The Case of Cory Maye

Ironically, while the Kelo decision has made Americans more aware than ever of the need to protect their homes from greedy government officials and developers, the philosopher that your home is your castle is under attack by other government officials -- specifically the police. Radley Balko has been doing tremendous work to expose the militarization of police forces around the country and the general disregard these more militaristic tactics show for not only the property, but the lives of average Americans.

Institute for Justice -- A Pro-Freedom Gem

Jim Turbett and I were afforded a lovely evening in the new offices of the Institute for Justice, which recently moved from the District out to a larger and more impressive office in Arlington, VA. IJ is celebrating 15 years of "litigating for liberty" and they deserve a toast to their fine success.

The new office almost seems like a museum, or a showroom for their many accomplishments, as they have pictures of clients, cover-stories of national news magazines covering their cases, and "I am IJ" ads posted attractively in between offices and cubicles. It affects a comfortable, friendly air, even while the visitor knows that these spaces must house the work of some very serious and effective people

And the staff is serious and effective, but they are definitely not miserable Washingtonian gray suits. They obviously are in love with their work and they could not have been more hospitable to us. Like the office, they don't find professionalism and humanity to be at odds. Chip Mellor is correct to describe his team as a "Merry Band of Litigators."

IJ fights battles which most Americans should appreciate. I agree with Jim's comment that if a political organization was searching for a mission, it could not do better than to adopt IJ's priorities and positions. IJ's sucess is well deserved and I look forward to the great things we shall see from them in the future.

~Kevin D. Rollins

It is happening here

Andrew Sullivan is wrong on many things, but he has been one of the best critics of the legislation to allow the executive unfettered power to label people "enemy combatants" subject to indefinite detention and "coercive interrogation." Sullivan's blog has also been an invaluable source of information regarding this scheme. For a sample, check out his latest:

"Walking Back" on "Tyranny"?

"Late last night, before nodding off, I wondered, as I often do, whether I'd hyperbolized the threat from the looming detention-torture bill. "Legalizing tyranny" is a very strong phrase and I don't want to cry wolf. In the sense that this president intends to seize random Americans and rush them into black sites and torture them at will, it's hyperbole. But in a deeper sense, I think it's completely accurate. The system we're talking about is to do with wartime. A president in the past has had the option of seizing enemy combatants on a battlefield and detaining them without charge as POWs. There's no threat to liberty there. What's new is that in this war, enemy combatants have been designated as such not just on the battlefield - but anywhere in the world. What's new is that they are no longer entitled to POW status. What's new is that this war is for ever. So any changes are not just for a time-limited emergency but threaten to alter basic balances in constitutional order. What's also new is that torture is now allowed on the down-low, on the president's authority. And what's also new is that an enemy combatant may or may not be an American citizen.

Put all that together and you really do have the danger of taking emergency measures for wartime and transforming a peace-time constitution into an essentially martial system, where every citizen or non-citizen can be apprehended at will and detained without charge. I repeat: this is a huge deal. It really should be a huge deal for conservatives who care about restraining government power. Its vulnerability to abuse is enormous; sanctioned torture, history tells us, never remains hermetically sealed. It always spreads. It eats away at decency and law and civility. If the president sincerely believes that torture is our most potent weapon in this war, and that habeas corpus is a quaint relic from the past, then we are in far greater peril than even the most dire pessimists believe."

Also see James Bovard and Jacob "Bumper" Hornberger. I think Bumper was the fist to realize the importance of this issue.

Robert Fuller Event at Busboys and Poets

The Liberty Coalition and the Center for Liberty and Community present:

Robert Fuller, author of All Rise: Sombodies, Nobodies and the Politics of Dignity.

This book event will take place at Busboys and Poets, 2021 14TH ST NW, on Tuesday, October 3rd from 6-7:30 PM

Please RSVP to Michael Ostrolenk, michaeldostrolenk [at ] gmail.com, if you are able to attend. And do pass this announcement along to friends and colleagues.

About the Book

“In mid-twentieth century, after a historic national struggle, America opted to extend its democracy by de-legitimizing racism and redefining itself as a multi-cultural society. "All Rise" argues that resolving our current political crisis and regaining the respect of the world requires an evolutionary step of comparable scope--de-legitimizing rankism and building a dignitarian society. To suggest that this is not a utopian vision, but rather democracy's next natural step-and that America is up to the job is what "All Rise" is about.”

