I have no idea where this is, or if it’s “illegal” to park a motorcycle there and it really doesn’t matter to me, but the funny part is that this cop is just incensed that a kid (or anyone) would dare challenge him.

Notice his first response: “Because I can.”

Then he asks for ID from the kid, trying to intimidate him, while still refusing to give his badge number.

Maybe he was just upset that Jeremy interrupted his 64 oz. Big Gulp.

Ladies and gentlemen, Jeremy Drew: future libertarian.

The existence of the 3D gun is the result of Cody Wilson and his Defense Distributed, a group with the sole focus of making freely distributed plans for a printable gun.

Cody Wilson is a libertarian of the absurdly-deregulatory variety. Upon reading of his group’s 3D gun success I was reminded of an interview with On The Media from last year in which he defended the private ownership of biological weaponry.

Bob Garfield: To take the question to the extreme: If you can do, in your home using technology, the kinds of things for which there is no legitimate consume r use, let’s just say weapons grade anthrax. You nonetheless have no objection to it?

Cody Wilson: I think a civil libertarian would say: Why criminalize the possession of something or the creation of something in itself? It isn’t the weapons grade anthrax that’s evil in and of itself; it’s what you could do with that weapons grade anthrax. And so, the educated civil libertarian would say you can only punish the use of that anthrax for criminal purposes, not its creation or possession.
You know, and you use the word “legitimate.” Legitimate is a scary word. Legitimate to whom? Who makes the rules of legitimacy?

I suppose I could waste time talking about Wilson’s scoffing at the idea of defining legitimacy after he just got done offering his definition of it.

I also suppose I could point out the absurdity in allowing someone possession of an item which once misused, could devastate entire populations.

It should be easy to recognize a limitation on severely hazardous materials as being a beneficial and legitimate trade-off for public safety, but such basic reasoning seems beyond those who believe the individual’s ability to own anything regardless of the potential risk is paramount to a free society.

Don Boudreaux (does reading Cafe Hayek make me a masochist, BTW?) thinks he has something here, but he doesn’t:

If (by whatever criteria) the process is fair, then the outcomes are fair.  If the process is not fair, then at least some outcomes are lamentable.  If those lamentable outcomes involve too little income for Smith and too much for Jones, then this income difference is evidence of the unfair or skewed or crony-fied process.  But the object of my concern in such situations isn’t the income difference as such; rather, it’s the unfair or skewed or crony-fied process that gave rise to it.

Forget about how much work is being done here by the parenthetical; this is mostly specious and otherwise useless. Let’s use some real life examples:

Let’s say black people are enslaved and forced to labor for centuries. I bet Prof. Boudreax and I would certainly agree that process is unfair.

Now let’s say that all slavery is abolished, and the entire socioeconomic system (somehow) peacefully replaced with a system that Prof. Boudreaux considers completely fair on a forward-looking basis. Are outcomes now fair? I would argue, no, because the inputs are biased then even an ideal process can’t produce ideal outcomes. But let’s say that the process iteratively produces improved outcomes. At what point does it produce ideal inputs that then lead to truly ideal outputs via the ideal process? One iteration? Two? Ten? Never? What if the theory of the second-best kicks in – where, once any condition of optimality is changed, you cannot presume that you can maximize your target goal by maintaining all the conditions that would have produced the ideal outcome under the original optimal set?

What if a process that is ideal at some time t produces outcomes that alter the process at some time t+x? Take Robert Nozick’s infamous example of Wilt Chamberlain, whereby ideal inputs and an ideal process can produce outcomes many would consider unfair (though, obviously, not Nozick or Boudreaux [or probably Wilt the Stilt]). What if Wilt decides that, now that he is vastly richer than everyone else in society, he is going to bribe a politician to sell him state assets at below-market prices. What if inequality, even inequality produced via ideal processes with ideal inputs, inexorably produce outcomes that lead to non-ideal processes?

What about luck? What if what distinguished Prof. Boudreaux’s Jones and Smith was some completely unpredictable and random event – an asteroid incinerates Jones’ barn, a once-in-a-thousand-year storm destroys Smith’s ship? What determines whether Facebook becomes a world-beater and not Friendster or MySpace? Can even an ideal process mitigate for those inequalities? What if luck, or chance, or events beyond human control and understanding, drive most of the gaps between life outcomes?

I agree with Prof. Boudreaux more than he probably would suspect. I believe that a system that allows for private property, broad freedom to transact, and inevitable dispersion in the distribution of wealth is likely ideal, both from a utilitarian and non-utilitarian perspective. Yet Prof. Boudreaux accuses those who worry about these inequalities of smallness, of envy, of corroded character. I would argue that it is he who has exploited a certain myopia and smallness to leverage a handful of economic insights into a worldview that justifies a corrosive lack of empathy and a smallness of the soul.

