Thought Crimes and Misdemeanors

Brigitte Bardot is being tried in France for nativist remarks she made in a letter to the newspaper. Will American defenders of socialism and hate crimes laws use this as another example of how wonderful and "progressive" Europe is today? Free speech as long as it is approved. Final exit on the road to serfdom?

Perhaps, we will see French writers who stand in opposition to the intellectual status quo adopting what Leo Strauss called, "a peculiar technique of writing, and therewith to a peculiar type of literature, in which the truth about all crucial things is presented exclusively between the lines."

At least on the 'Net, we will see more and more blogs emerge where dissidents can speak freely. Wait, are we talking about France, or China?

Frightening.

/KDR

Blast from the Past

I was checking out traffic stats and links from another site where I write when this old New York Times article caught my eye. The article, which was published in 1987, was about Russell Means, who was Ron Paul's contender for the Libertarian Party nomination at the time.

Russell Means, who once led an American Indian group in armed rebellion at Wounded Knee, S.D., is now campaigning for the Libertarian Party's Presidential nomination.

Russell Means, who once led an American Indian group in armed rebellion at Wounded Knee, S.D., is now campaigning for the Libertarian Party's Presidential nomination.

''We will prove to every American that America is becoming one big Indian reservation,'' said Mr. Means, who contends that non-Indians face the same danger of losing their land and their rights that Indians have faced for centuries.

''I challenge every American to make a list of what they feel their individual rights are, and then, item by item, find out how much government is interfering with those rights,'' he said. ''I have been trying to throw off the yoke of government interference in our lives since I joined the American Indian Movement.''

Mr. Means reminds visitors to his log home on a hill overlooking the village of Porcupine that Lincoln also spent time in a log cabin before moving to the White House. ''That proves I'm of Presidential timber,'' he said.

Like Ron Paul, Means is currently in the news again. Currently, Means and other delegates representing at least some members of the Lakota confederation are currently seeking diplomatic recognition of a status somewhere between "annulled" and "legally divorced" from the United States of America.

No Rights?

"Where do you get off demanding services, rights and mandatory citizenship?" said Manassas resident Robert Stephens. "Who invited you? You cry for your rights? You have none."

This is from an AP wire article about Prince William County, Va's (where I live) unanimous vote to deny county services to illegal aliens.

A disturbing trend on the political right is appearing. George Bush and neoconservatives believe that foreign citizens have fewer rights than Americans. A foreigner has no right to the same due process, apparently. See Gitmo.

Does the pursuit of justice, due process, limited government, liberty, and "love thy neighbor as thyself" end at the border?

I hope not.

/KDR

Freedom of Speech...yeah, right

The video of the kid being tasered by the cops at a John Kerry speech is disturbing (on Constitution Day of all days!), but Paul Craig Roberts asks the salient question: "Why didn't John Kerry do anything to stop the out-of-control police?

The said truth is:

The Bush Republicans and their Democratic toadies have, in the name of "security," made all of us powerless. While Sen. John Kerry and his Democratic colleagues stand silently, the Bush administration has stolen our country from us and turned us into subjects.

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

Speaking of Marijuana and Al Gore III

Jim Hightower has some entertaining cartoon videos on his website. The one about marijuana is great.

Defending Al Gore III

Al Gore's son arrested for marijuana. Sounds like a media feeding frenzy in the making. Good to see at least one conservative who thinks we need to reform our marijuana laws and tax it and regulate it instead.

The Once and Future Republic of Vermont

Before reading this article, I thought Texas was the most likely state to secede from the Union, but apparently some Vermonters are getting a bit antsy about the path this nation is heading down.

While Vermont does not leap to mind as one of the most economically-free or "libertarian" states (New Hampshire or Nevada probably win that distinction), the authors make some good points. Plus, after taking a look at their website, I'd say that the Second Vermont Republic folks are rather "Free Liberal" in their thinking.

While they may not succeed or even in their heart of hearts wish to succeed, we need more people who are concerned about the direction this country is headed to stand up....kudos to the Second Vermont Republic!

Superbowl Gambling and Silly Laws

Knowing the way things work on the Internet, the phrase "Superbowl gambling" will gain this posting a massive amount of hits? Why is that? Just because gambling -- whether it is on football or the NCAA Tournament -- may well be America's real pastime. As Al Neuharth, the founder of USA Today points out, the sheer popularity of gambling makes governmental efforts to stop it look downright silly.