About Robert Fuller (From: www.breakingranks.net):

"After earning his Ph.D. in physics at Princeton University in 1961, Robert Fuller taught at Columbia University and co-authored the book Mathematics of Classical and Quantum Physics. The mounting social unrest of the 1960s drew his attention to educational reform, and in 1970 he was appointed president of his alma mater Oberlin College at the age of 33.

In 1974 Fuller traveled to India (as a consultant to Indira Gandhi) and there witnessed firsthand the famine resulting from the war with Pakistan over what became Bangladesh. With the election of Jimmy Carter, Fuller began a campaign to persuade the new president to end world hunger. His meeting with Carter in the Oval Office in June 1977 led to the establishment of the Presidential Commission on World Hunger.

During the 1980s, Fuller traveled frequently to the USSR, working as a citizen-scientist to improve the Cold War relationship. This work led to the creation of the non-profit global corporation Internews, which promotes democracy via free and independent media, and for many years Fuller served as its chairman.

With the collapse of the USSR, Fuller’s work as a citizen diplomat came to a close and he began reflecting on his career and came to understand that he had, at various times, been a somebody and a nobody and the cycle was continuing. His periodic sojourns in “Nobodyland” led him to identify and investigate rankism – defined as abuse of the power inherent in rank – and ultimately to write Somebodies and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse of Rank (New Society Publishers, 2003). His sequel, All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity (Berrett-Koehler, 2006), focuses on building a dignitarian society."

Crystal Ball?

I make NO book on this list, but someone recently asked me what the US and the world will be like in 40 years. Here's my best guess:

* A nuclear bomb will be used, probably on Iran, maybe on Israel.
* Oil will be supplanted as the world's major energy source, possibly by hydrogen.
* Someone will step forward, possibly on their death bed, and acknowledge that indeed the Iraq War was fought on false pretenses. It will come out that W didn't know, but Cheney did. This will lead to the GOP falling out of favor more than it did after Nixon.
* India will pass Japan and Germany in industrial and technological output.
* Nanotech breakthroughs will make unimaginable advances that will be far more consequential than the Industrial Revolution.
* New immigrants will stave off the impending fiscal insolvency of the US and its pension "systems."
* Irrefutable evidence will be found that "we are not alone."
* One third of the US population will be millionaires.
* Barack Obama will be elected President in 2016. His running mate will be a woman.
* Kid Rock and Pam Anderson will divorce, if they haven't already.
* Total government spending will fall to 30% of GDP, minor progress, but hardly a "win."

Life will be easier than even now, but there will be several "panics." There will be a somewhat scary climate shift, but nothing like THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. Theories about "global warming/Ice Age" will persist, but rendered moot by the shift to hydrogen.

-Robert Capozzi

Al Gore: Proto Free Liberal?

Never a big fan of Al "no controlling legal authority" Gore's. His hissyfits during the Bush/Gore debates may have lost him the election. This was the behavior of an 8 year old, pissed that his Mommy wouldn't let him play in the mud.

Still, I do believe in redemption. So I'm very pleased to see he's adopted the Milsted approach to sensible environmental policies. Coupling it with other, progressive tax cuts is music to my ears!

See more here:

-Robert Capozzi

Global Family and Day of Peace Day or where is Tom Lehrer when you really need him!

Today, Congress voted to establish a Global Family Day and a Day of Peace and Sharing. This is humanity's greatest advancement since National Brotherhood Week, which was immortalized in this great song:

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks. To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise,
As long as you don't let 'em in your school.

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks,
It's American as apple pie.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand.
You can tolerate him if you try.

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
It's National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

Mayhem, Bankruptcy and User Fees

Frequent TFL commenter Tarvok commented on my last blog The Mid-air OK Corral. He says that some have busted the myth that discharging a gun in a jetliner doesn't necessarily lead to cabin decompression. I'm not sure if it can't lead to that or not. Having once been a frequent flyer, I can say that I'm generally pleased that guns are for the most part banned from flights. The potential for strays seem awfully high in those close quarters. Guns used to be used by hijackers to commandeer planes...that's a fact. I have no problem with the government banning them in the skies. At the moment, the skies are part of the commonwealth, with government its steward. I suppose there's a theoretical case that the skies can be privately owned, but such a system of property rights would require much evolution in thinking. We're nowhere near that now.

