freeman, libertarian critter

new year, new beginning, new blog

2007-01-08T03:00:00.000-05:00

I'll be starting anew in a different location.

2006 was a real bummer for me in many ways. Out of last year's shit arises a flower that'll bloom as 2007 progresses, and beyond. The new blog should help.

freeman's NO POLITICS

the folly of bureaucracy, in one quote

2006-08-13T17:31:00.001-04:00

“I don’t know. I don’t care. They just asked me to stamp it, so I stamped it.” ~~ some Chinese official guy

Inspired words by a man thoroughly challenged and stimulated by his work. Rather revealing, isn't it?

It doesn't even really matter what the context is, given the fact that so many endeavors burdened by bureacracy wind up being designed, directed, and carried out by people whose knowledge and drive matches the Chinese official who so eloquently sums up the bureaucratic mindset.

For those who wonder, the quote comes from this Intellectual Conservative article questioning the trustworthiness of the USDA organic label. I didn't think I'd ever find a worthwhile article from such a site, let alone one about organic food. It's definitely a worthwhile read, especially if one is increasingly concerned about the food they eat.

Here's the portion of the article related to that quote:

Lavigne also quotes Matsumi Sakuyoshi, a Japanese inspector who has checked Chinese soybean fields for organic certifiers. Sakuyoshi found an empty plastic bag of herbicide. When confronted, a farmworker told her the wind must have blown it from a neighbor’s field.

Sakuyoshi also questioned a certificate that said a piece of land hadn’t been farmed for the previous three years, making it eligible for organic status. Hardly any Chinese farmland is left idle. The official who stamped the certificate told her, “I don’t know. I don’t care. They just asked me to stamp it, so I stamped it.”

The article concerns itself with organic farming in places like China since an increasing number of organic foods sold here in the US with a USDA label come from places like China. If organic consumers are uneasy after reading that excerpt, they may feel downright ill after reading the rest of the article (hint: human waste is involved).

I guess I now have even more reasons to seek out locally grown and produced food as much as possible. Additionally, the collection of fodder for condemning the USDA continues to grow. In fact, stay tuned for more anti-USDA posts (well, at least one) in the coming week. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm about to chow down on some mandu that'll be dipped in organic soy sauce produced here in Michigan by a pioneering organic company that rejects the USDA label (more on that later).

who needs the usda?

2006-08-10T16:11:00.000-04:00

I sure don't. Neither should anyone else.

All of the supposedly beneficial things that the USDA is "supposed" to carry out can be practiced without a government bureaucracy inherently prone to corporate manipulation.

The latest example of the USDA's status as a menace to our health came to my attention thanks to the LRC blog.

First, fromAnthony Gregory's May 2004 article titled "The USDA and Cow Disease Madness":

The USDA is blocking an American slaughterhouse that wishes to voluntarily test its beef for mad cow disease so it can sell meat to Japan.

Creekstone Farms, a slaughterhouse in Kansas, has spent $500,000 to create a mad cow testing facility to comply with Japan’s tougher regulations. Forbidden from testing and shut off from its Japanese market, the company loses $200,000 in sales every day, and it has already been forced to layoff fifty workers.

Unfortunately for the people at Creekstone Farms, the USDA will not permit such testing, because the agency does not consider the testing “scientifically warranted,” and it worries that competing slaughterhouses may appear unsafe by comparison.

Americans who believe that the USDA protects consumers from tainted beef might find themselves scratching their heads. Why would the USDA interfere with a business taking extra precautions to prove the safety of its product to its customers?

Historically, government regulation of beef has often had less to do with common sense or genuine health concerns than with the state-corporate favoritism inherent in a highly regulated economy.

The USDA is continuing such thuggery today, as revealed by this USA Today editorial:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture — invoking an obscure 1913 law intended to thwart con artists from peddling bogus hog cholera serum to pig farmers — is blocking companies from selling the testing kits to Creekstone.

USDA is doing the bidding of large cattle barons afraid that Creekstone's marketing will force them to do the same tests to stay competitive. It's true that the incidence of mad cow disease is quite low. But there's little logic in stopping a company from exceeding regulations to meet the demands of its customers, or protecting its rivals from legitimate competition.

Not only is USDA blocking Creekstone, the department said last month that it's reducing its mad cow testing program by 90%. The industry and its sympathetic regulators seem to believe that the problem isn't mad cow disease. It's tests that find mad cow.

