The Love of Power vs. Power of Love

You can always count on Larry Reed of the Mackinac Center to put libertarian ideas into the simplest, most people-friendly terms. This column does not disappoint.

As Reed explains:

When real love is the motivator, people deal with each other peacefully. We use force only in self-defense. We respect one another's rights and differences. Tolerance and cooperation govern our interactions.

Simply put, allowing others to live their own lives is far more loving than is forcing them to behave you wish them to even if it is theoretically for their own good. That is an uncommon sentiment in today's world.

Korean Hostage Deal Versus Religious Liberty

What's more important: life or liberty?

The Korean government has apparently made a deal that will free hostages held by the Taliban, but it is banning its citizens from engaging in evangelical activities. If you are an evangelical, how could you let your government restrict you from doing what you believe is the will of God? Perhaps evangelicals will simply have to renounce their citizenship in the future -- giving up the "protection service" that governments offer -- in exchange for the right speak what is, in their view, the truth.

It seems despite the "War on Terror", these Taliban punks are succeeding in spreading their anti-liberalism to other countries...

/KDR

Wall Street's Nanny

One of the main reasons CounterPunch continues to be my favorite left-of-center web site is they are one of the few (only?) non-Austrian/libertarian sites to recognize how the Federal Reserve benefits the elites and harms working people.

For example, see Jackie Coor's essay on how the Federal Reserve's recent actions represent a form of nanny statism designed to protect the big banks and other major financial interests from ever having to face the consequences of their reckless behavior. So those at the top of the financial system profit from Federal Reserve created booms and then are protected by the Fed from the consequences of their "irrational exuberance." Nice work if you can get it.

Instead of using the current crises to began restoring honest money, Congress is scheming to using the current problems in the market as an excuse for yet more regulations. I am sure these new proposals will be as beneficial as Sarbanes-Oxley.

Fall reading

The Mises Institute has made the sixties anthology A New History of Leviathan available for free in PDF. This anthology is the fruit of Murray Rothbard's collaboration with anti-state leftists and contains a number of important essays by Rothbard and other leading libertarian and leftists scholars.

The Mises Institute has also republished Ron Paul's classic Freedom Under Siege.

Hey Hillary (and the rest of the nicotine Nazis)

before you launch another attack on smoking talk to Winnie Langley, who just turned 100 years old and celebrated by smoking her 170,000TH cigarette. Mrs. Langley, who began smoking at the age of seven shortly after World War I broke out, says tobacco never made her ill. Mrs. Langley also points out that many people smoked during the World Wars because smoking "...helped steady the nerves."

Another great, but obscure anti-war classic

While looking through the list of You Tube videos featuring the great early 80s Australian pop band Men at Work I came across their great anti-war song It's a Mistake.

The video's Cold War motif is a bit dated but the songs humorous attack on the venality and foolishness of those in charge of the warfare state still holds up.

The Rub on Vick

Up front, please know that I share a home with two dogs: Buddy The Wonder Dog and Queen Audrey, black labs both. I am careful to NOT say that I “own” them. Rather, I consider myself their butler. They are both consistently loving and compassionate, qualities that I aspire to but have yet to fully achieve.

So, as this news of Michael Vick’s admission to being a circus master to organized dogfighting and butchery has been in the headlines, my perspective has been evolving. This behavior was barbaric, most believe. Yet, some suggest that Vick and his colleagues were merely exercising their property rights over the dogs. Perhaps it was cruel, but some believe dogfighting should be legal. If we outlaw dogfighting, this leads to a slippery slope of outlawing slaughtering cows, pigs and chickens for food.

And perhaps that’s so, on one level. But, for me, outlawing cruelty to animals is quite a bit different than outlawing the eating of meat. Parents, for instance, in a sense “own” their children, but civil society does not allow parents to physically abuse kids like Vick’s associates did to the dogs. Property rights do not, in my view, trump the idea that cruelty should be dissuaded by law.

Is there a bright-line test for what constitutes “cruelty”? Not that I’m aware of. However, Vick & Co. were over it, I submit.

-Robert Capozzi

I Know An Old Lady...