As I said initially, "In the long run, I’d surely prefer private solutions to the challenge." I'm not sure how much general revenues go toward airport security, but there surely are user fees now. Every ticket is charged one. It makes utter sense that the flyers should bear the full cost of flying security and the taxpayers none.

Most of the airlines are bankrupt NOW. Bankruptcy courts put very tight constraints on capital spending. Expecting the largely reeling airline industry to take on such a massive undertaking as Gregory suggests seems ill timed.

So, the main point is, sure, there's a case for privatizing just about everything, including airport security. If -- in doing so -- a writer suggests that that might mean passengers should be armed, I'm pretty sure that few will salute the concept. Indeed, I don't. It's a prescription for mayhem in the skies. I for one would not like to see 9/11 repeated.

-Robert Capozzi

The Mid-air OK Corral

I don't know about you, but in this post 9/11 environment, this issue of "airline security" is bringing all sorts of overreaction. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) seems to add one onerous rule after the next. Irritating!

But, then, there is also the other side, the overreaction to the overreaction. Witness this commentary.
In it, Anthony Gregory of the Independent Institute suggests that airline security be “depoliticized.” As one who generally wants to “depoliticize” just about everything, I’m sympathetic. But then you look at the details. Gregory, for instance, says:

“If the unique danger is supposedly that planes can be hijacked and used as missiles as they were on 9/11, why not allow airlines to protect themselves by arming their pilots or even allowing armed passengers? The airlines have every incentive to protect their customers, employees and investments, and can determine the best way to do so.”

No expert in this matter, but I was under the impression that firearms in planes are a witches brew. Isn’t it the case that discharging a gun in flight could lead to cabin decompression and a crash? The prospect of every flight becoming a mid-air OK Corral strikes me as utterly frightening. Gregory’s proposal seems a great way to destroy the airline industry. Can you imagine a passenger assessing the options?…let’s see, Southwest allows box cutters, American allows machine guns, only the flight attendants can pack heat on United… If you connect from an American flight to a United one, please leave your machine gun in the bin at the jetway doors. Or should each flight have a metal detector at the jetway? Does Gregory have ANY idea the capital investment that would require?

I’d be interested whether the airlines would want to take on the security role Gregory suggests. With so many of them financially tottering, could they do so and remain in business? I’m not at all sure. Maybe we shouldn’t HAVE an airline industry, but this commentary feels nihilistic to me.

Of course, some of the measures by TSA have been excessive. I really hate taking my shoes off, for instance. In the long run, I’d surely prefer private solutions to the challenge in the long run. I’m not sure Gregory’s approach, however, advances liberty in the here and now. Privatizing TSA in this environment feels tin-eared to me. If it’s on point, perhaps someone can help me understand how so…

-Robert Capozzi

Neocons as Conspiracy Theorists

Random thought:

You've no doubt heard the conspiracy theories about 9/11...it was not Al Qaeda, it was actually some secret cabal of dark figures in and around the US government. They point to any number of facts surrounding that horrible day, and they connect the dots as they do. It's sorta interesting, sorta terrifying, but for me ultimately unsatisfactory as an explanation.

But then talk to a neocon. We're IN WWIII, they exclaim. Khobar Towers, Spain, London, USS Cole, 9/11...it's the legions of Islamofascists. Don't believe us? YOU are in denial. YOU are Neville Chamberlain. THEY are Adolph Hitler. If we don't act now, you will be dead or kneeling to Mecca before the decade's out.

Does anyone else see a common theme here? Chicken Little, call your office.

-Robert Capozzi

re: Kirk v. Picard

Bob, interesting post comparing differing libertarian strategies to differences among Star Trek captains, but you must admit that James T. Kirk is the coolest Captain ever. Cam Picard rock out like this? I don't think so!!!

Invade Canada

if they cave into pressure from the nicotine Nazis and punish Sean "Spicoli" Penn for violating Ontario's new smoking ban. Our troops will be welcomed as liberators as the Canadians throw cigarette buts at their feet.

Kirk v. Picard

v. Sisko v. Janeway v. Archer...have I missed anyone?