The department tests only 1% of the roughly 100,000 cattle slaughtered daily. The new plan will test only 110 cows a day.

By cutting back on testing, USDA will save about $35 million a year. That's a pittance compared with the devastation the cattle industry could face if just one human case of mad cow disease is linked to domestic beef

So, the USDA is also slashing it's already feeble testing program in addition to serving as hired goons for the big firms. If food safety is to be a serious concern, then realizing that testing and other safeguards will only be administered, or even allowed, by the government to the extent that it doesn't threaten privledged businesses is a necessary step towards ensuring that the right paths are taken to ensure safety. Rest assured that the USDA will always go down the wrong path, while also setting up roadblocks preventing passage through more proper paths.

Food won't be safe until a separation of food and state occurs. Without such a separation, those with the most cash and the most political clout will continue to dominate the food supply, driving recklessly in search of power and profits without concern for safety.

the book virus thingie

2006-08-04T17:46:00.000-04:00

I've been tagged by Nick Manley to play along with the latest book virus thingie for bloggers, so here it is.

* One book that changed your life:
Burning All Illusions: A Guide to Personal and Political Freedom by David Edwards. I read this book 7 or 8 years ago when my political mindset basically consisted of a strong civil libertarian streak with severe economic ignorance and apathy. This book changed all that and made me think more and read more about politics, albeit from a more or less statist left standpoint. The book served as my introduction to Noam Chomsky and also touched upon many Buddhist teachings that I was sort of interested in at the time.

Even though I'm now a radical free market advocate, there is much that is worthwhile about the book. I don't remember a whole lot of detail and I can't skim through it again since I don't own a copy, but if you're interested in reading a review of it, here's one from Dave Pollard.

* One book that you have read more than once:
Well, I'm currently reading Wendell Berry's Another Turn of the Crank for the second time.

* One book that you would want on a desert island:
The Illuminatus! Trilogy. It's long, it's fun, it's wild, it's chock full of stuff, and every reading is radically different from the last. Why not?

* One book that made you laugh:
I was going some of my boxed up books and organizing them recently when I saw my copy of Aristophanes's The Clouds. I remember finding the play to be quite funny when I read it back in the day. I also liked the fact that the particular translation that I have contains swear words.

* One book that made you cry:
Hmm... I'm sad to say that I can't think of one right now. I've read plenty of dark and/or sad things, but I don't actually recall shedding any tears while reading anything. I find that to be rather unfortunate.

* One book you wish had been written:
It's hard to think of book that could have or would have been written but weren't for some reason. I guess I'll just go along with the crowd by choosing Samuel Edward Konkin III's "Agorism".

If I can come up with an imaginary book, then how about a decentralist, individualist manifesto linking libertarianism with leftism by Karl Hess? That would have been cool. I've read Community Technology, but that's not really what I have in mind.

* One book you wish never had been written:
While choosing any Ann Coulter book at random is tempting, I think I'll go with Mein Kampf instead. It's close enough to going with Coulter, I suppose.

* One book you are currently reading:
I mentioned the Berry book already. The other book that I've started but not finished yet is Daniel Quinn's The Story of B.

* One book you have been meaning to read:
Butler Shaffer's Calculated Chaos. It's on my shelf and ready to go as soon as I finish one of the two books I'm currently working on. (I don't want to exceed 2 at a time) Also, I'd like to say "shame on me!" for not purchasing a copy of Kevin Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy yet. I've read some of it online, but I want to have an actual printed copy of it as well. Kevin should also recieve some more financial compensation for writing such an important work.

* Now tag 5 people:
Rad Geek (it's a virus, not a meme!)
Larry Gambone
Adem Kupi
Vache Folle
David Reynolds

update

2006-08-03T20:06:00.000-04:00

I apologize for the continued lack of blogging this summer. The past few weeks have been really trying for myself and my family since my mother passed away. I do guarantee though that I'll be more active here this month than I have for the past 3 months combined.

One cool announcement is that I plan on signing up with a web host sometime this month and will begin to transfer stuff from here to the eventual new blog. I'll also be setting up a separate music-related blog so that anyone either interested in my music posts or uninterested in my more serious posts can frequent that blog instead of this one. Look for that blog to be up and running before I deal with setting up flc 2.0 on the new host.

Stay cool.

commie pinko wishes for a happy 4th

2006-07-04T13:40:00.000-04:00

Who's the commie pinko, you ask? Why, it's me!
Dont'cha know that if you ain't a servile, war-worshipping Republican who knows his place, shuts his face, and salutes his masters while waving the Stars and Stripes, then you're a commie pinko?