I couldn't agree more. Although I'm not much of a casino gambler, putting a few bucks on NFL games and filling out a bracket sheet for March Madness are enjoyable and time-honored traditions. Government meddlers need to leave us alone.

Atoms in the Here and Now

This is only a blog, not a fully fleshed out response, but here’s perhaps some food for thought. Dmitry Chernikov recently criticized those who suggest that “atomism” or “methodological individualism” are wanting. He states:

“Given liberty, people are settled into a system of social cooperation that permits all of them, through mutual self-interested assistance, to satisfy their sometimes vastly different desires at the same time.”

As a general and theoretical statement, I agree. But, could it be that Chernikov’s model of liberty is a construct that has not, is not, and for the foreseeable future (if ever) will not be achieved. Is there an imperative that says that all analysis must be tied back to Chernikov’s liberty construct?

That’s up to the “atom” – the individual, but in my case, the answer’s No. There are simply too many areas that require more immediate resolution. There’s no time to wait for Chernikov’s liberty construct to develop before non-atomistic aggression to be checked, if not reversed.

One obvious exception is the environment. At the moment, broad swaths of the Earth are effectively owned in common…the air and water come to mind. Any individual polluter could be said to be acting in their own interest. Yet, in aggregate, unchecked pollution is a palpable threat to the health of all. I for one am open to non-atomistic analysis of this situation, and open to steps to remedy the danger. Of course, longer term, I am open to the evolution of real property rights in what is now common resources.

Does anyone deny that we’re nowhere near anything like property rights to the air? Does the emphysema patient have to sue all those who – again, in aggregate – violated his or her rights by spewing toxins into the air? Or until some sort of system of torts evolves in the common law?

Personally, I don’t find waiting to be satisfying. Perhaps Chernikov does. I suggest, however, that the charge of atomism isn't a "bogeyman." Not all human action fits neatly into the methodological individualism box.

-Robert Capozzi

The Last Straw for Bush

I don't know how many times I heard the argument during the 2004 Presidential Election that the best reason to vote for Bush was because his nominees for the Supreme Court would be better than the alternative. While that may ultimately prove true, one of their first major decisions on individual rights, in Hudson v. Michigan. which allows police to enter a person's house without knocking, is not a good start.

I don't expect to agree 100% of the time with Supreme Court justices, but Bush picked Alito and Roberts in part because of their deference to elected officials, regardless of what the Constitution says. In the meantime, the march towards more powerful, more authoritarian, and more intrusive government continues under President Bush.

Paul Gessing

Government Goons Murder Puppies!

If this story doesn't make you oppose the drug war, then, well, maybe the fact that it ruins millions of human lives every year will convince you.

Paul Gessing

Hollywood Just Doesn't Get It

As we rapidly approach June 23rd, the one year anniversary of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, this story made me pause and think about just how out of touch most Hollywood elites are with the rest of Americans.

Where was Hannah when Susette Kelo and her neighbors when they were evicted by the city of New London recently? How about a little righteous outrage over the fact that any of us can now have our homes taken away from us for any reason, by some government bureacrat?

No, instead, we have actress Daryl Hannah sitting in a tree to stop the owner of the land on which an urban garden has been located. Worse, Hannah and her cadre of anti-property rights activists are only making it less likely that land owners will allow others to use their land on a temporary basis because when the time comes that they do need it back, the property owner is in for nothing but ingratitude and trouble.

Paul Gessing

Mr. Libertarian

New from the Ludwig Von Mises' Institute, the complete Libertarian Forum Murray Rothbard's newsletter which ran from 1969-1984. The Libertarian Forum served as Rothbard's primary outlet for his commentary on current events and this collection provides Rothbard's real time commentary on the major economic, political, and social events of the time, plus detailed accounts of Rothbard's feuds and friendships in "this movement of ours." Plus Rothbard's movie reviews, published under the name Mr. First Nighter!

The Mises Institute has also republished Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto For a New Liberty, Rothbard's best selling work. Even those Free Liberals who reject Rothbardanism can benefit from reading these works. At the least, they will come to understand why Murray N. Rothbard was, is, and will always be known as Mr. Libertarian and the greatest enemy of the state.

Free Liberals may also be interested in Roderick Long's Rothbard's Left and Right" Forty years later, which takes a fresh look at Rothbard's attempt to form alliances with the left and examines whether today's libertarians should look left for allies.

