Executing the DC Sniper

Last night, John Alan Muhammed, who brainwashed John Malvo, a teen, and manipulated him into a murder spree that terrorized the Washington area, was executed.

Personally, as one who lives there and lived in fear of death, I am not entirely displeased with this. Of course, this means that my opinion of the rightness of the execution is a bit clouded - much in the same way I would not seeing Osama bin Laden's head on a platter (although I believe he is already dead from kidney disease). Again, because I was within shrapnel range of the Capitol on September 11, having been evacuated from the Department of Labor two blocks away, my judgment on the issue of his fate is also clouded.

On Friday, a gunman went on a rampage and killed almost a dozen people at his former office, blaming the firm which fired him years before for his actions. He, the beltway shooter and bin Laden seem to have gone down a path of deliberate evil. The question is, does this evil merit execution?

While capital punishment is allowed under canon law, there is a condition. This can only occur if a suitable confinement is not possible - suitability including the risk posed to other inmates. This responsibity to make these decisions formerly rested with the sovereign. In a democracy, however, we are all sovereign so it is our call collectively - as well as our responsibility to protect innocent life (including the lives of other inmates).

In my opinion, murders are not altogether sane. If there is a reason for this insanity and it can be reversed with either medication or sobriety, it is not just to kill them. Indeed, after some period they should be released. Indeed, if there is no doubt about their guilt or their mental state, they should be allowed to plead guilty by reason of insanity and serve the penalty for voluntary manslaughter in a hospital setting.

Those who cannot be cured are another matter. I once read that those who are sentenced to life without parole consider themselves sentenced to death. Indeed, this is likely true, since their incarceration will indeed be the cause of their deaths eventually. If they are locked up alone in a "super-max" facility they will likely become insane before too long (if they were not already) and they are being killed by slow torture. It would be better to kill them quickly if they cannot be cured, not for the sake of justice, but as a form of permissible euthenasia. We should not be in a hurry to do so, so that they may have the chance to repent in time, although if they chose to be executed, we should not stop them. Indeed, many executions occur because the condemned decides to quit fighting. Perhaps this is a model of how this should be done.

What of Mr. Muhammed? I doubt that he has been given a real evaluation as to his sanity or his reformability and that is likely an injustice. If I were Governor of Virginia, I would at least try to find out and then bless my stars that the office is term limited.

Free Sam Dodson!

While Iran just freed a journalist that it had been roundly criticized for holding as a political prisoner, right here in the United States, in Keene, New Hampshire, Sam Dodson is rotting in jail for the politically-motivated "crime" of filming the lobby of a courthouse.

Americans love to think that they live in a nation that obeys the rule of law, but it just isn't the case.

"Uncivil Obedience, Disobedience, and Civil Initiative"

This quotation is the title of an essay in Jim Corbett’s book Goatwalking, in which he compares the political theory of Thomas Hobbes and Henry David Thoreau to the philosophy and practice of civil initiative that he developed over a decade of human rights struggle. I’ve just written a short article about civil initiative over on the Opus journal, and I wanted to mention it here because Corbett’s thinking seems distinctly free liberal.

To illustrate, take my grossly oversimplified summaries of Hobbes, Thoreau, and Corbett:

• Hobbes: Human life without states is nasty, brutish, and short. If we concede to protection by the Leviathan, we are it’s subjects, and must obey its commands. It’s kind of like Cthulhu. Sorry, but that’s the social contract. If you want to renegotiate, your only recourse is revolution.
• Thoreau: The individual’s sole duty is to conscience, not government commands. States are too often the agents of injustice, and their laws are an obstacle to justice. Questions of right can’t be resolved by democratic legislation, but only by conscientious individuals, who must choose between respect for law and respect for right. When conscience conflicts with law, your options are conscientious disengagement or revolutionary disobedience.
• Corbett: The common law is formed not by states, but by communities through the exercise of natural rights. Sometimes one must choose between obeying the law and obeying the government—not because the law is an obstacle to justice, but because the government is shattering the legal order by violating human rights. When communities must violate government statutes to protect human rights, their actions must be germane to victims needs and accountable to legal order.