Wally Conger will be displaying his Gadsden flag today. I would do so myself if I had one. There may be others out there who will display the other flag I admire, the one that is all black. I don't have one of those either, but I am wearing a black t-shirt today.

July 4th is supposed to be a day to commemorate the rebellious souls who said NO to tyranny. Today, that spirit only lives on with us "commie pinkos". In true Orwellian fashion, the minds of the majority have been molded to view this day as one to commemorate the masters of war and the masters of other men. In other words, tyranny is now celebrated.

I hope that everyone has a enjoyable day with friends and family. I'll be grilling up some organic burgers and drinking some fine brews - I'm not a party pooper who'll treat this day as one to mourn the loss of liberty or anything, despite my total unwillingness to acknowledge the typical slogans and symbols that typical Americans view with the reverence people must have had for Christian imagery back in the days when the Church was the main institution engaged in indoctrination and terror.

Here's some subversive reading for all those commie pinkos out there who actually admire the Declaration of Independence and know what it's like to be rebellious rather than servile.

From Eugene Plawiuk: A New American Revolution (a great post from last year that's about real revolution, not those damn Chevrolets)
From Kevin Carson: Patriotic Quotes for the Fourth
From Roderick Long: A Thought for the Fourth
From Rad Geek: Independence Day
From Anthony Gregory: Which America Do You Celebrate?

These links aren't specificaly about the Fourth, but are relevant reads nonetheless:

Voltairine de Cleyre: Anarchism and American Traditions
Sheldon Richman: Americans Should Be "Anti-American"
Jeff Vail: Love Your Nation-State

Now go out there and have some good ol' disobedient fun! Anyone have any illegal fireworks?

the libertarian divide over the south central farmers issue

2006-06-16T15:12:00.000-04:00

There are many examples out there refuting the silly stereotypes and claims regarding libertarians as being all the same. There are many different types of libertarians in reality, and certain issues bring difference of opinion amongst them to the forefront. The most recent example of this involves the plight of the South Central Farmers out in Los Angeles.

I'm sure that liberals and lefties are assuming that all libertarians are siding with Ralph Horowitz, the man who is claiming ownership of the land and is using the city goons to get rid of those pesky farmers. Indeed, there are some libertarians that I am aware of who are indeed taking this position. Examples of this come from Kirsten at Enjoy Every Sandwich and certain people over at the Mises Institute blog.

An assumption that all libertarians would be siding against the farmers would not be true though. The other side of the debate is being defended by some libertarians. Examples here include blog posts by Rad Geek, David at the view from below, along with Brad Spangler's comments in the Mises discussion linked to above.

I don't have the time to spell out my full opinion on this, but I will say that I personally am siding with the farmers, and not just because I love what they've done with the land over the past 14 years.

update & links

2006-06-12T14:11:00.000-04:00

I'm back... sort of. Posting will remain quite scarce for the next couple of months or so. My mother has just returned home from spending the past month in the hospital and is extremely sick and crippled. She requires constant care and attention, and I'm the primary person in charge of that. With that in mind, it's obvious that blogging has become an extremely low priority for me.

There are a few things I'd like to mention here briefly. These things have already been mentioned elsewhere, but I'd like to link to them here anyway.

* freedomSLUT: This great new resource provides liberty oriented social bookmarking - kind of like del.icio.us for libertarians.

* 2 new Myspace groups for radical libertarians: It's nice to see such subversive ideas being promoted over in that popular interweb networking scene. There is the Confederation of Agorist for agorists and Anarcho-Individualists for anarchists of an individualist persuasion.

* Thanks to Roderick Long, Joseph Stromberg's "English Enclosures and Soviet Collectivization: Two Instances of an Anti-Peasant Mode of Development" is now available online at the Molinari Institute site. This is the excellent essay from The Agorist Quarterly that I blogged about back in April. I must also thank Stromberg himself for not only writing the essay but also allowing it to be published online.

i'll be back in june

2006-05-23T08:48:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the absense of new stuff lately and for no explanations until now. Things have been been really hectic and bad lately around here, and I have neither the time nor the interest needed to blog.

I'll resume blogging at some point in early June.

Hope things are better for y'all than they are on this end.

cinco de mayo post

2006-05-05T18:29:00.000-04:00

Feliz Cinco de Mayo, mis amigos!

I'll be going out tonight to see my friend Laith perform, and Mexican beer will be my drink of choice.