Thinking about Bob thinking about Darfur

In "Thinking Outloud about Darfur," Bob Capozzi says American military intervention in Darfur would not be unconstitutional if declared by Congress. True, but even a cursory glance of the Founders' writings on the war shows they would be repulsed by the idea the United States should embark on "humanitarian" intervention unrelated to the national security interest of the United States. The Founders recognized the threat to republican institutions and individual liberty posed by empowering the government to go abroad "in search of monsters to destroy."

Intervention in Darfur is also unjust because it involves taking the lives and treasure of others by force to be used for what someone else has decided is a good cause. Before someone objects that that may be true if there where a draft but today America has an all-volunteer force, consider that people enlist in the US armed forces to serve and protect America, not to serve as global cops. To send them into danger, and I don't think anyone who seriously thinks about intervention in Darfur thinks we can avoid causalities, is to violate the government's responsibility to ensure those who have volunteered to defend the country are only asked to give their lives in defense of the country, not on some "humanitarian" mission. Are supporters of military action in Durfur prepared to explain to a future Cindy Sheehan that the US Government was acting justly when it sent her son to his grave in Darfur?

If that argument is unpersuasive consider that intervention in Darfur will have to be financed. The money will either come from taxes or debt. By what right does the government take my money, or saddle future generations with debt, for military interventions unrelated to my, or my families and neighbors, security? Under Lockean "social contract" theory, which most limited government libertarians rely on for their justification of the state, the reason I submit to government rule and agree to support the current government is so it will provide me with safety, not so the government can force me to support humanitarian crusades with either my blood or treasure. Davy Crockett's rule that money spent on purposes unrelated to the proper functions of government are "not yours to give" applies just as much to the warfare state as it does to the welfare state.

Finally, the enthusiasm of certain members of the left, including many who opposed the Iraq war, leads me to wonder about the long-term sustainability of a liberal-libertarian-free liberal anti-empire alliance.

Go see Sophie Scholl-The Final Days

V is great, but for a truly moving and inspiring tale of resistance to the state, don't miss Sophie Scholl-The Final Days the true story of the arrest, integration, show trial, and execution of Sophie Scholl, a leader of The White Rose. The White Rose was a group of students in 1940's Germany who distributed anti-Nazi pamphlets. Sophie, and several of her colleagues, where executed for committing the ultimate crime against the state: telling the truth.

Particularly powerful is the final interrogation scene where Sophie refuses to compromise with the Nazis, even though she knows her refusal to "confess" her errors in opposing the state will result in her death. Christian libertarians will appreciate the portrayal of Sophie's Christianity and the integrator's atheism. Given the increasing tendency of the right to label all criticism of the war as "treason" it is interesting that one of the main charges brought against the White Rose pamphleteers was "demoralizing the troops," as if the troops could not tell the war was not going as well as their leaders claimed until they heard about the White Rose pamphlets.

A brilliant portrayal of a hero who truly spoke truth to power.

Cross-posted at lewrockwell.com.

Ron Paul, Big-Government Believer?

Sadly, the answer to that question is "yes" when it comes to immigration. As Jacob Hornberger points out, backers of so-called get-tough immigration reforms are in denial of economic and political reality. Ron Paul, and so-called "conservatives" who are falling for the siren song of even more massive government intervention in our labor and immigration markets are trying to do the impossible and are once again violating their core values of smaller government to fight against and criminalize behavior that is by-and-large beneficial to the country (that is, coming here to work for a better life).

The "war" on illegal immigrants is similar in many ways to the "war" on drugs. Rather than making a broad swath of people (or drugs) illegal, what we need to do as a nation is concentrate our energy and resources on the harmful aspects of each of these problems. We should work to keep felons and terrorists out by de-criminalizing a majority of them, just as we should work to minimize the harms associated with drugs and drug use by taking drugs out of the underground economy.

-- Paul J. Gessing

Offensive and Intolerable

Depicting the prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head was “offensive” say some Muslims. Other Muslims have gone as far as calling it “intolerable.”

There are many things in the world which fall under the “offensive” label, but not the other. If something is intolerable, it must be removed, changed, or destroyed. That is apparently where blasphemous cartoons are held by members of the Islamic faith. By extension, there is no tolerance for freedom of speech, because it would allow such blasphemy. The screaming mobs throughout the Middle East have called for the murder of those responsible for the cartoons. Effectively, these people are saying, “Give up your free speech or we will kill you.”