The individualist view of “society” has been summed up in the phrase: “Society” is everyone but yourself. Put thus bluntly, this analysis can be used to consider those cases where “society” is treated, not only as a superhero with superrights, but as a supervillain on whose shoulders massive blame is placed. Consider the typical view that not the individual criminal, but “society,” is responsible for his crime. Take, for example, the case where Smith robs or murders Jones. The “old-fashioned” view is that Smith is responsible for his act. The modern liberal counters that “society” is responsible. This sounds both sophisticated and humanitarian, until we apply the individualist perspective. Then we see that what liberals are really saying is that everyone but Smith, including of course the victim Jones, is responsible for the crime. Put this baldly, almost everyone would recognize the absurdity of this position. But conjuring up the fictive entity “society” obfuscates this process. As the sociologist Arnold W. Green puts it: “It would follow, then, that if society is responsible for crime, and criminals are not responsible for crime, only those members of society who do not commit crime can be held responsible for crime. Nonsense this obvious can be circumvented only by conjuring up society as devil, as evil being apart from people and what they do.”

Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, (Second Edition, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006) pp.46-47. Available  free on line.

Carter Era Gas Shortage Sign

The long lines at gas pumps, thanks to Carter’s poor handling of OPEC, were hurting adults trying to make a living as well, but as a kid, I simply didn’t understand economic issues yet, so it didn’t really affect me like the Iran hostage situation. As we all know, Ronald Reagan took office, and our hostages came home. From then on, I was a Reaganite, and will be until I die.

One of the things that upset me this past election was the notion that the economy was still so horrible because of what Obama inherited. While we all mostly agree he did inherit a poor economy, four years later, is it really an acceptable excuse?

 As Reagan took office, he inherited a misery index of 20.76. It was the highest recorded misery index in history going back to that statistic’s inception in 1948—it hasn’t been to a higher level since either. Carter may have been a nice man and a brilliant scientist, but as a president, he failed miserably at maintaining America’s strength, much less growing it.

By comparison, Barack Obama inherited a misery index of 9.65. Less than half of Carter’s benchmark. While I agree G.W. Bush’s handling of the economy at the end was poor, it was a far cry from the disaster Carter created.

So approaching the “Inherited a poor economy” argument, let’s see how Reagan and Obama handled what they inherited:

After four years under Reagan, the misery index improved from the aforementioned 20.76 to 11.81—a significant improvement. After four years of Obama, it went from 9.65 to a slightly worse 10.15. Clearly, Reagan wins this battle; one point for the Gipper.

But let’s delve further. If we look at GDP numbers, at the end of the Carter administration, dividing our total GDP by our population, we have approximately $11,433 per person in 1979. After 1983, that number improved to $15,171; an improvement of a whopping 25%!

Now let’s look at Obama. In 2008, the average GDP per capita was $47,363. At the end of 2012, that number grew to $49,494; an improvement of a paltry 4.3%. Clearly, Reagan wins again; two points for the Gipper.

1984 Election Results

All that being said, one of the truest tests of a president is how he is judged by the people he governs. After four years of Reagan, he resoundingly beat Walter Mondale 49 to 1 states—Minnesota the lone stand out. He won 525 electoral votes compared to 13 for Mondale, and a popular vote of 58.8% vs 40.6% (54,455,472 to 37,577,352 votes). This means that a Republican actually won the liberal bastions of California and New York! It was one of the greatest election defeats in history.

Barack Obama against Mitt Romney on the other hand was 26 to 24 states; 332 to 206 electoral votes; 51.1% to 47.2% with 65,910,437 votes to 60,932,795. By all accounts, we’ll call that an easy Reagan victory as well—three to nil; the Gipper.

Ronald Reagan

It was a long time ago, but when questioned about the state of the economy, I don’t remember Reagan blaming Carter his complete first term; he was too busy making his case for the future. He lowered the top-tier tax rate from 70% to 28%, gave people their money back, and just as planned, the economy took off like a rocket. So well in fact, that we reduced the world’s superpower population by half as Russia crumbled while attempting to compete. It was capitalism versus communism; capitalism won.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.

Thomas Woods is an increasingly influential  player on the Catholic Right. In this and a subsequent post, we will consider how his world view is   incompatible with both Catholic Social Justice principles and American history.

Over the years, this column has looked at the many facets of the Catholic Right, including neo-cons, paleo-cons, Bill Donohue, Opus Dei, and more. We now come to the Neo-Confederate Catholic Right, a peculiar variation of libertarianism, which focuses almost exclusively on economics while maintaining most, if not all of the social conservative culture war issues such as opposition to reproductive rights and marriage equality. Indeed, this movement employs the long discredited states’ rights theory of nullification — the notion that any state has the right to ignore any federal court order or law which that state has deemed unconstitutional.

Among the Catholic Rightists beating the drum for nullification are Pat Buchanan, Thomas DiLorenzo, Thomas Fleming and Thomas E. Woods, Jr.  All four advocate states’ rights, a seething resentment of Abraham Lincoln, and as Rachel Tabachnick recently highlighted, Woods is a key member of the pro-secession League of the South, Traditional Catholicism (save possibly DiLorenzo) and Austrian-school, libertarian economics.

Woods is a convert to the type of Catholicism sought by many on the Catholic Right. As such, he is a vocal proponent for a return to a pre-Vatican II mindset. He is extreme in his economic libertarianism as well as secession and nullification.  While nullification has a long and dark history on matters of race in the U.S., it is also looming as an issue for reproductive rights and marriage equality.

