content with the idea that billions of people needed to be eliminated from the earth so the remaining several million could be happy. That may have been my rock bottom position in that particular, personal downfall.

Then I had a little girl. Since I was not a member of any group which would attempt to pull off a plot to kill billions of us, I decided it was time to take action to foil such plots. To protect my baby.

Follow-up to the previous post:

Dear Editor:

Once again, Hamas and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for a deadly terrorist
bombing in Israel. This time a terrorist attacked a Jerusalem bus, murdering at least
twenty and leaving more than a hundred wounded. What should Israel do?

Keep pretending that the "road map" will work? That the terrorists running the
Palestinian Authority will get rid of the terrorists in their midst? That dismantling
Jewish settlements and releasing Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails will soothe
those who call for the genocide of Jews? That anything short of the total destruction of
Israel will be acceptable to the majority of Palestinians?

No. Israel should wake up and face reality! It should stop all negotiations and go after
the members and supporters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and all other terrorist groups
operating from among the Palestinian population. Eliminating Palestinian arch terrorist
Arafat would be a good start.

Sincerely,

David Holcberg
Ayn Rand Institute

Irvine, CA 92606
United States
949-222-6550 ext. 226
davidh@aynrand.org

All righty then.... Since I have received no other human response, I print this:

Dear Editor:

Tuesday's mass murders in Israel and Iraq prove for the thousandth time that words are
useless against bloodthirsty killers.

The United States must end all support for a Palestinian state, cease-fires and peace
agreements, and instead encourage Israel to destroy all Palestinian terrorists. We are
not attempting to negotiate peace with the terrorists in Iraq and should not insist that
Israel continue to negotiate peace with the terrorists in Palestine.

If we want to prevent the next September 11, we must send a new message to the Arafats,
bin Ladens and Husseins of the world--by showing explicit, uncompromising moral support
for Israel's right to eliminate all Palestinian terrorists from existence.

Sincerely,

Larry Benson
Ayn Rand Institute

Irvine, CA 92606
United States
949-222-6550 ext. 213
larryb@aynrand.org
I'm deeply flattered to be referred to as an editor. Perhaps I shall become one. Or start behaving like one, same difference.

All smart-aleckiness aside, I agree with the letter. I can't imagine why we don't allow Israel to attend to its own internal affairs while we see fit to invade foreign countries with no more provocation. On an almost regular basis. We don't put up with that, why do we expect them to do so.

I went to Bill Gothard's Basic Youth Conflicts seminar a couple of times as a teenager, starting at age 14, and one of the great messages I took from that was "don't take up an offense for somebody else." A great many social problems are exacerbated (and you don't want to get caught doing that!) by do-gooders and busy-bodies who jump in to fix somebody else's personal relationship with another person. Of course, violence is not under consideration here.

I seem to have taken this principle deeply to heart. I never join in somebody else's fight (unless it does get violent). And luckily I've never been a mean drunk. I'm not envious at all either. I took, and take, "Thou shalt not covet" extremely seriously. I was taught that obeying that commandment will help you obey all the others.

My problem as a drunk is that I'm too generous with people I shouldn't even associate with. (Yeah, yeah, bad grammar. Phtht!)

Oh, sorry I had intended to credit the writer who quoted John W. Campbell's quote, The Snark Who Was Really A Boojum.

Great quote, second-hand from Randall Robinson's discussion of his post Jane's Law in Action: "...using one of John W. Campbell's observations, it is not power that corrupts but rather the perception of immunity from consequences." Absolutely no doubt about it. All evil acts require that perception. I have another quote on my wall here, from Ernest Hancock: "Activism is nothing more than making certain that there are consequences for unprincipled behavior by individuals and/or groups that would otherwisw know no end to what they can do to satisfy their lust for control over others."

I'm not just speaking of politics here, though. It also applies to personal sins. I was going to say peccadillos, but I'm afraid getting drunk a lot grows out of the stage of "little sin". Of course, my experience is, that I can (often) foresee the consequences perfectly well, but when I'm drunk, I don't care.

I went to AA last night. I was pretty much unable to talk. I did read when it was my turn, though I almost choked when I got to the part about the smart-assed intellectual who is just so much better than everybody else that he won't listen to anyone (or any small voice inside either; my aside I don't think that's in that passage).

The step was #2: came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. That's a tough one for a "student of Objectivism". A great line in the book says that you can accept the group is that power (or the individuals making up the group) because they've quit drinking and you haven't.