While it is possible that the cartoon was in fact offensive, it is hard to believe that it actually could be intolerable. No one is forced to read Danish newspapers, right? I disagree with many things my fellow citizens say every day. I either ignore them or confront them with an alternative position, but I don’t threaten to kill them.

What is offensive *and* intolerable is the proposition that it is OK to murder someone simply because you disagree with them. It is intolerable to effectively threaten the populations of many nations with an ultimatum to change their social policies or suffer violence.

Muslims demanding the censorship of the free press, under threat of violence, should know that they have deeply offended lovers of liberty like myself throughout the world. We speak out when any person’s basic human rights are threatened -- including Muslims. We oppose anyone who uses the tyranny of murder to stifle opposition – including Muslims.

Appeals to human rights only work when you consistently apply them. Reserving them for yourself and not supplying them to others is a sure way of losing all moral standing. The West should respect the citizens of the Middle East, but so must the Middle East respect the citizens of the West.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

A Priori Anarchists

My previous entry has inspired quite a few comments from Mr. Kinsella. Amazing comments, in my earth-bound opinion. They might be more understandable for those who live in the Platonic Astral Plane.

"If anarchy was indeed workable, then I would favor it."

Here we go again. Talk about what is "workable." An anarchist is someone who believes aggression is unjust and the state commits it. Period. It does not mean they think anarchy is "workable" (whatever that means).

I didn't say I was an anarchist; I said that I am a libertarian, only who loves liberty and dislikes aggression. I once was an anarchist, but determined that the non-anarchists are probably right: that anarchy would likely lead to something worse than the current state.

Mr. Kinsella states that one shouldn't care whether anarchy is workable or not. On the Lew Rockwell blog he states that workability should not interfere with normative discussions. By doing so he reminds me of the able-bodied young homeless in Asheville who have decided upon the normative goal of maximum leisure. Then, they complain when those of us who work for a living don't contribute to their unworkable philosophy.

Here is my normative assertion as a libertarian: aggression is bad.

The a priorists would argue that this assertion leads to the corollary that the state ought not exist becase the state performs aggression. The logic runs:

aggression is bad; the state aggresses; therefore, the state is bad.

Here is a conflicting corollary:

aggression is bad; battling warlords agress; therefore anarchy is bad.

There is aggression whether the state exists or not. To determine what the good is in this real world requires mixing the normative with the scientific. Do battling warlords aggress more or less than a modern welfare state?

-----
Then we have this whopper:

This talk further demonstrates my contention that empiricists tend to shun theory, rationalism, apriorism, and deduction and to adopt the positivist view of science that is in conflict with Austrian praxeology, which is an essential economic underpinning of genuinely "scientific" economic understanding.

Sorry, if it doesn't pass the test of experiment, it isn't theory, it's hypothesis. The point of view you express is the diametrical opposite of science; it is regression back to the thinking of universities in the Middle Ages.

A priori reasoning from very basic truths can work up to a point. But if the definitions and the axioms have even the slightest deviation from reality, the conclusions drift further from reality the more steps you take from your axioms. I wish more natural rights libertarians would study fuzzy logic...

---

Back on the Lew Rockwell blog he says:

I am not a sacrificial beast whose life is to be spent in a futile attempt to marginally benefit others. Have we libertarians turned into altruists? Do it if you want; but exhortations like this imply we libertarians have a duty to be activists. We do not. Our only libertarian duty is to avoid endorsing or employing aggression.

Why do I have this duty? Why should I never endorse an action that employing aggression even it results in a substantial net reduction in aggression? Why should I have a duty to advocate something that would not work? This statement strikes me as borderline religious. Is he implying that the Creator will be angered if I don't agree with a priori anarchism?

Why do I have a duty to watch the nation I grew up in devolve into tyranny? Why can I not do something about it?

If you wish to be an intellectual and not an activist, fine. I have no problem with that. My problem is with those who call themselves libertarian and get in the way of those of us who are actually trying to increase liberty -- and then have the gall to be self-righteous.
-----

In all this discussion I reiterate that my gripe is not with those who desire anarchy per se. My gripe is with those who contend that a libertarian must be an anarchist.

Admittedly, I do have some contempt for those who invoke proof by wishful thinking in their calls for anarchy.

On the other hand, I have great respect for people like David Friedman who written deeply and intelligently on the subject. I highly recommend The Machinery of Freedom to anyone, even though I now question the conclusion that there are fewer externality problems with zero government than small government.

And I might even support a venture to set up a stateless society on an island somewhere -- assuming that venture had a reasonable chance of success.