For some reason, lately I've had that children's song "I know an old lady who swallowed a fly" in my head. I do pest control, and I somehow got it in my head when I was at a particular house approximately four months ago, and have gotten it back every single time I've serviced that house. So I've been mulling the lyrics over on a regular basis. The lady, for some inexplicable reason, swallowed a fly, and rather than doing the sensible thing by shrugging her shoulders and saying "Heh, it's just extra protein" and allowing the fly to take its natural course, she goes on to swallow successively larger animals, each in an attempt to deal with the previous animal, until she finally kills herself by swallowing something truly monstrous.

I had the sudden realization that this song could be considered analogously descriptive of how our society often attempts to solve problems. The problem is caused, in the first place, by society "swallowing" something that isn't good for it, adopting some error or injustice that begins to cause problems. However, rather than simply dealing with the injustice (because the injustice is perpetrated by the very people charged with dealing with injustice), a larger error is adopted in an attempt to correct the smaller error. This, of course, causes even larger problems, and it's almost as if people say to themselves "well, two wrongs may have failed to make a right, but hey, third time's a charm, right?"

Errors and problems compound, as at each stage, rather than dealing with the root cause of the problems, an even larger error is adopted to solve the problem. The cycle has been going on for so long we don't even remember how it started; we don' t know "why she swallowed the fly." At this rate, however, we'll swallow our horse, and then we'll be dead, of course!

It's kind of what it means to me to be a Free Liberal. So many people either close their eyes to social problems, or seeing them, agitate for more and more government control. I look and I ask, where could government control be contributing to the problem? How can this social problem be solved with freedom? I don't, upon seeing the gastrointestinal problems caused by the swallowing of a live bird, seek out a cat to send after it. Rather, I wonder if the bird might be removed.

Alberto Gonzales Steps Down

In case you haven't already heard, Gonzales stepped down as US Attorney General today. It is hard to overstate just how poorly he has performed his job of "upholding and protecting the United States Constitution."

For many in the media and the Democratic Party, Gonzales's legacy will be the US Attorney scandal which may or may not have had real importance for the Republic. What does matter and is directly relevant to our current situation is his prominent role in developing the Administration's positions on torture and domestic spying.

There's no doubt his legacy will be "dismal," but it is important he be remembered for the really outrageous behavior, not just the politically-motivated attorney scandal.

Aaron Russo, RIP

Hollywood producer and freedom movement activist Aaron Russo passed away yesterday. From my personal site:

An old friend, Hollywood icon and warrior for freedom just passed away. Hollywood producer and former presidential candidate Aaron Russo had been battling cancer for years and it finally caught up with him. I just spoke with immediate family members and confirmed his passing. [snip]

I’ll relay more information as the immediate family has time to deal with the situation.

If I had to guess the epitaph Aaron would prefer, it would be this: All your freedoms, all the time!

Award-winning filmmaker and libertarian political activist Aaron Russo succumbed to cancer Friday at age 64.

Russo was best known for his films, most famous among them Trading Places and The Rose, which won three Golden Globe awards in 1980.

What’s less well known is that he was also instrumental in bringing musical acts to the United States in the 1970s, including one of my all-time favorites, Led Zeppelin.

In his later years, though, Russo turned to politics. In 1996 he produced and starred in a film, Mad as Hell, where he criticized many government policies such as the national ID card, the war on drugs, and government regulation of alternative medicine. In 1998 he ran in the Republican primary for governor of Nevada but was defeated. In 2002, before he could decide whether to run again, he was diagnosed with bladder cancer.

In 2004 he ran for President under the Libertarian Party banner, but failed to get the nomination.

Most recently he produced a documentary film, America: Freedom to Fascism, showing a quest to discover which law requires Americans to pay federal income taxes and finding something quite different.

Iraq = Vietnam?

Once upon a time, some in the antiwar movement compared the war in Iraq to that in Vietnam. Of course, these comparisons were quickly and sometimes harshly quashed by supporters of the war.

Now, Bush himself is favorably comparing the two and saying that we should apply the lessons of Vietnam to the current situation in Iraq. Bush actually agrees with Ron Paul to an extent, but they are starting from polar opposite assumptions. Who is right?