It is therefore no surprise that among Woods’ admirers is the influential Opus Dei priest C. John McCloskey. The former Ivy League-Wall Street laissez-faire apostle-turned-prelate has himself ruminated on the appeal of secession to achieve theocracy.  In his infamous futuristic dystopian essay 2030: Looking Backwards he gleefully imagines a violent separation from the United States:

The tens of thousands of martyrs and confessors for the Faith in North America were indeed the “seed of the Church” as they were in pre-Edict of Milan Christianity. The final short and relatively bloodless conflict produced our Regional States of North America. The outcome was by no means an ideal solution but it does allow Christians to live in states that recognize the natural law and divine Revelation, the right of free practice of religion, and laws on marriage, family, and life that reflect the primacy of our Faith. With time and the reality of the ever-decreasing population of the states that worship at the altar of “the culture of death,” perhaps we will be able to reunite and fulfill the Founding Fathers of the old United States dream to be “a shining city on a hill.”

What McCloskey describes as “by no means an ideal solution” has a more accurate, more commonly-held description: Treason.

And yet there is more than a hint of hypocrisy in McCloskey’s admiration of Woods – especially his libertarian economic outlook.  Catholic writer Angus Sibely has observed, Woods is a devotee of über-libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard. A closer examination of Rothbard beliefs reveals why this is problematic.

First, Rothbard is the father of anarcho-capitalism, the basis of Woods’ economic philosophy.  It is such an extreme philosophy that even law enforcement and the courts would be privatized; taxation would be replaced by either private payments or insurance settlements. Rothbard is on record saying “the entire theory of labor unions is deeply flawed.” As Angus Sibley explains, it is the very antithesis of Catholic economic teachings:

Most practical methods of reducing inequalities are repugnant to libertarians. Labor unions are hated because they obstruct the worker’s freedom to agree his own contract with his employer. … Redistributive taxation (higher tax rates on higher personal incomes) “is a mode of disguised expropriation of successful capitalists and entrepreneurs” according to Mises, while his admirer Murray Rothbard stated that “Taxation is Robbery” and that “the libertarian favors the right to unrestricted private property and free-exchange”.

Hayek rejected outright the principle of distributive justice: “the results of the individual’s efforts are necessarily unpredictable, and the question of whether the resulting distribution of incomes is just or unjust has no meaning.”  Catholic teaching flatly repudiates such nonsense. Leo XIII (Rerum Novarum, §45) spoke of “a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner”, and he strongly commended (#49) workers’ associations, of which “the most important of all are workingmen’s unions.” John Paul II (Centesimus Annus, §20) observed that “unions… are indeed a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice, for the just rights of working people.”

But what is all-too-conveniently glossed over by Woods, McCloskey and others — is Rothbard’s shocking and idiosyncratic view on abortion.  It is a view that is consistent with extreme libertarianism, but is very far from any other pro-choice thought I have ever heard. Rothbard’s view suggests a deep fissure on the conservative spectrum that they would rather we not see.

Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.  [Emphasis added]

We need to understand why Woods and McCloskey’s Neo-Confederate philosophy of nullification and secession is so appealing to some on the Catholic Right so we can not only better answer them, but sharpen the contrast with just alternatives. Those tasks will be tackled in subsequent posts.

Anarchist Communism Flag (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Flag representing anarcho-capitalism. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The issue of property rights is a controversial but vital to any discussion to the topic of anarchy as it relates to the Anarcho-communist vs the Anarcho-capitalist.

I will admit I am no expert on this but do find that understanding this is a passion of mine and I am open to critical thought!

It seems that the Anarcho-communist perspective makes a distinction between personal property and private property. In the case of the toothbrush I can see this to a certain degree. Being married means we own things jointly so technically her property is my and my property is hers. The Bible goes even further just to throw more fire on the fuel.

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. (1Co 7:4)

The concept of private and personal being distinct does not make sense. Just look at these definitions.

Definition of private (adj)

Bing Dictionary

Related articles

• Relationships: Is It OK to Share Your Toothbrush (947freshfm.cbslocal.com)
• Anarcho-Capitalism: So Crazy, It Just Might Work! (reason.com)
• How to Clean a Toothbrush Naturally (healthextremist.com)
• The Capitalist Message of Easter Egg Hunts?? (txwclp.org)

As a mental challenge, try to think of all of the governmental activities — federal, state and local — that could be privatized. Now, go a step further. Suppose you were required to develop a plan to privatize, or make self-supporting through user fees, nearly every activity of government. Could you or a group of your friends do it? Try it. I expect your success will surprise you.

In Madison, I’m not sure why city government owns the water, garbage and brush collection,  and the bus service. We have had problems with water quality for quite a while. The latest scare is a likely carcinogen found in four wells. I wonder if a private company would be continued to operate the water utility if its wells were found to contain 1,4-dioxane. I doubt it. There would be loud calls for the city to take over. Oh, … that’s what we have. Oh well.

A couple of years ago a city bus driver was found to have been paid $159,258 for the year all in an attempt to boost his retirement paycheck. Another driver made $125,598. I wonder if that would have happened with a private company running the bus service. And, if it had again, there would have been calls for the city to take it over. Oh, … that’s what we have. Oh well.

Most things the city government does could easily be performed by private companies and most likely at a lower cost. It’s difficult to get such things considered in this city, however, since so much of the population is employed in one way or another by various government offices. They serve themselves by serving government while at the same time making the rest of us poorer.

A King in New York (1957).