----
But I am not about to support doing such an experiment on a giant scale such as calling for the abolition of the United States of America! Undertaking such a dangerous project based upon "theory, rationalism, apriorism, and deduction" is the political equivalent of driving a nuclear waste tanker truck while stinking drunk.

Am I a Utilitarian?

Attorney Stephan Kinsella has written a response on lewrockwell.com to my article "The Need to be Anarchists." In it, I am accused of many bad things, mostly false. I will address only some of the accusations here.

Mr. Kinsella has claimed that I have let concerns of strategy and tactics cloud my judgement on the matter of principle. The opposite is true: my activism has led me to actually listen to the counter-arguments against Rothbard's utopian dreams. Turns out some of the counter-arguments are true.

However, I am by no means a utilitarian. I do not believe in initiating force whenever there is an opportunity to increase overall utility by doing so. I did not advocate such in my essay. I am advocating a position that is in between the natural rights school of libertarianism and the utilitarian view. My thesis is much closer to the former than the latter.

Mr. Kinsella writes:

Rather, as I have pointed out elsewhere, to be an anarcho-capitalist is simply to recognize (a) aggression is unjustified; and (b) even the minarchist state necessarily commits aggression (and is therefore unjustified). It does not mean one predicts such a situation will occur, or "is workable," etc. It only means that the anarchist libertarian opposes all forms of aggression

My position is subtly different. I posit that aggression is evil. Therefore, it should be minimized. This proposition does lead to different conclusions. For example:

If I was near Adolf Hitler and had a bomb that could destroy him and his cronies, I would happily use it, even if some innocent bystanders got killed. Better to kill a few than to allow millions to be murdered.

Mr. Kinsella's statement of libertarianism would allow the gas chambers to continue their operation in order to avoid the much smaller aggression of collateral damage. Taking his position to the extreme, blowing up Hitler and cronies would not be justifiable even if the collateral damage was limited to property damage.

Given the truly vile theorems that follow from Mr. Kinsellas moral axiom, I do proudly reject it. I am a libertarian, not a nit-picker. I value liberty highly, enough to actually do something about it that could possibly work.

If anarchy was indeed workable, then I would favor it. Zero aggression is better than some aggression. However, I am a scientist, not a philosopher. I demand evidence. I know of very few successful anarchistic civilized societies throughout history, and know of a great many instances where anarchy led to civil war, conquest, dictatorship, looting, pillaging, slave trading and/or feudalism. To extinguish the U.S. govenment without a practical replacement available is to put hundreds of millions of people at risk of far greater aggression.

I am a libertarian. I dislike aggression. Apparently, Mr. Kinsella doesn't care, as long as he is not the technical aggressor.

Now it is true that I do make some concession to utilitarianism in the sense that I also believe in government built roads and certain similar services. But the argument I used to justify such was not the utilitarian argument!!!!!!!!!!

The utilitarian argument would justify any amount of aggression as long as the benefit to people in general outweighed the cost to those aggressed upon. I did not make that argument at all.

I argued that the government could forcibly provide a service to taxpayers if the value of that service is at least twice that of the open market. This is a far narrower standard. First, it has to be a benefit to the specific taxpayer. Second, the government has to do much more than match what the market can do; it must exceed by at least double. My argument does not justify transfer programs.

Without government, you would have to pay far more for protection services. History has proven this time and time again. When Rome fell, the rich could no longer afford fancy villas. They were spending their wealth on castles and henchmen instead. The Celts in Britain learned just how valuable Roman protection was when the Saxons invaded. Later, the Anglo-Saxons did have a competitive protection system; however, they later learned that they would have been better off had they been forced to pay more for protection. William the Conqueror taught this harsh lesson.

Some tribal societies of old are considered to be anarchic by some libertarian thinkers. Notably, they have all been conquered. But even before conquest, they paid quite a bit for their inefficient defense system. Tribal societies were seen as warrior societies by surrounding civilizations, since nearly all men prepared extensively for war.

So, the data indicates great economies of scale for military defense. It also indicates that all will pay one way or another. It is a sunk cost. If the majority bands together to form a government, and taxes all to pay for defense, they are greatly reducing the cost even to those who object. Thus, the adequate compensation argument.

This is a very narrow "social contract." It is not a moral license for government to do whatever the majority wants it to do.

It is a practical look at how to maximize liberty.

Unlike Mr. Kinsella. I am a real libertarian.