Well, folks...this is it. I was going to share the cure for hangover (the pain and nausea anyway) with the world, but knowing it has just made me into an alcoholic. Now I've gotta go into a twelve-step program. That's Alcoholics Anonymous to those who don't know. It's purely voluntary, though my wife did give me an ultimatum.

This kind of blows the anonymous part I guess. But the thing is that it seems like, even when I wasn't drinking, I was ruining people's lives with my smart mouth. Not everybody's life, just the people who took me seriously. Now maybe I can start to repair some of that.

Anyway, I find I can't give it up on my own. And it's not fair to ask my wife to be my supervisor. I don't take supervision well anyway.

The thing that makes this tough is that I'm such a radical for reason and individualism. I've never been a good example of it, I'm afraid. I keep letting the dark forces in my soul, or bad, old habits and self-indulgence, take over.

I just discovered The Light of Reason. This guy is doing what I wanted to find somebody doing since I discovered Ayn Rand.

Okay, I gotta check out The Kolkata Libertarian when I get home.

Well, I have no idea where these things go when you screw up and close the wrong window, but, as I was saying...
David M. Brown covers my take on the blackout.

Slow workday, man.

Checking out the news at the Mises Institute blog, I came upon this thing of beauty by Dwight Lee:

True, the notion that better outcomes are best achieved by better people easily leads to the highly dubious (and typically racist) conclusion that developed societies are populated by better people. And those who consider themselves socially concerned and informed would never accept this conclusion if stated directly. But it seems to be difficult for them to admit that the economists' emphasis on better incentives, instead of better people, serves as a barrier to racist conclusions.

Lee, I know, writes quite a bit for Ideas on Liberty, the Foundation for Economic Education's magazine.

P.J. O'Rourke says he's always loved Anthony Burgess even as he, O'Rourke has moved from ignorant liberal to mature conservative. Of course the Advocates for Self-Government claims O'Rourke as a libertarian.

I kind of wanted to link to the Wall Street Journal article about the Blackout, but it's subscription only. So I gotta work with the hard copy.

...Soon, I will be joining you, my brothers... Soon...
(Quoting a dream I had after reading A Clockwork Orange.)

Anyway, Rebecca Smith opines (on the front page, not that I disagree), "(t)he unsteady regulatory situation, among other factors, inhibits the investment that is critically needed to improve transmission equipment."

She says Congress is planning to "give teeth" to the North American Electric Reliability Council, a "self-regulating industry body set up after a big East Coast blackout in 1965." Hopefully they will act as judges or arbitrators in disputes, and not as bureaucrats or despots.

For further discussion, I recommend den Beste and Jane Galt.

There is another wonderful article at The Mises Institute website. This one about the injustice perpetrated on the Articles of Confederation by the victorious party, the so-called Federalists.

The Future of Freedom Foundation heads their daily commentary today with this wonderful quote:

All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient: the duty of superintending the industry of private people.


-- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations [1776]

I was talking on the phone to my sister in Oklahoma today. She has been taking care of our mother who has been partially..., well mostly, paralyzed by arthritis. I want it understood that, as an objectivist, I think that Teresa is earning her keep and doing what she believes in most, by doing this. If she changes her mind and does something else for a career, I will value her no less than I do now. But I find it hard to say if I could ever value her more than I do now.

I love you, sis. Follow your convictions.

-----------------------------

I'm reading a thing by Nathaniel Branden right now and I found a list of virtues I thought I'd like everyone to pursue:

The values and virtues that I have in mind include rationality, realism, respect for facts, self-esteem, independence, autonomy, initiative, creativity, innovativeness, self-responsibility, personal integrity--all of which are celebrated in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as well as in Ayn Rand's nonfiction writings.

America's Holy Writ, The Declaration of Independence, says that our rights include the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If you pursue Branden's (and Ayn Rand's) virtues, you get respect from family, friends, aquaintances and strangers, as well as career and financial success.

"If you're so smart, how come you ain't rich?!"

Always a valid question.

I have applied these virtues to my family life and my job. I am a beloved son, brother, husband, father and coworker (or so they tell me). I have not applied them to my friendships or aquaintances, nor to my personal passions. Hence, I am not successful in extrafamilial relationships, nor in my vocations or avocations.

Here is another important message to ponder, courtesy of www.freedomsnest.com:

Free institutions are not the property of any majority. They do not confer upon majorities unlimited powers. The rights of the majority are limited rights. They are limited not only by the constitutional guarantees but by the moral principle implied in those guarantees. That principle is that men may not use the facilities of liberty to impair them. No man may invoke a right in order to destroy it.
--Walter Lippman

I really like Mises.org. They publish economics articles from a point of view I understand. Don Luskin is also worth reading, as is Liberty Fund's Economics Library.