Regarding this discussion, it seems to me that liberty does not have only one path. There are different ways to get there. Clearly, we are not there now, all would agree.

Picard may not like Kirk's hot-headed approach, but he had Spock to cool him off. Perhaps Kirk thinks Picard's a bit of a cold fish, but he had Deanna Troi to help him with his feel of things. And didn't Kirk once blatantly and knowingly violate the "Prime Directive"? Yadda yadda yadda.

Maybe we're really all just fellow travelers...

-Robert Capozzi

More on Cults

Norm Singleton makes an excellent point here. Like a banana republic, the US has become a place where the special interests have all established a "presence" in and around Washington DC as a means to conduct their special pleading. It's a very, very corrupt game. This town brims with over-educated lawyers who know this very specialized game in which changing a sentence in a voluminous regulatory pronouncement could lead to a dramatic savings for his or her clients. The subtlety is at once impressive yet ultimately disgusting.

And this phenomenon begins to explain why the Washington DC area "boasts" the top three most affluent counties in the nation. In isolation, the wealth that has flowed to the capital area has in a sense been earned. If you federalize the economy, it seems financially wise to follow the money. The Free Liberal argument, however, is that all this special pleading is a deadweight loss, in which everyone in aggregate loses, all else equal. Washington specializes in digging ditches and then filling them up. Yet, through the magic of image-making, the ditch digging has been promoted to a high art form. I heard one radio talk show host refer to Washington as Hollywood for ugly people.

Ouch! Maybe not "ugly," but perhaps "nerdy."

Still, the question becomes, Are people bending their knees to the altar of DC, and do THEY view themselves that way? I'm not sure. I suspect that a special pleader believes he or she is doing his or her constituency a "service." They are "defending" them. They are helping them to get their "piece of the pie." If that's the way the game is played, then dag-gummit, I'll get mine, too.

We're searching for a means to take the game to another level. To see the forest, not just the trees.

To use yet another metaphor, I'm reminded of the film, The Matrix. In it, Neo (the Keanu Reeves character) is presented a choice: The Blue Pill, representing the illusory status quo, or the Red Pill, the Truth, the "Real World."

Whether more obscure matters like monetary reform serves as the Red Pill is, to me, an open question. But I do think it's important to have some respect for those who've not been offered either the Blue or Red Pill. I prefer to forgive them, for they know not what they do.

-Robert Capozzi

Re: the cult of the state

Bob I was, of course, speaking metaphorically when I refereed to the "cult of the omnipotent state." However, if you want to see people worshiping the state, spend a day on Capitol Hill and see the pilgrims who come to pray to the high priests of the state (e.g. lobby Representatives and their staffs) for solutions to all of life's problems.

Re: Reform the LP

Paul Gessing's comments on Lew Rockwell dismisses my friend, mentor, and all-round hero as a "libertopian" who takes an "all or nothing" approach. This is a misstatement of Lew's beliefs. In fact, Lew, who served as Ron Paul's chief of staff before founding the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, favors small steps as long as they move us toward the goal of liberty. Lew's objection to the Libertarian Reform Caucus is based on concerns that the LRC is watering down the libertarian message, making unacceptable compromises with statism for short-term political gains, and thus harming the chances of us achieving our long-term goals. If the Libertarian Reform Caucus where pursing a Ron Paul approach of being radical in message while mainstream in presentation Lew would cheer the LRC. One big difference between Ron Paul's approach and the LRC is that Congressman Paul has put monetary policy and the gold standard at the center of his agenda, whereas the LRC seems to want to downplay the gold standard in order to appear "mainstream."

Click here for Murray Rothbard's approach to strategy.

Feds tell company: Fire CEO, or else!

This is one disturbing news story.

The short version is: a US Atty is urging the Board of Bristol-Myers to sack its CEO. Why?

The government contends that the CEO essentially “cooked the books” by “overloading of wholesalers with inventory to meet quarterly sales targets.” In the biz, this is more commonly known as “channel stuffing.”

I’m feeling mighty conflicted about this one. I’m not a fan of government threatening corporations, and dictating hiring and firing decisions. On the other hand, “cooking the books” is fraud. Fraud, for me, is a form of theft. (I have direct experience –from the inside—of corporations that defraud, misrepresent, cook the books, etc. It’s ugly business.)