Cinco de Mayo is, of course, more than just a day to get drunk and celebrate Mexican culture. To learn more about the day's historical significance, check out the Cinco de Mayo Wikipedia entry.

On a more serious note, David Reynolds has taken the time to write a Cinco de Mayo post about the current struggle in Mexico between farmers and the government. The following excerpt explains the the plight that these farmers face:

The flower farmers are supported by members of a group known as Frente de Pueblos en Defensa de la Tierra (People’s Front in Defense of the Land or FPDT). The FPDT opposes the government confiscation of communal lands known as ejidos that have provided farms and residential space to the ejidatarios for decades. The ejidos were eliminated by the Mexican government when it signed the NAFTA agreement.

As a result, the Mexican government routinely gives land to transnational corporations to build factories, retail stores, and the like. (It has been rumored the marketplace area where the FPDT-supported flower farmers tried to set up their stalls is slated to become a Wal-Mart.) The indigenous ejidatarios are often forced off the land where they have lived their entire lives, and their livelihoods are destroyed. Their choices are usually either becoming wage slaves for the transnational corporations or seeking lives elsewhere, including sneaking across the border into the United States to seek work.

A violent standoff between the farmers and local, state, and federal authorities began on Wednesday, with the predictable result of police initiating violence and taking control of the town.

The people who live and work on the land are the rightful owners of it, not the government. The government has no right to claim the land as their own and then hand it over to transnational corporations, continuing the accumulation of wealth by force that should be condemned by all friends of liberty.

online pamphlets from the labadie collection

2006-05-05T17:50:00.000-04:00

One of the greatest resources for radical literature found anywhere is the Labadie Collection, a special collections library that is part of the University of Michigan library system. There is a project in the works there to digitize all of their anarchist pamphlets and make them available online. Some of them are already available - click here to take a look.

As mentioned on their webpage, the collection of pamphlets currently online represents a very small part of their entire collection. Most seem to be about non-market forms of anarchism, although there should be something of interest for all anarchists. What is unfortunate is that some of the pamphlets can only be viewed by authorized viewers, such as Frank Chodorov's "The Myth of the Post Office."

Here are links to some of the pamphlets that I plan on reading within the next few days:

Stephen Pearl Andrew's "The Labor Dollar"
Henry Bool's "Liberty Without Invasion, Means and End of Progress"
Hubert Bourgin's "Proudhon"
Randolph Bourne's "The State"
Henry Appleton's "What Is Freedom and When Am I Free?"

(a tip o' the blog hat to Mark Dilley)

*UPDATE: It turns out that I won't be reading the Bourgin pamphlet. It's en français. Darn.

may day post

2006-05-01T22:40:00.000-04:00

Today is May 1st, otherwise known as May Day, a day of international labor solidarity. Contrary to the efforts of some to paint the day as a "commie holiday" in support of the USSR and other "communist" countries, the real roots of the holiday predate the horrors of 20th century statist collectivism.

The following links provide some interesting historical commentary on the roots of May Day. While Kevin Carson focuses on the American origin of the modern May Day movement and the role of individualist anarchists in the labor movement of that time, Eugene Plawiuk goes back even further to reveal the day's Pagan origins.

Kevin Carson's " May Day Thoughts: Individualist Anarchism and the Labor Movement"
Eugene Plawiuk's "The Origins and Traditions of May Day"

the sweet signs of spring: flowers & pucks

2006-04-21T03:01:00.000-04:00

The sweet smell of spring is in the air. Temperatures here in southeast Michigan have been in the 60s and 70s with a brief trip into the 80s during the past couple of weeks. Yellow beauties such as dandelions, daffodils, and forsythias are blooming all around. I'm especially glad to see the dandelions since I plan on making some dandelion wine for the first time this year.

Another good thing about spring, one that was absent last year: the NHL playoffs. As far as professional sports are concerned, hockey is all I really care about anymore, and the best time of year for hockey is now through mid-June.

The best of the west and the beasts of the east better look out - the Detroit Red Wings are primed to fly through the playoffs, dropping slimy octopi on unsuspecting foes, on route to winning another Stanley Cup!

Game 1 is tonight @ 7 PM vs. the Edmonton Oilers.

stromberg on land theft

2006-04-19T19:55:00.000-04:00

As I mentioned in a previous post, I plan on blogging about a few of the things I've read from my recent KoPubCo order. I'm currently reading the one and only issue of The Agorist Quarterly, and the essay from Joseph Stromberg has captured my interest. Titled "English Enclosures and Soviet Collectivization: Two Instances of an Anti-Peasant Mode of Development", this Stromberg essay compares those two instances of land theft and comes to a conclusion that certainly wouldn't be welcomed by those committed to one or another variation of corporatism.