Ron Paul points out that we wasted the lives of 58,000 US troops fighting in Vietnam and gained nothing. We got out and now Vietnam is a trading partner. Bush is concerned that many Vietnamese will die if we leave. Both are correct but Bush fails to realize that Iraqis and Americans alike are dying every day over there. It may get worse for a time if we leave, but ultimately some form of peace will be restored.

Most Americans agree that Vietnam was not worth it. Bush would seem to be wrong once again.

Strippers for Ron Paul on Tucker

A few days ago, I made a blog posting at another site about Strippers for Ron Paul. As a result, Tucker Carlson will be interviewing Michelle, who is a former stripper, Libertarian Party activist, co-blogger in several places, and hardcore Ron Paul supporter. The interview is tentatively scheduled for Friday evening at 6:45PM EST. Additional details here.

Bush: President for Life?

Philip Atkinson, author of the book A Study of Our Decline, argues that Bush should have followed the model of Julius Caeser in Iraq, slaughtering all Iraqis who did not comply with his demands. He also argues that he should make himself "President for Life."

If you are wondering from what hole in the ground Mr. Atkinson came, it should be no surprise that he is associated with right-wing uber-hawk Frank Gaffney and his Center for Security Policy.

While Atkinson may seem extreme, I'm sad to say that many formerly "limited-government conservatives" seem to be of the mind that we should give all power and authority to Bush and the federal government in order to protect us from the threat of "Islamo-fascism."

Those Pimple-Faced Ron Paul Online Spammers Strike Again

While "they" say Ron Paul supporters are a half-dozen kids hiding in their parents' basements spamming online polls, I'd like to know how they spammed these two events: Alabama and New Hampshire.

Here's the concluding clip from the one I observed:

No matter how many of his supporters admire, respect or adore him, this wasn’t about Ron Paul. At this point, Ron Paul is the face of the movement and his political accomplishments combined with his consistent conservative/libertarian track record have more than earned him this spot.

However, this is about a movement. A movement of an eclectic bunch of people who are very serious about freedom. This is the first time I’ve seen these groups of people work so well together to produce a tangible political result.

As the old-timers and political consultant types discussed the issue, there seemed to be almost universal agreement: No matter how Ron Paul does in the presidential election, there is a new movement afoot. Like the Goldwater era, this movement alone can transform the entire political landscape for an entire generation, or even more.

Giuliani's Dangerous Bluster

Rudy Giuliani lost all credit with me when he denied the obvious importance of blowback as it pertains to foreign policy in this exchange with Ron Paul in one of the early presidential debates.

That said, I had not really pondered the dangerous potential of a Giuliani presidency until I read this excellent article. Bombing Iraq and invading Cuba as Giuliani appears to advocate are two acts that will do nothing to enhance our place in the world, our civil liberties, our budget situation, or, for that matter, our security. None of the Republicans (besides Ron Paul) look very good, but Giuliani may just be the most dangerous.

The Nazi Welfare State

Did the German people acquiesce to Nazi rule because of Hitler's extensive welfare state? That is the thesis of Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, a provocative new book by Götz Aly. Reason's Michael Moynihan provides an insightful and largely favorable review although he disagrees with Aly's conclusions. The willingness of people to put up with tyranny in exchange for the illusion of economic security is something libertarians, free liberals, and all of us in the freedomnista movement should spend more time examining.

Harry Potter's alright, but make mine Buffy

Those looking for an intelligent, well-written, fictional exploration of the issues of pre-emptive war and other aspects of the war on terror could do worse than checking out Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Season 8, the new comic book series by Joss Whedon, mastermind of the Buffy TV series.

Most Free Liberal readers know Whedon through his libertarian-themed sci-fi show Firefly and its movie follow-up Serenity, but he first claimed a spot in cult-TV history with Buffy. During its seven-year run, Buffy was one of the rare shows that was consistently well written and never insulted its audience's intelligence. The only show that rivaled (and sometimes suppressed) Buffy was its spin-off Angel.