Such direct government action sends chills down my spine. On the other hand, hiding such book cooking is a relatively easy thing to do by a motivated management team. Leaving this to investor lawsuits basically ensures that such practices generally go undetected.

One idea I’ve floated is that the markets, NYSE and NASDAQ, should be the leaders in such matters. They should be the ones to police financial integrity. I’d go so far as to say that they should administer polygraphs periodically to CEOs and CFOs, much like corporations can do to their employees, especially ones in “sensitive” areas. No corporation or its officers have the “right” to be publicly traded. If they object to polygraphs, they could take the company private. Sarbanes-Oxley would be completely unnecessary, were this to be implemented.

-Robert Capozzi

The Cult of the Omnipotent State?

Bridging on Norm Singleton’s great blog, yes, it’s important to remember that government is often inept in its overreaching, usurping ways. Not only do those in government (almost always) impose its temporary will on a largely docile general public, but it does so in a most ham-handed, Keystone Cop-ish style. Witness the response to Hurricane Katrina, for example. Pulling back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz, we find a craven, neurotic, scheming little man, fearful of his own shadow. Or, perhaps, we should look at government players as a small band of Gollums, that withered, piteous little creature from Lord of the Rings…ever scheming, ever desirous of “The Ring.”

Unfortunately, our set of Gollums possess nuclear weapons. They’ve even used them, twice. Gollum may be inept on balance, but my goodness can he ever do damage to humanity!

Still, the term “cult of the omnipotent state” is why I blog today. What the HECK does it mean? Breaking it down, “omnipotent” means “all powerful.” “Cult” means a small group the “worships” something, in this case, the all-powerful state. Step back. Does anyone know anyone who worships the all-powerful state? They might sort of worship a very powerful state, sure. All powerful? No.

I suggest putting that overwrought, obscure term in the dustbin. “Cult of the omnipotent state” adds no light, only confusion, to our understanding of civil society.

-Robert Capozzi

Is Liberty on the March, Backwards???

In an August 17, 2006 article written for the Financial Times, Michael Lind argued that the last decade has seen "the utter and final defeat of the libertarian movement." Citing examples such as the failure to reform Social Security through the adoption of private accounts, healthcare through widespread use of individual "health savings accounts," public education, through vouchers, and the continued existence of a minimum wage, Lind argues that "The libertarian moment has passed. It will not come again, and its defeat as a force in US politics will change the definitions of right, left and centre not just in the US but also, the world."

That is quite a sweeping statement and indeed there have been several failures of liberty in recent years, but history is a cyclical thing and I think Lind's arguments are simply off the mark. First and foremost, for the 12 years between the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11, liberty was really on the march. The size of the federal government was shrinking relative to the rest of the economy, welfare was reformed, speed limits were raised (name another bogus federal law that affected people more on a daily basis), and government was steadily becoming less important as a part of people's lives.

Post-9/11, there can be no doubt that liberty is on the retreat here in America. Abolishing public schools in favor of vouchers was a tough sell at best and may not be the answer anyway. States are experimenting with school choice, but change is slow. Social Security is not going to be reformed overnight and Bush was probably the wrong guy to do it. After all, how is Bush to talk seriously about heading off a massive, unfunded liability when he is expanding Medicare?

To the author's other points, Health Savings Accounts are now in place and are growing more popular. In the two years that HSAs have been available for purchase, more than 3.2 million individuals have signed on. True, it took Bush's aforementioned Medicare expansion to get them, but we do have them. Lastly, yes, we have a minimum wage and it probably will never be abolished, but one thing both the left and right can agree on is that the minimum wage is becoming less of a factor economically-speaking.

So, while the "War on Terror" and the Bush Administration have been tough on liberty (both our civil liberties and to a lesser extent our economic liberties) I wouldn't bury the libertarian movement just yet. Hopefully, the next President will rely less on fear as a governing tool and will at least take a quick read through the Constitution before acting. Regardless, if the Estonia can spend 50 years under communist rule and emerge with a Steve Forbes-designed flat tax, surely libertarian ideas must be pretty resilient.