For Hobbes, the fulcrum of social change and civil order is the benign, legitimate sovereign. Thoreau’s fulcrum is the individual conscience. For Corbett, liberty and community are interdependent primaries: masterless communities form the basis for accountability to legal order, which is defined by the protection of natural rights. Naturally ornery, I find Thoreau’s individualism appealing, but I agree with Corbett that only a community can integrate, outreach, and outlast individual acts of conscience.

What kinds of activism have you been involved in?

Different kinds of activism divulge their constituting principles. Lobbying recognizes the sovereignty of states in making law. Conscientious disengagement and revolutionary disobedience repudiate human law in favor of individual conscience. Civil initiative refuses either to forfeit legal order or to plead guilty for resisting government statutes that violate human rights.

I’d like to hear your thoughts and experiences. I welcome you to read about civil initiative, and leave your questions and comments.

John Stephens is a Quaker, artist, teacher, and designer in Virginia. You can find him at Design Opus where he works on media for social entrepreneurship and community peacebuilding.

Gay Marriage in Iowa

Equal protection is equal protection. When legislating against an identifiable group, such as homosexuals, one must have a rational basis for doing so. This is true in state and federal law (and a portent for things to come). As Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, as soon as private consenual sodomy is regarded as essentially private and beyond the reach of legislation, there is not rational basis for denying gays the right to marry a same sex partner.

While religious leaders talk about the role of procreation in marriage, the ability to procreate is not a requirement in either civil law or canon law to marry - (Canon law requires only the ability to function - although it still regards sodomy as disordered). Of course, the very concept of disorder requires that there be a natural order outside of human experience to damage (since God cannot be damaged). If the natural order is considered a sophistry then the disorder argument carries no weight, especially given the biological evidence that homosexuality is simply a natural variation in the species.

If inability to procreate is not a bar to marriage among heterosexuals, it cannot be so for homosexuals. Additionally, marriage is not required for procreation, although it is helpful in providing a stable environment for children. Of course, the stable environment argument favors gay marriage, given that gay parents often have custody of their children.

The key role of marriage is to separate individuals from their families of origin, creating a new family. As Jesus said, when someone is married, they leave their families and cling to their spouse, and the two will become one flesh. Practically, that means that they are legally the same person, excluding the family of origin from any power formerly held, including the right to inherit property, make decisions in illness and make funereal arrangements.

The question of marriage did not come up when there were no end of life decisions to be made. People got sick and either died or got better. Now they may or may not linger and may or may not recover. There is visitation to be decided - often with estranged families excluding a person who is essentially a spouse. While civil unions are an attempt to rectify this, they are but an act of political correctness designed not to offend the sensibilities of the religious (who have not conducted themselves toward homosexuals in anyway so as to deserve an opinion on the matter).

The key legal question is this: what compelling right do families of homosexuals have in maintain an interest in the lives of their gay family members vis a vis the member's spouse when compared to those of heterosexual family members vis a vis their spouses? In other words, why do gay spouses deserve less respect than straight spouses?

Unless you can find an overwhelming rational basis for a difference, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled correctly - as will the U.S. Supreme Court when they finally see this issue.

Ultimately, Churches will see that they must celebrate gay weddings. There are two reasons. The first is that it gives them a platform to preach monogamy - a platform they do not have now by declaring all homosexual activity sinful. The second is because the wedding ceremony is a comfort for the family, not just the couple. When the famillies are rightly seen as the beneficiaries of these rites, they will begin demanding that they occur and they will be performed.

Krauthammer Hits a Home Run

I often disagree with Charles Krauthammer. But, in this case, his take on stem-cell research gets 100% from this hombre. (Of course, I'd go further and strongly suggest the government not conduct such research.)

Thought I'd share.

-RC

Do Potheads Promote Pot Smoking?