Warning: Major spoilers after the jump

Joss' new comic series picks up where the TV series left off, with Buffy and her "scobby gang" finding and training the army of slayers created in the last episode's climatic battle with the "First Evil." However, the US Government has deemed Buffy and a slayer army a threat to humanity. The Government is convinced that Buffy and her army will eventually grow dissatisfied merely using their powers to protect humanity from the vampires, demons, and other things that go bump in the night. At some point, the slayers will decide to use their powers to remake the human world to their liking, and thus go from being humanity's protectors to humanity's oppressors. The US army is prepared to use every means at their disposal--including alliances with a very evil witch and a wannabe warlock--to launch a pre-emptive strike on the slayers.

While the analogy with recent events seams obvious, readers should not expect a simple "Buffy good, government bad" morality play. Knowing Joss, the storyline will likely include more than a few instances where the audience will be lead to question whether Buffy and the rest of the slayers do pose a threat to humanity and whether Buffy is really all that different from her nemesis. My description hardly does this remarkable tale justice, take my word for it and buy these books. You won't regret it, time spent with Joss Whedon is always time well spent.

A bad argument for ending prohibition

is that the state can profit by taxing it. A group in California, calling itself Let us pay taxes, is petitioning the Govenator to support legalizing marijuana so they can help reduce California's budget deficit by getting high and paying taxes. People begging to be taxed, what are they...oh never mind.

Hit tip: Nick Gillespie Here's Walter Block on the folly of auguring for an end to drug prohibition to enrich the state.

The Simpsons as Free Liberal Mythology?

I’ll try not to give TOO much away for those who’ve yet to see The Simpson’s: The Movie. But while a farce, aspects of the film fit nicely into a Free Liberal point of view.

First, Homer – the ultimate self-centered narcissistic consumer – realizes that he has contributed in a big way to an environmental calamity. It’s such calamity that the government is planning to take an action that will jeopardize the very existence of Springfield. Homer has fled the scene, yet his conscience impels him to do the right thing, even though it appears that the “right thing” will be dangerous for him.

Indeed, Homer realizes that by helping others, he will help himself in most important ways. This notion may be unsettling to atomistic freedomistas, who tend to point to Gordon Gekko (“Greed, for lack of a better term, is good”) from the film Wall Street as their creed. At a higher level of inquiry, however, Homer is confronted with a similar choice to that of Neo/Mr. Anderson in The Matrix, played by Keanu Reeves. Homer’s journey is all the more fateful, of course, because unlike Neo, Homer directly contributed to Springfield’s plight.

Second, government is shown in The Simpson’s: The Movie to be poor doctors of a dysfunctional situation. Doctors are taught to “first do no harm,” yet government actors attempt to overreact to a threat in a most Draconian manner. Maggie Simpson has the better idea of attempting to persuade fellow Springfielders to take action before a calamity ensues. (Maggie’s chart does look a bit like Al Gore’s in An Inconvenient Truth and is perhaps a bit alarmist, but she advocates in the appropriate direction.) The Feds, however, have a better idea, one that is hard to conclude is anything but a “cure” that is far worse than the disease.

Being restricted from giving away too much, I recommend this film to all. Not only is the mythology instructive, but the Simpson’s producers have an uncanny and seemingly bottomless ability to make us laugh.

-Robert Capozzi

Agreeing with Jonah Goldberg -- Twice!

I normally don't like Jonah Goldberg. He is a National Review neocon who cheered long and hard for the Iraq War.

That said, I actually agree with the guy on a few recent topics. One issue is the evolving use of the words "liberal" and "progressive." As Goldberg points out, conservatives have so vilified the term "liberal" that left-wing Democrats are now embracing the term "progressive." Whether socialism is really progressive is a story for a different day, but perhaps the hard-core left's abandonment of "liberal" will allow centrist and freedom-embracing political movements to re-take the term. Only time will tell, but I say let the statists have"progressive."

Another recent Goldberg column makes sense as well, specifically this one in which he makes the case that voters' lack of basic information about the US system of government devalues the entire system. As Goldberg accurately notes, there are no easy solutions to the problem, but I think it points strongly to the Founding Fathers' wisdom in setting up a "Republic" and not a "Democracy."