9--11 and cult of the omnipotent state

Alexander Cockburn exposes the flaws in the thinking of the 9-11 conspiracy theorists:

"One characteristic of the nuts is that they have a devout, albeit preposterous belief in American efficiency, thus many of them start with the racist premise that “Arabs in caves” weren’t capable of the mission. They believe that military systems work the way Pentagon press flacks and aerospace salesmen say they should work. They believe that at 8.14 am, when AA flight 11 switched off its radio and transponder, an FAA flight controller should have called the National Military Command center and NORAD. They believe, citing reverently (this is from high priest Griffin) “the US Air Force’s own website”, that an F-15 could have intercepted AA flight 11 “by 8.24, and certainly no later than 8.30”.

They appear to have read no military history, which is too bad because if they did they’d know that minutely planned operations – let alone responses to an unprecedented emergency -- screw up with monotonous regularity, by reason of stupidity, cowardice, venality, weather and all the other whims of providence."

I have thought for some time that a belief in the omnipotent state is the root cause of some people's insistence that some in the government "were in on" 9-11. These people were likely taught at a very young age that the government had the power to make all things right and protect them from all evil. Thus, they cannot accept that the government could be so incompetent as to fail to stop something like the 9-11 attacks. Therefore, the only logical explanation is that those in charge of the state where somehow "in on" the events of 9-11. The logical result of this type of thinking is an emphasis on getting state power into the hands of good people, so we can all benefit from the all-mighty state. Libertarians should have no problem believing that the state is both evil and stupid.

Thanks to Charles Featherstone at the lewrockwell.com blog for bringing this to my attention.

9/11/01

It's been five years since that fateful day. What happened then? Conspiracy theories aside, a few crazed lunatics schemed to commandeer airliners, fly them into major facilities in the US, all in the name of -- I guess -- getting attention. Like other zealots before them, their hatred drove them to most heinous acts. Many completely innocent people died. The horror of all that saddens me greatly.

The acts were completely unjustified. The US response has been a tangled web of emotional and, perhaps, counter-conspiratorial bluster -- witness Iraq II.

In the name of those that died five years ago, cannot our nation take a breath? Who is "the enemy"? What is the purpose of all the strutting and fretting that has gone on since 9/11/01? Is it vengeance? Is it justice? Is that what THEY would have wanted?

Osama and his colleagues deserve a straight jacket, certainly. But, does all this bluster REALLY seem necessary?

No.

Let's honor our fellow citizens by dialing down our own revenge impulses.

Revenge does not bring back the dead. Is that not obvious?

-Robert Capozzi

Reform the LP?

Lew Rockwell discusses the Libertarian Reform Caucus and our own Carl Milsted in his recent piece "The LP's Turkish Delight." Lew Rockwell certainly has deeper roots in the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement than I do, but the thrust of his article was "libertarians and other opponents of massive state intervention into our daily lives will be corrupted by trying to gain power so they shouldn't even try."

I find his arguments naive at best and disingenuous at worst. Rockwell is a big proponent of "libertopia." That is, complete freedom, right now, and I don't want to get my hands dirty by voting or getting elected. Thankfully, the Founding Fathers of this nation (not to mention Ron Paul) didn't (don't) share this perspective. If Libertarians or any other party simply adopted genuine obedience to the US Constitution as a "platform," this would solve most of our problems and would serve as a rallying cry, not just to hard-core Libertarians, but to everyday Americans who are concerned with the road our nation is on.

True, we'd still have to contend with a monopolistic post office, but Congress could always amend the Constitution to eliminate it. Of course, if more constitutionalists (like Ron Paul) were elected to Congress we'd have had real hearings and Congressional accountability prior to the War in Iraq, most government spending and transfer programs (Medicare, Social Security, etc.) would be abolished or at least done on the state level, and we'd all be freer.

These sound like worthy goals to me! So, while the LP searches for a new identity, I think Rockwell and other "haters" should just back off.

Osama bin Laden as Cultural Icon

Five years after September 11th, the War on Terror's failings have become farcical and Osama bin Laden seems more like a cultural icon than a public menace. Bush is Wiley Coyote and he can't quite get his Road Runner. We laugh at the late night punchlines, but there is a sinister sadness that we won't ever feel safe again. This is our "new normal."

There is even a new board game which captures our witless pursuit of public enemy number one.

"Where on Earth is Osama bin Laden" is a take off of Where in the World is Carman Sandiego.