As the publisher of this site, I get a lot of email from other sites seeking either link trades or attention. Today I got this message from the pot-growing site, rollitup.org:

As I was surfing around msn , I discovered your website: http://www.freeliberal.com I am trying to add as many informative websites as possible to my site. Which in turn will benefit my users as well as provide you with relevant traffic to your site. I have a website with about 5,000 - 7,000 people on it per day who fit the same demographic as your site.

Mostly, I ignore such messages, because I see Free Liberal as operating at a higher plane than just getting high.

But, I'm left with this conundrum: A society that was more willing to get high (and less drunk or stressed) would probably be more peaceful and beautiful. Potheads aren't usually purveyors of coercion! But, can potheads actually create/sustain such a free liberal society? Some potheads are productive, especially those whose minds are already full of interesting learning, but many potheads, especially teenagers just distract themselves into foolishness. To me, it seems that it will probably be the sober, religious, natural rights crowd that will fervently shout: "Stop the madness, free the potheads, foolish though they may be!"

/KDR

Search Me?

CNN passes on a local story about two San Francisco 49 fans who are suing the NFL over pat down searches prior to entering the ball park. The NFL maintains that no one is forced to go to a Niners game (given there record of late, I would not be so sure), so that any requirement is legal. The season ticket holders disagree, claiming the searches are an unreasonable invasion. Note that the pat downs are conducted privately, which makes you wonder if it is the war on terror or the war on Jack Daniels and do it yourself concessions that is the real enemy.

Interesting dichotomy - a libertarian individual right vs. a libertarian commercial right.

I think the answer depends on who owns the stadium. If the event is being held at a public venue, then the NFL has no business searching citizens, since they are using the space at the sufferance of the community (especially the way they play). The community should put its foot down and direct its elected leaders to stop the searches. If the team paid for the stadium - and without the usual corporate welfare associated with such ventures - it can dictate terms, otherwise it must be made to respect the rights of the masses to smuggle in Evian,

Abortion from a Christian Leftist Huckabee supporter's perspective

I like what Mike Huckabee says about abortion. For too long the National Right to Life Committee has advocated a "Federalist" approach, although the original radical republicans and even Hamilton would call such a position anti-federalist or states rights. Any solution must be national, if only because people travel to have abortions or to procure them for their daughters, which is pretty much what they do now. Many admit that not much would change on the abortion front should Roe v. Wade be overturned in such a way as to restore state authority.

What exactly did states do when they had the authority? They imposed fines on abortionists.

Come again?

That's right, fines. This is why Justice Blackmun said that there was no right to life before Roe. If your only protection is a fine, you aren't protected. Animal cruelty has higher penalties. It seems the only effect of the law was to create a black market for abortion, travel for abortion and back alley and self-induced abortion.

I'm not working for that. Roe makes clear that the only way to trump the right of privacy, which is legitimate if abortion is only about medical regulation, is to recognize the legal personhood of the unborn.

Sounds good? It depends on how you draw the line.

Personhood implies equal protection under the law. This means that anyone who tells you that fetal rights means only punishing doctors is either misinformed or fibbing (to put it politely). Full human rights means just that. It means that if you die, your relatives can sue the doctor for malpractice. It means that if you get killed, the state is obligated to prosecute the person who killed you and anyone who paid to have it done as an accessory to murder or manslaughter. It also means similar penalties to killing a child or even an adult. Whether you accept it or not, every fetal death becomes a public matter if there is no right to privacy.

How many pro-life women consent to talking to the police, prosecutors or a grand jury if the authorities suspect that your OB/GYN has been doing too many D&C's if you've recently had one yourself? What if they suspect that yours was not justified and treat you as such?

This is not about the police going after "them" but going after you. Equal protection is equal protection.