While I wouldn't necessarily embrace any particular system of testing or property ownership, we have certainly gotten out of whack in placing the ability to vote on a pedestal as far as our rights are concerned. The rights outlined in the US Constitution are far more important than the mere ability to punch a ballot.

Ron Paul supporter spreading democracy from Iraq

Here's the news item from Iowa:

This weekend's Republican Straw poll is being challenged.

That comes from a national group that is threatening legal action over the voting machines that the Republican Party of Iowa is using.

A supporter of Republican candidate Ron Paul, who is not connected to the campaign, made the legal threat, NewsChannel 8 reported.

The Iowa GOP said the straw poll is fraud-proof [editorial note: As the inside-the-campaign guy who counseled Michael Badnarik to challenge 2004 election results in Ohio and New Mexico, you will not find me accepting the word of GOP officials without question. Because of this and many other election place irregularities, Ken Blackwell is now politically unemployed.]

At a Creston restaurant, Paul greeted people Wednesday and hoped some of them would vote for him at the Ames straw poll.

"It's pretty important and if we do well, we'll certainly send a strong signal, but I have no idea how well I'll do. We're doing our very best," Paul said.

Paul campaign staffers acknowledge asking Iowa Republican leaders to count paper ballots in the straw poll as well as using voting machines.

They said the Diebold machines to be used have been decertified in other states.

Michelle had a valid point:

Could they have planned anything more insulting than purple ink? Iowa is not Iraq. And, to complicate matters, there’s a little conflict of interest in the Diebold certification. A member of Mitt Romney’s Leadership Team is the auditor.

Some are saying that it isn’t a big deal because it’s not a “real” election; it is a basically an opinion poll. That’s a crock of horseshit. We all know that Ames is a decider of who moves forward in the race. If it is flawed, it will affect what happens next.

If you really want to certify the Diebold machines, use them in Iowa while also using a paper ballot system as Ron Paul’s team suggested. Then count the paper ballots under the watchful eyes of all candidates. Compare the end totals. It would certainly be an easier test this weekend than November ‘08. If the numbers add up, fabulous. If they don’t, we might have a shot at fixing the problem without screwing up another real election.

I'll add the following. If they are going to use purple thumbs in Iowa, why not import democracy to most of our other states, as well. After all, if the Iraqi citizens could figure out how to vote for just one of over 100 candidates, surely we could figure out how to vote more more than two candidates on our political tickets.

Notes from the Parlor Game

Over at Cato Unbound of all places, Peter T. Leeson makes the case, I think, for anarchy. Or, at least, that "self-governance works better than you think."

Free Liberals will generally agree with that one. Of course people should be free to govern their lives. But Leeson seems to want to push the envelope with empirical evidence that a complete absence of government "works better" than is commonly understood.

Fair enough.

His evidence was, to me, wanting. Leeson cites the history of pirates and their "honor among thieves" codes of conduct. Why we would want to apply the example of pirates to modern society escapes me.

He notes that sunny Somalia is, in fact, anarchy in action, right now. Yes, Leeson admits, Somalia is a challenging place to live, but since the shackles of a state were broken, things have gone from something like "terribly horrific" to just "horrific." That is progress, admittedly, but it seems hardly something to crow about.

Mostly, though, I found wanting of Leeson's application of self-governing anarchy in places like the US and most of the developed world. With trillions of dollars of assets on the line every day, why would people who have much to lose wish to give up protection from foreign invaders. Quaint 19th century-style theory can be grand, even intellectually stimulating, but the world now has stockpiles of nuclear weapons and WMD. With that reality in the balance, Leeson needs to develop a plausible theory for how people in places like the US would possibly want complete and total "self government," i.e., anarchy.

Until that's forthcoming, I'll keep this article in the science fiction files.

-Robert Capozzi

The Joys of Transpartisanship

Yesterday, I attended a book forum at the Cato Institute, entitled A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency. It featured the author, Glenn Greenwald, with comments by Lee Casey, Partner, Baker Hostetler.

The chatter afterward was, well, interesting. The room seemed entirely polarized, with Bush bashers and boosters. Then there was me. I fell into a conversation with boosters, and I tried my best to be respectful. These stalwarts seemed to recite the talking points one hears on right-wing talk radio. But one finally said: We had to do it (invade Iraq).