The game's rules are fairly straightforward,"if you get a card that mentions finding al-Qaeda members, you'll move forward. If you get a card that talks about invading Iraq, Saddam Hussein, WMDs, or "Mission Accomplished", you'll be going backwards..."

Perhaps even more appropriate would be a a Where's Waldo-type book series for kids... only you have to look for the guy clutching a suitcase nuke.

-- KDR

The Vitiated Center

Reason's magazines Brian Doherty, reviewing the latest by left-wing intellectual Eric Lott and Jeffery Hart's history of National Review, points out some important lessons for libertarians. Brian finds Lott's weakness a refusal to attempt to fashion a realistic strategy for achieving his political goals, or even bother to consider if his goals are realistic in the first place.

No one could ever accuse National Review of not taking political reality into account. In fact, Hart's book illustrates how conservatives went to the opposite extreme of Lott: losing their way by becoming exclusively focused on short term gains. The result is a conservative movement which nominally holds power, but has lost sight of, abandoned, or is simply incapable of achieving, any of the goals for which it initially sought power:

"If, as Bismarck said, politics is the art of the possible, then what is possible can and will shift. To be an intellectual force in creating that shift you have to be willing to step boldly outside the existing consensus. National Review has remained respectable and, as such, has been a great success in terms of circulation and shaping an active political movement. But the modern state and the modern-liberal values of regulation, taxing, spending, and loosening of certain social restrictions (while creating new ones) have continued their march to dominance, even if the National Review team had the victories of Ronald Reagan becoming president and Buckley being published in The New Yorker.

Standing ultimately not for any firm ideological viewpoint but for some version of the “most conservative electable candidate” led the magazine to a bizarre combination of success and impotence. Even as NR’s Ponnuru acknowledged, in defense of Bush, that the GOP has never really been serious about cutting government spending (so why gripe at Bush about it?), he wrote that defeat for Bush would be a “crushing blow” for the “organized conservatism” that is his audience. The Bushism that the magazine too often bows down to these days—defending his administration’s peccadillos and power grabs, mostly standing by him through some of the biggest expansions of domestic spending in the magazine’s history—stands for little recognizable in the magazine’s ideological tradition. As Hart acknowledges, that’s true even in matters of religion. Bush’s modern evangelical Christianity is distinct from the creedal and traditional Christianity-with-authority of NR’s Catholic roots.

Back in 1965, James Burnham wrote in NR that it was absurd for the right to try to fight Medicare. Forty budget-busting years later, NR’s man Bush has expanded the program to impossible proportions. While NR’s editors complain about that on occasion, it won’t lead them to abandon their “most conservative electable candidate.” What seems more realistic not in short-term political terms but in recognition of mathematical and economic facts: Burnham’s respectable centrism or the radical libertarianism that says such programs were illegitimate and disastrous?

Lasting political change of any sort, whether good or bad—from emancipation to woman’s suffrage to Social Security to the inevitable end of Social Security—starts on the radical fringe before it rules the center. A healthy intellectual discussion should not be restrained by toeing a middle line. As Eric Lott’s bizarre views prove, being radical isn’t the same as being right. But NR’s history suggests that being a politically realistic centrist doesn’t simply mean compromising on little things. Ultimately it makes you incapable of offering a true alternative to a status quo that can range from unmanageable to evil. NR’s past positions on de jure segregation as well as de facto segregation, and its typical embrace of and shilling for GOP pols who pay little but lip service to any conservative principle nowadays other than endless war, show what those who attack radicalism too often forget: the impotence of realism."

Workers of the world unite...for liberty

Sheldon Richman suggests that libertarians may make inroads with parts of the left if we emphasize how the current corporatist "mixed economy" harms working people and is far from the libertarian vision of a free society.

Evidence that at least parts of the left may be amiable to this approach is found in this piece from the left-wing website CounterPunch which properly laid the blame for the "housing bubble" at the feet of the the Federal Reserve. In fact, outside of Mises.org and LewRockwell.com, today one is more likely to find exposes on how the Fed damages the economy and harms working people on the anti-imperialist left then on the allegedly pro-free-market right. Furthermore, if you watch the Fed Chairman testify before the House Financial Services Committee you will notice that the only members who join Ron Paul in dissenting from the cult of the Fed are leftists like Barney Frank and Bernie Sanders.