If you think malpractice is high for OB/GYNs, just wait until every miscarriage is a potential court case. Granting full protection, which is required to overturn privacy, means just that. It is not a nightmare scenario. It is giving power to lawyers to pursue wrongful death cases, which most insurance companies will simply settle - although good luck finding obstetric care until after two months of gestation have passed and a miscarriage is no longer likely. This is what Blackmun was talking about when he stated that legal abortion was necessary to protect all obstetricians, not just abortionists.

It takes maturity to come to grips with this. It also takes honesty.

I am frankly sick and tired of those individuals who run for office saying that they are pro life while appealing to emotionalism about the unborn, soft pedaling the real legal concerns. This is called opportunism, and what else can you call it with more than 35 years of fundraising and no real viable solutions to the root problem. That's three and a half decades of death rather than compromise.

Shame.

The fact is, before 23 weeks, a fetus cannot survive if born, while after it can with medical intervention. That seems like a reasonable line. Another might be the fetal heartbeat at 4 weeks of gestation (6 weeks or so from the last period). While I believe that life begins at gastrulation (rather than conception) and the best embryologiss agree, the heartbeat is a natural start of legal life when its cessation is considered the moment of death.

Huckabee likely does not agree with this, however I supported him in the primary because he would likely put in enough income supports for families that the abortion rate would go down anyway - judging by his performance as Arkansas Governor.

He also stated that he favored a life amendment. This is code for saying he wasn't about to do anything to quickly. A life amendent would need 2/3 of the House to pass, as well as 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the states. It is regarded among constitutional scholars as the impossible dream of the pro-life movement and why overturning Roe was thought to be more attainable.

Of course, it is only unattainable if it is attempted as an all or nothing position. If it is important to stop abortion, primarily in the later terms, then maybe its time to compromise on the 23rd week. Also, it may be that an Amendment is not necessary. The Congress is sovereign in matters of citizenship (not the states). Under the 14th Amendment, it has the power to enforce equal protection. Part of enforcement is deciding issues, like whether at some stage the rights of the child are equal to those of the mother. In the partial birth case, even though it was not spelled out, Congress was able to regulate abortion precisely because the fetus was in contact with air. Being a little bit born is like being a little bit pregnant. If any of you is out, you are legally a person. Congress could likely go further, although doing so takes work.

It takes the willingness to compromise - not easy when you are dealing with conservatives on a moral issue. It also takes specificity in deciding what legal protection really means. Let's say I am wrong about lawsuits and criminal charges. The way to make me wrong is to publish some language to make sure these things aren't issues - or admit that they are - and engage opponents in discussion.

Its time to end the emotionalism of this debate and get down to brass tacks. Anything else is too much like what that other Governor from Arkansas would do. You know who I mean. The slick one.

And the two shall be one flesh...

is an oft quoted defense of traditional marriage. However, it is the second half of the quote. It begins with "A man will leave his family and cling to his wife...."

This particular quotation can be gender neutral without loss of meaning. A woman can leave her family for her husband or a man for his husband.

This is the point of marriage and why arguments that families who have members living together can call the relationship a marriage ring hollow. The point of marriage is two-fold. First, it is the unification of two families before God in the creation of a new unit. I get her relatives, she gets mine. Any kids born or adopted are members of both. The other is the separation, as Jesus said, of both parties from their respective families.

When someone is married, their spouse has the right to use and disposal of all of their property, including their bodies upon death or their medical treatment if incapacitated. Families lose that right - as it should be. There is no need for family members to marry eachother to gaurantee that right, since it is already there. If and when medical decisionmaking is required for my mother, my siblings and I can do it without any additional ritual, unless my mother finds love at age 80, in which case her spouse has that right. My brother, on the other hand, had to go through tremendous amounts of paperwork (hopefully he actually did so) so that his partner rather than my mother has the say as to the distribution of his assets and medical care. What is missing is the ability to acknowledge this with a marriage through the joining of both families before God. Hopefully that day will come soon because it is good for the families.

Marriage is not so much about sex as familial politics. There is no reason for families with gays not to have their unifications recognized by their churches. (I so happens that both my brother and his husband are both Catholic, so their would be no mixed marriage problem). The church owes us recognition of their joining as much as it owes it to them, since they (hopefully) have done the legal footwork to shut us out in favor of each other.