I could no longer contain myself. Had to? Like there were no other options?

Yes, he had WMD, was killing his own people, had his eyes set on Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, of course, I responded, Saddam was a bad guy. But did the US have to invade?

They backed off, half-heartedly acknowledging that “mistakes were made.” They then changed the subject to the firings of US attorneys. A president can fire anyone he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

Yes, that seems correct, I responded. But don’t you acknowledge that such politically motivated firings don’t play too well with the public? Has it occurred to you that Bush’s high-handed “style” could well lead to a Hillary Clinton presidency?

These fine gentlemen were stunned and silent about that one. It seemed my work was done there, so I slid over to talk with a young liberal. This fellow was working for a liberal lobbying group. He reported that he likes his work, even though some of their clients were “corporate monoliths.”

Last I checked, I said, those companies have competition. Has it ever occurred to you that the federal government is the biggest monolith of all?

The government does some good things, he shot back.

Perhaps, I say, but it’s still the biggest “monolith” of them all, yes?

He deflected the point.

Conclusion: Transpartisanship can be lonely, but it’s a lot of fun.

-Robert Capozzi

Logical Atomism and Truth Claims

At Marginal Revolution, Tyler Cowen explains his differences in analysis with those of his colleague Robin Hanson:

[Robin] likes to focus on one very central mechanism in seeking an explanation or developing policy advice. Modern physics and Darwin hold too strong a sway in his underlying mental models. He is also very fond of hypotheses involving the idea of a great transformation sometime in the future, and these transformations are often driven by the mechanism he has in mind. I tend to see good social science explanations or proposals as intrinsically messy and complex and involving many different perspectives, not all of which can be reduced to a single common framework. I know that many of my claims sound vague to Robin's logical atomism, but I believe that, given our current state of knowledge, Robin is seeking a false precision and he is sometimes missing out on an important multiplicity of perspectives. Many of his views should be more cautious.

I find this to be the difference between myself and Rothbardian libertarians whom I encounter. The desire to use basic principles (axioms) to inform an entire system of answers to all of life's choices and ethical dillemmas is appealing, In this framework, liberty and the free-market are favored because it is always wrong to initiate force. This is a good general rule. But, I favor liberty as a key value mainly because I believe the government lacks the knowledge to provide for the betterment of all. Similarly, as a Hayekian, I don't believe anyone has the knowledge to provide for the betterment of all. The free-market and its spontaneous order find the efficient solution where no one person could have known it ahead of time. I don't believe it is possible for anyone to hold a philosophy which holds all the answers to all questions.

In a (non-political) conservative manner, I find the more radical truth claims, made by anarcho-capitalists to be overly reliant on the power of liberty to solve all problems. There is wisdom in society for not immediately jumping on the no-government bandwagon. I believe this is the main reason why the Libertarian Party cannot become more successful without becoming less radical.

/KDR

Response to Randy Barnett

Recently I blogged about Randy Barnett's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal justifying libertarian support for the Iraq War. Needless to say, I was not the only one who found Barnett's logic wanting. Robert Higgs of the consistently libertarian Independent Institute responded to Barnett with a well written letter.

The Push to Keep Us in Iraq

While all of the momentum at the grassroots/public opinion level has been geared towards getting US troops out of Iraq and even Congress has made half-hearted efforts even if those efforts overlooked better options.

Something that has not been seen, at least outside of the Bush Administration, is the "hey, we're winning the war" attitude that was so prevalent in the early days of the invasion. That changed recently when supposed "Iraq experts" and supposed "critics of the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq" O'Hanlon and Pollack wrote an article appearing in the New York Times making the case that we "just might win" in Iraq.

Of course, as Glenn Greenwald documents so well, these two were cheerleaders for the invasion and did not criticize the Administration until nearly everyone had left the pro-war bandwagon. And, of course it is worth pointing out that the supposedly liberal Times itself was a big backer of the war and that publication only began sniping at the Administration when the war was clearly going poorly.

When it comes to foreign policy, the "establishment" unites. Hopefully the continued pressure being put on Congress by the American people can get our troops home in a timely fashion -- without them going through Iran first.