The modern-day war whoopers remind us of Charles Montague’s observation that “war hath no fury like a non-combatant.” These drawing room field marshals – who have never heard a gunshot fired in anger – rage on, their safety assured by their distance from the frontlines…They are like modern drone-operators, the joy-stick warriors who use modern technologies to bomb and kill innocents half a planet away, retiring at day’s end to dinner parties in Georgetown or play on the Las Vegas strip.

The most despicable of all despicable bastards. — jtl, 419

by Butler Shaffer Recently by Butler Shaffer: The New Babbleon

One of my daughters has a very nice photograph of a tiny flower growing in the crack of a large slab of lifeless, stifling asphalt. The image of life seeking and finding even the most limited setting in which to flourish, should foster a sense of optimism as to the future. Political systems resort to the most savage forms of violence because their adversary is not “terrorism” or some other contrived bogeyman, but life itself. Life expresses itself in individualized, spontaneous, self-directed behavior. By contrast, political systems – all of which are grounded in collectivism – demand the uniform, standardized, lockstep conduct of fungible men and women; what the politically-driven contemptuously regard as “human resources.”

A couple weeks ago, I watched live television coverage of the University of Nebraska football program’s annual “spring game.” Those who believe that there is a “separation of church and state” in America, have never been to a Nebraska football game. The spring game – which is an intra-squad contest played at the close of spring practice – manages to bring out some 60,000 fans eager to preview the fall season.

As this game came down to the closing minutes, the “Red” team brought in a new running back: Jack Hoffman, a seven-year-old boy suffering from brain cancer, and who was adopted by the team last year. In what otherwise appeared to be a regular play, Jack was given the ball and raced for a 69-yard touchdown, as 60,000 fans cheered him. His touchdown became part of the final score, and the yardage he gained made him – officially – the leading rusher for the day.

Why did this one play attract so much attention, and why has it been replayed millions of times on YouTube? Is it just that there is something “cute” about a young boy playing football with a bunch of college-aged men? Is it the fact that he is engaged in a life-and-death battle with cancer, years before most people have to face this threat? I don’t presume to know the mindsets of others, and may only be projecting my own sentiments onto others. But I do wonder if the response of so many to Jack’s feat might reflect an unconscious discomfort with the ongoing institutional war against children and, implicitly, the war against life itself. The millions of unborn babies intentionally aborted, including late-term abortions and allegations that some doctors have killed babies born live, represent the more apparent examples of this war. School systems routinely crush the energized spirit, spontaneity, and curiosity that is so natural to children and, in the process, condition youngsters in the statist virtue of obedience to authority. Students are also indoctrinated in the importance of such questionable values as “patriotism,” “honor,” and “duty,” in order to help prepare them for their destruction in the war-machine.

Nor can we overlook the mass killing of children carried out in the name of “national defense.” Madeleine Albright’s acceptance of the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children in furtherance of her government’s boycott, along with Janet Reno’s more modest gassing, machine-gunning, and burning to death of twenty-one children at Waco, represent moral low-points in the federal government’s disregard for those persons least capable of protecting themselves.

Add to these atrocities the tens of thousands of children – many of them infants – who, innocent of any wrongdoing against Americans, have nonetheless been killed or maimed by American ground-troops, bombers, and drones. This disdain for the lives of children – particularly when they are abstractly dismissed in collective terms as “collateral damage” – has reached deeper into the human spirit than most of us realize. I suspect that such contempt is contributing to the increased suicides among soldiers and former soldiers that now number an average of one every twenty-two hours. Perhaps an unconscious awareness of the ugliness of America’s politically-dominated culture against children has caused millions of people to become teary-eyed watching a young boy doing what it is in the nature of all free-spirited children to do: run.

As I watched reruns of Jack’s accomplishment, my mind kept racing back to a 2006 dystopian film, Children of Men. This very dark film takes place in the year 2027. Because of humanity’s well-organized war against life, women had been rendered sterile, and no human baby had been born for eighteen years. When a young woman is found to be pregnant, a number of people – desirous of saving mankind from extinction – work to get her out of the war-ravaged country in which she lives, and to a setting in which she can give birth to her baby. There are no identifiable “good guys” and “bad guys” in this war. It is just a variant on Orwell’s Oceania and Eurasia being constantly at war in a system in which war and society have become indistinguishable.

The bombing at the Boston Marathon occurred nine days after Jack’s touchdown run. As was to be expected, planeloads of politicians, members of the media, and celebrities from the entertainment world, began descending on Boston to exploit the atrocity for their narrow ends. Feigning moral outrage at these bombings – all the while continuing to conduct or support the bombings that produce far more numerous innocent victims in the Middle East – helped maintain the climate of fear and anger necessary to any war-system. While pretending to oppose “terrorism,” these establishment mouthpieces engaged in their own forms of terror by keeping people in the same frightened state we experienced as children scaring one another with unseen bogeymen. Forgetting the admonitions of Thoreau, Francis Bacon, Montaigne, and even FDR that “nothing is so much to be feared as fear,” many Bostonians wrapped themselves in the security blanket of the American flag and sought collective comfort at a baseball game.