Why the Church is so Focused on Abortion, et al

The battle over birth control, abortion and stem cell research is about more than just sex or the life of the blastocyst or fetus. While these are important issues, the reason the Church feels such a stake in this battle is that it says a lot about the very nature of the human soul.

The Church is wed to the idea that life begins at fertilization. This is a fairly recent development, as classical metaphysics, indeed Thomas Aquinas himself, taught that the soul was imparted at a later, sometimes much later, time. Aquinas thought that when the fetus began to move, there was proof that a soul was present. The Anglican Communion posits that implantation or gastrulation is the marker for ensoulment - a position that actually makes sense because before gastrulation human-bestial hybrids still develop. One can assume that God does not impart a soul to such hybrids, or that he adds an additional soul when twinning occurs, but this comes under the heading of making God do tricks to justify the Popes take on biology. This does not work as a matter of natural law reasoning.

This is a minor point of debate which impacts whether the Church is credible on birth control and stem cell research (which, as I have said before, it isn't - the Church's authoritative position would be strengthened if it would concede the biological point and move on). However, it only scratches the surface of the deeper question.

The deeper question, which scares the Hell out of the bishops, is whether people believe in a soul at all. If there is no soul at the front end then there is also no soul on the back end. If the soul is not cause it cannot be immortal. Without immortality with God, why bother with God at all, or with any of the Sacraments of the Church. They simply can't concede the point.

The soul has to be causative, even before the child develops the capacity for rational thought. The alternative is either no soul at all or a soul that is developmental - meaning one that grows out of experience and language rather than something that drives the organism. The sticky part is that neuroscience seems to show no "ghost in the machine." The soul, if it exists (and again, I believe it does) is totally integrated with the brain. This need not cause difficulty, as the brain and the cells which give rise to it, are totally involved in the development of the embryo after gastrulation - however they are not involved before it because before gastrulation the cells are not differentiated.

Like I said above, the Church would win by conceding the point on fertilization. Sometimes admitting when you are wrong actually increases credibility. Not doing so is generally regarded outside of the hierarchist world as being faulty reasoning.

Why is this an issue for this board? Because if the Church abandonned hubris, it could more effectively engage in civil debate. It also shows why it is hard for the Church to do such to date.

Sex, Birth Control and Gay Marriage

The 40th Anniversary of Humanae Vitae has brought in its share of apologia, among them Russell Shaw's piece in the Arlington Catholic Herald. There are two main themes that most cite. One is the equation of blastocysts with fetuses and the implication that stem cell research and birth control constitute an act of murder. The other is the usual handwringing about the separation of the generative and unitive purposes of sex when artificial birth control is used.

Both are problematic.

Scientifically and morally, there is evidence to show that Paul VI and John Paul II were just plain wrong. Until gastrulation, which occurs after implantation, twinning can occur (a moral objection to the gestationalists) and hybrids continue to develop (proving that a blastocyst may not actually be a human in some cases if bestiality was involved in the conception). 40 years ago, the Pope's scientific and theological advisors told him as much and were disregarded. In ethics class, this is called vincible ignorance and does not excuse the evil it causes.

Married Catholics also provided advice to the Pope on this issue and were also ignored, as they supported artificial birth control. As a married Catholic myself, the idea of taking advice about sex from confirmed celebates strikes me as a bit odd. As one who is approaching middle age and whose wife is approaching menopause, I find the assertion that sex without the possibility of procreation to be less than worthy to be personally insulting. The argument ad aburdo arising from this position is that I should divorce my wife and find a twenty year old for more procreation. That may work in some fundamentalist Mormon sects, but it is hardly Catholic.