Hey! There's great news from Bloomberg. Can I link to it? Aagh! Apparently it's old. I got it from Freemarket.net's daily news update. Actually you can find the link on their (FMN's) front page. Scroll down to German Government Plans to Cut Taxes, Welfare Costs. Ah! There it goes.

Looks like den Beste is too gloomy!

Gotta read my daughter a story. Back in a minute.

I just contacted the Ayn Rand Institute and told them about my blog. In case they take a look and see my muddled notes here, I am willing to try to defend (and/or explain) my posts. It'd be great if they could tell me how to allow their posts to show here directly.
It is not my intention to be incorrigible. I will accept superior logic and evidence, though it may require some discussion to make me see the light. I also promise to be honest and not to seek controversy for its own sake.

Bumper sticker of the day: Cussed American! Inspired by The Jacksonian Tradition, by Walter Russell Mead. I don't know if you can see that the link goes through Stephen den Beste's USS Clueless.

Den Beste ist der Beste. Oder meine ich Bestie?

Here's a beautiful illustration of my philosophy

Professor Norman Geras is the author of the preceding linked article. He's still at it. See his blog.

I was thinking about showing this to my mother-in-law. She's one of those "oh-so-knowing" George Bush slammers.
I'm a libertarian, and I'll slam Bush for excessive foreign adventurism and creeping socialism at home, but I agree with this lefty that anyone has the right to depose a brutal tyrant.
Of course, I've been convinced that government is only legitimate when it uses our tax money for good purposes and effciently. Taxes taken from those who oppose the government's actions are stolen from them. Those who are well-pleased with what the government is doing now but wish for it to do more have no argumentative basis upon which to withhold their money, those who oppose the actions do have such a basis, and must be persuaded.

Hannity's doing Miller Time with Dennis Miller. Cool. We rerun Hannity on weekends.

I don't know why, but I can't seem to get the weblink to work for Matt Helm: The Unofficial Webpage. Here: http://members.aol.com/MacBorden. I'm sure cutting and pasting will work.

Is this where the language is going? Fuckin' A dreadful!

Relevant quote: "...So, with the speed were travelling in, it was impossible or say, ridiculous for a car to come out just like that. If a car was to do so, it will definitely piss the on-coming car off to the max, because the oncoming car would have to jam break and horn and waste saliva swearing in the car without outdoor speakers.

All I can say is: Dude.

Great joy is to be had by visiting the Matt Helm: The Unofficial Webpage! Only a complete moron would pass up such a great opportunity for personal amusement. Beyond that, I googled "Matt Helm". The Italian titles alone are worth the price of admission.

Victor Buono was a great Mac!
That's Mr. Borden to you, Jack! If you know what's good for ya.

What the Hell is that Edit Me! button there for?

I capitalize Hell because I believe in Jesus.

Whatever.

I just read a great profile of Helm that I thought I wouldn't like at first. It's wonderful to come across people who think like I do and love the same things I love.

Ah! Bingo!
I think I just accounted for 10 clicks on their cheatin' counter getting all this squared away.
But I love Matt Helm, and if it helps, I'm all for it.

OK, I just tested that link for Matt Helm: The Unofficial Homepage. What's going on here?

It may well be that one of the reasons I loved E. G. Ross so much was that he, physically, resembled Donald Hamilton and talked about things I would have wish Matt Helm would have talked about in his retirement.

Even a quick dip into one's own id rouses disturbing images.

I just sent off an email to the gentleman who runs Matt Helm: The Unofficial Homepage.. It appears to be Don Winans.
I grew up a passionate fan of Matt Helm. I don't have everything Don Hamilton ever wrote, but I'd like to.
And I don't speak the language of the Spy Thriller critics, but Matt Helm is hard-boiled, hard-core, brutally honest, down-and-dirty while yet cerebral, cynically patriotic action. Don Pendleton came close with his Executioner series, but the question "How does he get away with that shit?" is never quite satisfactorily answered.
From age 9 to age 16 I often tried to direct my path toward becoming Matt Helm.

Ah! That's better. It's bad enough that I take a month off, without having the system forget I exist.

I don't know how I originally found this website but you gotta check out The Unofficial Tommy Gun Page. I think there's nothing cooler looking than a Thompson Submachine Gun with a drum clip.