The modern-day war whoopers remind us of Charles Montague’s observation that “war hath no fury like a non-combatant.” These drawing room field marshals – who have never heard a gunshot fired in anger – rage on, their safety assured by their distance from the frontlines. They judge the propriety of their actions by no higher standard than the results of public opinion polls, the content of which has been their purpose – aided by media lickspittles – to generate. They are like modern drone-operators, the joy-stick warriors who use modern technologies to bomb and kill innocents half a planet away, retiring at day’s end to dinner parties in Georgetown or play on the Las Vegas strip.

The collective ugliness that has dominated the media these past two weeks was briefly interrupted by an expression of a different voice. Heather Abbott, the lovely young woman who lost the lower part of a leg in the bombing, held a televised press conference at the hospital in which she is recuperating. In contrast with uninjured spewers of fear, anger, and hate, Ms. Abbott was the optimistic spirit that attends the life force. Her focus was on the rehabilitation awaiting her; being “overwhelmed” by the “support” and “caring” she has received from “people I don’t even know.” “I am still happy,” she stated, and while her situation was something “I wouldn’t wish upon myself or anyone else, . . . “it’s really not as bad as I thought it could have been.”

As I listened to her speak, I was reminded of the scene in the movie V for Vendetta, in which the heroine, Evey Hammond, had been tortured by the hero, V, without revealing the information sought by her inquisitor. She was then informed that she would be executed. She went to what she thought would be the place of execution only to be met by V. After raging her anger against V for what he had done to her, Evey is told that she had been rendered free, by having overcome her fears.

There is an important message that finds expression in these two events: in helping to celebrate a seven-year-old boy’s high-spirited, joyful run for a touchdown, and watching a young woman tell us that her plight is not going to destroy her zest for life, perhaps we can overcome the fears that have seduced us into abandoning our own life-pursuits. Both Jack and Heather have extended periods of medical care before them and, perhaps, this helps to give immediate focus to the demands of life when facing uncertainties.

These two persons are like the flowers that insist on blooming in the cracks that inevitably occur in the most rigid settings. I suspect they will each handle their difficulties with the self-directed energy that attends all life. The rest of us have much to learn from their examples. We can, of course, continue our habit of cowering at the feet of those who maintain power over us by raising the specter of abstract bogeymen, or we can learn to walk – or run – from the vicious schemes that war against life!

May 2, 2013

Butler Shaffer [send him e-mail] teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He is the author of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition, 1918–1938, Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival, and Boundaries of Order. His latest book is The Wizards of Ozymandias.

Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Butler Shaffer Archives

Related articles

• The New Babbleon (lewrockwell.com)
• College football: Young cancer patient scores Nebraska touchdown (rapidcityjournal.com)
• Obama meets Jack Hoffman, young cancer patient who won hearts in Nebraska football game (cbsnews.com)
• 7-Year Old Cancer Patient Scores Touchdown In Nebraska Spring Football Game [Video] (myq105.cbslocal.com)
• FOX6 Web Fix: Nebraska football team helps boy live out dream (fox6now.com)

For me, at least.

Elsewhere in the world, red and black flags are being proudly waved as people march through the streets, chanting and singing. In Greece, a nation-wide strike is being carried out in defiance of massive lay-offs enacted by the government. In Bangladesh, thousands are protesting after the collapse of a sweatshop resulted in the death and injury of hundreds of workers. Similar protests have broken out in the Philippines as nearly 10,000 workers march in Manila. Youth in Spain are raging against the nearly 30% unemployment rate. Korea, Cambodia, Turkey, Indonesia- just to name a handful- are witnessing similar turnouts.

In the US, however, the first of May is overwhelmingly just that- the first of the month. Barring a smattering of marches in New York and other cities, the day has gone largely without event. While the majority of the world has some form of working class heroics taking place, America has yet to really see the rise of poor and working class unity. As a great man once said:

I guess that crushing silence makes the few times we do get an alternative to the conservative-liberal slap fight all the sweeter, and there is perhaps nothing more refreshing than the annual Socialism conferences.

Hosted cooperatively by a number of leftist groups (most notably the Center for Economic Research and Social Change and the International Socialist Organization), the Socialism Conference has been held every year since 2009 in Chicago and Oakland, the Mecca and Medina of the American Left.

It is well nigh impossible to find Marxism gifs…

Now you might be thinking, “Okay, commi, you might get all hyped up about the overthrow of the bourgeois taskmasters and the establishment of a truly free and democratic society, but why should we care?”

This is why.

There really isn’t, in this country, any solid alternative perspective to the views of Republicans (who believe in Capitalism with some minor restrictions) and Democrats (who believe in Capitalism with some minor restrictions). For all the hissy-fits thrown by Limbaugh and Maher, there’s not a whole lot of real difference between ‘em. Heck, a person could go to sleep in 2003 and wake up today and not have any reason to assume Bush wasn’t still president. The so-called “third” parties are simply extensions of the big two. Greens don’t fundamentally differ from Democrats, and all but the most hardcore Libertarians (though this is changing a bit) will vote Republican after Ron Paul loses for the seventieth time.

As fun as this may have been…

Simply for the fact that a truly alternate perspective is being offered is reason in and of itself to take interest. What really hits it home though, is that Socialism conferences aren’t just dissent- they’re good dissent.

We’re talking about a host of topics offered not from starchy professors and oily economic consultants, but rather from a diverse array of individuals, ranging from teachers to activists, to writers (novelists and journalists alike), veterans, holocaust survivors, union organizers, prisoners, and musicians.