The increase in sexual permissiveness since Humanae Vitae, which Shaw notes, has nothing to do with Humanae Vitae, since the encyclical was directed at married Catholics, not singles or gays and lesbians. Some of it comes from the liberalization of divorce laws, which left a lot of formerly marrieds in search of casual sex. Casual sex among the young has more to do with their increased economic power and the rise in collegiate and coeducational education than any teaching about married sexuality. Gay liberation has nothing to do with separating marital sex from creation. There has not been any increase in the incidence of homosexuality. What has increased is the tolerance of it and this is a good thing. Studies show that even young conservatives are more sexually tolerant than their traditionalist parents, which is why the hierarchy is so afraid. Their prejudices are going to die off when they do.

A separate piece that I read recently and cannot seem to locate made the outlandish assumption that gay marriage is wrong because it cannot reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church, which is also compared to the marriage covenant. This argument is almost circular, as originally the comparison between Jesus and the Church with marriage was used as a teaching tool. Comparing marriage back again is to turn the entire exercise into a tautology. There is also a problem with considering marriage in this way, since it clearly puts the female in a subordinate position.

Wives are no longer considered the property of their husbands, so the analogy breaks down - as it should anyway. In the Last Discourse, which was written after the Pauline Epistles, Jesus states that he no longer considers the Apostles (and the Church) as servants but as friends and brothers. This is an entirely different covenant than the marriage covenant described by Paul or by pseudo-Paul in Ephesians and Collosians.

Gay marriage is headed toward legal and constitutional acceptance in the not too distant future and the unraveling of the Republican Party will prevent any constitutional amendment in reaction to an almost certain overturning of gay marriage bans under equal protection grounds.

This will be a hollow victory, however. True acceptance of gays will only come when the Church doors are opened to them for marriage. The condemnations of homosexuality found in Scriptures did not consider such relationships, as most homosexual men had wives as property as well, or practiced pederastry, which is detestable even among liberals (when Jesus taught about corrupting children and the preference for being thrown in the sea with a milstone around one's neck, this is what he was referring to). When Paul wrote his letters, he fully expected that the preaching of the gospel to the known world would result in the imminent return of Christ. We're still waiting. We now know more about human sexuality, including the formation of sexual preference and its innate nature. Very few are "turned gay" if any (although some may be initiated into cycles of pederastry, which is different). With this in mind, the kind of moral ideal Paul recommends would be served rather than harmed by the celebration of Gay Weddings. Doing so allows the preaching of that sexual ideal, rather than presuming that gays and lesbians are naturally promiscuous. We can't share that message, however, until we abandon the notion that homosexuality is somehow disordered. How are gays to trust us with the words of Eternal Life if we do not trust them when they tell us that they did not choose their homosexuality?

Finally, there is the key teaching about marriage itself. Marriages are made by the parties involved. The Priest is merely a witness for the community. God blesses all marriages entered into in a sacramental spirit, whether witnessed or not. The fruits of this have been demonstrated by gay couples modeling the love of Christ in care for their partners suffering with AIDS and other maladies. To deny this is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit, which according to Luke was said to be sin which is not forgiven.

Using the Second Amendment as Intended

I have long argued that, should the D.C. Gun ban be revoked, the Democracy movement, as well as other dissident movements, take full advantage of the right to bear arms by doing so very publicly. For instance, the Capital Pride Festival was held a week prior to the decision. Next year at this time, the festival should include an armed contingent. Gay rights activists should also take up arms in their demonstrations in support of marriage. The next time the Congress disrespects the citizens of the District of Columbia - or the Court does for that matter by say overturning the ban on handguns, DC activists should hold one of their usual protest marches, but this time do so armed.

Congress and the Supreme Court may rethink their attitudes about both the rights of D.C. residents and the right to keep and bear arms if faced with such a protest. If permits are not issued for such protests, the denial should be challenged on both First and Second Amendment grounds. This also applies in states with odious policies, such as the denial of the right to marriage to gays and lesbians. It would be entertaining to see the reaction in Richmond to a contingent of armed queens demanding their rights to marriage (or even the rights to marriage equivalent contracts that have been denied by the State of Virginia).

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.