You’re going to be able to hear discussions of issues you’d never see tackled elsewhere. Scheduled for the 2013 conference is a session on the Asian-American community. Up as well is a talk on the rise of “Juan Crow” laws. There’s going to be Native American history. Courses on how to perform activism in your community.

Education reform.

World history.

“Leninism vs. Zinovienism.”

I have no clue what that last one is, but it sounds interesting.

And we’re not just talking about audios of the lectures (open to the public on their website- check it out), but videos as well. You can see the testimonies of the families of young black men killed by the police- if those don’t stir you, I don’t know what will.

Of course, all of that’s possible through the simple high-quality of everything they’re offering. You don’t have to scan through some manifesto on an html page in the dark recesses of the internet- everything you need is laid out, well, professionally. Format, as Evan will be quick to tell you, makes or breaks a message. Fortunately, the Socialism conference’s materials are unimpeachably well-done.

So what are you waiting for? Head on over and check out a few lectures. Watch a few videos. Expand your horizons a bit.

Who knows? Maybe enough people doing it will mean next May Day won’t be so quiet.

I also really, really could use some leftist gifs…

This isn’t exactly topical, but I’ve been doing a little thinking recently. Up to a couple weeks ago, I’ve said that I don’t support legalisation of drugs because I don’t feel that there’s enough of a mandate to do it. By mandate, I mean not enough people support the idea. That was my view.

A couple weeks ago though, I realised that this view didn’t follow my traditional libertarian views. By “traditional libertarian”, I mean not the rubbish that people say it libertarianism now. Real libertarianism (or what I’ve termed traditional libertarianism – what libertarianism used to be about) is purely about saying you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t harm others in doing so. None of this “smaller Government” stuff. That’s called anarchism. I have no issue with someone being a libertarian anarchist, but don’t dub it something it’s not.

Anyway, what I believe is that everyone should be allowed to do anything as long as they don’t harm others. I thought about how this fits with my view on drugs. I realised that either I take a very strict line with this, and say that because some people’s drug use causes harm to others it should be illegal, or I take a more soft approach, saying that because most people’s drug use will only cause harm to themselves it should be legal.

Now let’s look at that first idea in a little more depth. Because one person’s use of something harms people, it should be banned. What would that mean? Well, surely knives should be illegal, because some people think stabbing people is okay. Cars should be illegal too, because you could drive into another person and harm them. Definitely planes should be banned – look at how much harm 9/11 caused. Alcohol also should be banned too.

Yes, that is completely insane. This is why I changed my opinion on the matter. I don’t think knives, cars, planes and alcohol should be banned. I think people abuse the privilege of being able to use things that could harm others should have them taken off them (like we take drivers’ licenses taken from people). So yes, you should be allowed to use drugs, but if you end up harming people because of this, or are identified as someone likely to harm people because of this, you should not be allowed to.

In his attitude to the relation between decentralisation and centralisation, localism and federalism, Tocqueville expresses a way of handling the competing claims of ancient and modern liberty.  Ancient liberty can be established at the local level, but should be constrained by a higher level of political sovereignty, which protects individuals against complete domination by the social body, and which guarantees individual rights.  That sense of balance, or creative tension, between the two kinds of liberty, runs throughout Democracy in America.  We can also see this in what he says about ‘individualism’, in America.  Despite his attachment to individual rights, he is concerned that individualism can become a form of narrow self interest which is morally inferior and provides a poor basis for resisting tyranny.  The answer is partly for individuals to look to the overall plan of their life rather than immediate desires.  That anticipates Rawls’ discussion of ‘plans of life’ in A Theory of Justice, section 63.  Ideally for Tocqueville, this should lead individuals to a religious point of view, but even without that step, thought about life as a whole provides a barrier against individualism.  Tocqueville’s idea of individualism has much in it of what Rousseau says about ‘self love’ (amour propre) as opposed to ‘love of self’ (amour de soi).  ‘Self love’ is where we seek to feel good about ourselves in comparison with other people, with regard to how we imagine they compare us with others, in their imagination.  Another example of how Rousseau belongs to classical liberal thinking, and so libertarian thinking, in some respects.  Another constraint on individualism is the press, which Tocqueville regarded as bringing something of antique republicanism to modern liberty.  In  political communities where geographical distance and population size prevent all citizens from gathering to make political decisions in a public space, newspapers provide the nearest equivalent.  They bring people together through reading of common material which leads them to concern with common issues.  As Tocqueville notes, the post office enabled newspapers, and other forms of written or printed communication to spread simultaneously across the republic, and create a common political life.

For Tocqueville, the best modern state combines ancient and modern liberties, and we can call this libertarian republicanism, or it should at least lead us to break down barriers between republicanism and classical liberalism or libertarianism.  His political thought shows that a classical liberal-libertarian can be more of an enthusiast for ancient Athenian republicanism that an egalitarian liberal, or the school of republicanism which defines republicanism as a form of egalitarian liberalism.

While I haven’t actually read the book, I am one of the authors and I am familiar with a few of the other authors. I’ll have the book in a few days, but since I know what I write and I know what they write, it’s a safe bet that I’d recommend the book.

I wouldn’t actually recommend accepting or condoning the label of Non-Aggressionism. It’s an irrational and illogical position. By swearing off aggression altogether, by entering into the NAP as it is called, is foolish: it leaves one vulnerable. There is a time and a place for aggression. But read the book for yourself and make up your own mind.

Peace.

Ama-gi is a Sumerian word meaning “return to the mother.” Many libertarian economists consider the symbol to be the first written expression of the concept of liberty.

Fittingly, it is also the first written expression on this blog. May the concepts discussed here enjoy a long career as intellectually fulfilling and obscure the history liberty and classical cuneiform.

But there are several fundamental problems with libertarianism.  The first problem is what I’d term ‘selfish libertarianism.’  I think this is what drives major facets of the right in the Anglo-Atlantic world, a belief in the protection of the individual’s rights and property and freedom of behaviour, but coupled with attempts to deny others’ rights, property, and freedom.  This, of course, is not real libertarianism. But this is pretty common in political discourse these days in Canada, the US, and the UK.  People demand their rights to live their lives unfettered, but wish to deny others that freedom, especially women, gays/lesbians, and other minority groups (of course, women are NOT a minority, they make up something like 53% of the population in Canada, the US, and UK).  So, ultimately, we can dismiss these selfish libertarians as not being libertarians at all.

My basic problem with true libertarianism is its basic premise.  If we are to presume that we are responsible for our own fates and destinies, then we subscribe to something like the American Dream and that belief we can all get ahead if we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and work hard.  I find that very appealing, because I have worked hard to get to where I am, and I feel the need to keep working hard to fulfill my own dreams.

But therein lies the problem. Behind the libertarian principle is the idea that we’re all on the same level playing field.  We are not.  Racism, classism, homophobia, sexism, misogyny: these all exist on a daily basis in our society.  I see them every day.  I have experienced discrimination myself.  And no, not because I’m Caucasian.  But because I come from the working-classes.  I was told by my high school counsellor that my type of people was not suited for university studies.  I had a hard time getting scholarships in undergrad because I didn’t have all kinds of extra-curricular activities beyond football.  I didn’t volunteer with old people, I didn’t spend my time helping people in hospitals.  I couldn’t.  I had to work.  And I had to work all through undergrad.  And throughout my MA and PhD.  In fact, at this point in my life at the age of 40, I have been unemployed for a grand total of 5 months since I landed my first job when I was 16.  And having to work throughout my education simply meant I didn’t qualify for most scholarships.  So I had to work twice as hard as many of my colleagues all throughout my education.  And that, quite simply, hurt me.  And sometimes my grades suffered.  And within the academy, that is still problematic today, even four years after I finished my PhD.  But that’s just the way it is. I can accept that, I’m not bitter, I don’t dwell on it.  But it happened, and it happened because of class.  Others have to fight through racism or sexism or homophobia.

So, quite simply, we do not all begin from the same starting line.  We don’t all play on a level playing field.  Mine was tilted by class.  And, for that reason, libertarianism, in its true sense, does not work.  If we wish to have a fair and just society, we require ways and means of levelling that playing field, to give the African-American or working class or lesbian or son of immigrant children the chance to get ahead.  Me? I worked hard, but I also relied on student loans, bursaries, and what scholarships I could win based on grades alone.  My parents didn’t pay for a single cent of my education, not because they didn’t care or want to, but because they simply couldn’t afford it.  I got some support from my grandparents each year, to go with the student loans/bursaries/small scholarships.  And thank god I did.  Otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to do it.  I’d be flipping burgers at a White Spot in Vancouver at the age of 40.

The recent opening of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity was a watershed moment in American history. There has never been anything quite like it. Ideologically diverse, the Ron Paul Institute reaches out to all Americans, and indeed to people all over the world, who find the spectrum of foreign-policy opinion in the United States to be unreasonably narrow. Until Ron Paul and his new institute, there was no resolutely anti-interventionist foreign-policy organization to be found.

Neoconservatives have not responded warmly to the announcement of Ron’s new institute. Whatever their particular gripes, we can be absolutely certain of the real reason for their unhappiness: they have never faced systematic, organized opposition before.

The Democrats would see the earth tumble into the sun before supporting nonintervention abroad, so they pose no fundamental problem for the neocons. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is real opposition, and he can mobilize an army. The neocons know it. What’s Tim Pawlenty up to these days? Where are his legions of well-read young fans who seek to carry on his philosophy? You see the point.

For the first time, strict nonintervention will have a permanent voice in American life. It is another nail in the neocon coffin. The neocons know they are losing the young. Bright kids who believe in freedom aren’t rallying to Mitt Romney or David Horowitz, and, like anyone with a critical mind and a moral compass, they are not going along with the regime’s war propaganda.

At this historic moment, I thought it might be appropriate to set down some thoughts on war – a manifesto for peace, as it were.

(1) Our rulers are not a law unto themselves.

Our warmakers believe they are exempt from normal moral rules. Because they are at war, they get to suspend all decency, all the norms that govern the conduct and interaction of human beings in all other circumstances. The anodyne term “collateral damage,” along with perfunctory and meaningless words of regret, are employed when innocent civilians, including children, are maimed and butchered. A private individual behaving this way would be called a sociopath. Give him a fancy title and a nice suit, and he becomes a statesman.

Let us pursue the subversive mission of applying the same moral rules against theft, kidnapping, and murder to our rulers that we apply to everyone else.

(2) Humanize the demonized.

We must encourage all efforts to humanize the populations of countries in the crosshairs of the warmakers. The general public is whipped into a war frenzy without knowing the first thing – or hearing only propaganda – about the people who will die in that war. The establishment’s media won’t tell their story, so it is up to us to use all the resources we as individuals have, especially online, to communicate the most subversive truth of all: that the people on the other side are human beings, too. This will make it marginally more difficult for the warmakers to carry out their Two Minutes’ Hate, and can have the effect of persuading Americans with normal human sympathies to distrust the propaganda that surrounds them.

(3) If we oppose aggression, let us oppose all aggression.

If we believe in the cause of peace, putting a halt to aggressive violence between nations is not enough. We should not want to bring about peace overseas in order that our rulers may turn their guns on peaceful individuals at home. Away with all forms of aggression against peaceful people.

(4) Never use “we” when speaking of the government.

The people and the warmakers are two distinct groups. We must never say “we” when discussing the US government’s foreign policy. For one thing, the warmakers do not care about the opinions of the majority of Americans. It is silly and embarrassing for Americans to speak of “we” when discussing their government’s foreign policy, as if their input were necessary to or desired by those who make war.

But it is also wrong, not to mention mischievous. When people identify themselves so closely with their government, they perceive attacks on their government’s foreign policy as attacks on themselves. It then becomes all the more difficult to reason with them – why, you’re insulting my foreign policy!

Likewise, the use of “we” feeds into war fever. “We” have to get “them.” People root for their governments as they would for a football team. And since we know ourselves to be decent and good, “they” can only be monstrous and evil, and deserving of whatever righteous justice “we” dispense to them.

The antiwar left falls into this error just as often. They appeal to Americans with a catalogue of horrific crimes “we” have committed. But we haven’t committed those crimes. The same sociopaths who victimize Americans themselves every day, and over whom we have no real control, committed those crimes.

(4) War is not “good for the economy.”

A commitment to peace is a wonderful thing and worthy of praise, but it needs to be coupled with an understanding of economics. A well-known US senator recently deplored cuts in military spending because “when you cut military spending you lose jobs.” There is no economic silver lining to war or to preparation for war.

Those who would tell us that war brings prosperity are grossly mistaken, even in the celebrated case of World War II. The particular stimulus that war gives to certain sectors of the economy comes at the expense of civilian needs, and directs resources away from the improvement of the common man’s standard of living.

Ludwig von Mises, the great free-market economist, wrote, that “war prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings. The earthquake means good business for construction workers, and cholera improves the business of physicians, pharmacists, and undertakers; but no one has for that reason yet sought to celebrate earthquakes and cholera as stimulators of the productive forces in the general interest.”

Elsewhere, Mises described the essence of so-called war prosperity: it “enriches some by what it takes from others. It is not rising wealth but a shifting of wealth and income.”

(5) Support the free market? Then oppose war.

Ron Paul has restored the proper association of capitalism with peace and nonintervention. Leninists and other leftists, burdened by a false understanding of economics and the market system, used to claim that capitalism needed war, that alleged “overproduction” of goods forced market societies to go abroad – and often to war – in search for external markets for their excess goods.

This was always economic nonsense. It was political nonsense, too: the free market needs no parasitical institution to grease the skids for international commerce, and the same philosophy that urges nonaggression among individual human beings compels nonaggression between geographical areas.

Mises always insisted, contra the Leninists, that war and capitalism could not long coexist. “Of course, in the long run war and the preservation of the market economy are incompatible. Capitalism is essentially a scheme for peaceful nations…. The emergence of the international division of labor requires the total abolition of war…. The market economy involves peaceful cooperation. It bursts asunder when the citizens turn into warriors and, instead of exchanging commodities and services, fight one another.”

“The market economy,” Mises said simply, “means peaceful cooperation and peaceful exchange of goods and services. It cannot persist when wholesale killing is the order of the day.”

Those who believe in the free and unhampered market economy should be especially skeptical of war and military action. War, after all, is the ultimate government program. War has it all: propaganda, censorship, spying, crony contracts, money printing, skyrocketing spending, debt creation, central planning, hubris – everything we associate with the worst interventions into the economy.

War,” Mises observed, “is harmful, not only to the conquered but to the conqueror. Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things. Only economic action has created the wealth around us; labor, not the profession of arms, brings happiness. Peace builds; war destroys.”

See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government’s version of things.

Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all.

Peace builds. War destroys.

Related articles

• Neocons Hate the Ron Paul Peace Institute (lewrockwell.com)
• The Latest Attack on the Ron Paul Institute…. (economicpolicyjournal.com)
• The Commissars Want To Destroy LRC (lewrockwell.com)
• If You Have Noticed a Bunch of Attacks Against Board Members of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity…. (economicpolicyjournal.com)
• Neocons Attack Ron Paul Peace Institute (txwclp.org)
• Ron Paul casts lot with extremists, conspiracy theorists (salon.com)

-SL

Overnutrition is now killing far more people than hunger, and comfort is killing much more than violence.

See here. How embarrassingly crass and myopic. Grow up. If I die at age 70 because I ate too much fast food, that’s a small price to pay for the benefits of civilization.

Taleb should read the work of Paul Collier before making these shameful, callous remarks. After all the talk of moral obligations… seriously? Perspective here.