Stromberg's analysis complements the analysis of people like Kevin Carson and Karl Marx by coming to the conclusion that the English enclosures were a result of political coercion benefitting a privledged minority. This essay also provides the additional service of comparing the English enclosures to not only the Soviet collectivization of land, but also to the Latin American latifundismo, or feudal land monopolies that still exist to this day. All of these coercive actions had adverse effects on the peasantries of each respective country.

I'd like to provide a few excerpts of the essay in order to give y'all a taste of Stromberg's analysis and provide further online content dealing with the issue of land theft. Rather than start with the primary two examples, I'll start off with the portion of the essay providing an interlude between the two primary examples of land theft. Upon giving a brief synopsis of the elitist politcal structure that maintains the unjust and exploitative Latin American system, Stromberg had this to say about the problems associated with the system:

According to Ernst Feder, the concentration of good land in the hands of a very small minority creates gross inefficiency, waste, mismanagement, and low productivity on Latin America's latifundia. '[F]orcefully shut off from the market mechanism,' the peasants respond by displaying self-hatred and unambitious behavior which is then taken to prove their inherent stupidity. Built in disincentives dicourage the peasants, who gain nothing from harder work. Far from reflecting economies of scale arrived at in free markets, the politically based latifundia are so over-expanded that often as much as one third of the work force is required to boss the other demoralized two thirds. Hence, the great estates resemble nothing so much as islands of socialist 'calculational chaos' unable to operate at optimum economic rationality. In contrast, Feder argues that poor people are actually capable of great economic rationality and capital accumulation. To the extent that a small sector of family farms exists in Latin America, it is here that one finds land-intensive and productive farming as opposed to the better capitalized estate sector. Given the economic irrationalities of the quasifeudal sector and the destitution of peasants who could be productive, Feder supports land reform both on the grounds of simple justice and economic progress. Like Feder, the sociologist Stanislav Andreski takes a critical view of the chief structural realities of Latin American society. He believes that most of the problems in those countries stem from a inherited pattern of political parasitism. Interestingly, Andreski derives his conception of parasitism from the Traite de Legislation (1826), the major work of the neglected French sociologist Charles Comte, whose importance as a classical liberal theorist is only now coming to be appreciated. Parasitism, by severing work from reward, is a necessarily strong barrier to social progress.

Stromberg later states that:

Although conditions vary from country to country, high tariffs, state loans, the licensing-and-bribery syndrome, government contracts, and even tax-farming (in Peru) contribute to the popular view that all governments are 'merely bands of thieves.' In Mexico, where state intervention is most extensive, pay-offs are naturally highest.

If there is one good thing that has come out of all this, it is the growing view amongst the people living down there that all governments are "merely bands of thieves". Indeed, the primary difference between governments and mafias is that the latter doesn't resort to flag-waving and the abduction of children for the purpose of molding their minds into a form that believes in the legitimacy and neccessity of said mafia while dutifully bowing down to authority. There are very few differences beyond that.

Stromberg's treatment of the English enclosures involves the same type of stuff that I had been reading from elsewhere, followed by this conclusion:

Given the role of political power in the process of enclosure, it does not seem unfair to view enclosure as collectivization of agriculture for the benefit of a narrow class. Whether or not it was the only way to increase agricultural efficiency or whether it did increase it to the degree often supposed are probably open questions. Folke Dovring writes that the enclosures 'depended primarily on the de facto power of the landlord class.' This naturally raises the question of whether or not England did not - at least in the agrarian sphere - follow a path closer to the 'Prussian road' to capitalism than is usually believed.

Indeed, market forces had nothing to do with the primitive accumulation of land and wealth that is often defended by so-called market proponents. Then again, many of these people are only being consistent in the defense of a few "exceptional individuals" and their institutions rather than liberty itself, let alone the workers who so badly need liberty as opposed to the various brands of collectivism that serve to keep them down. If that means a defense of massive land theft, so be it.

Moving on to the example of Soviet collectivization, Stromberg begins by explaining the situation prior to Stalin's takeover of the Communist Party, including a description of the "left" and "right" positions within the Party. Neither Trotsky nor Bukharin (who favored a more free market direction for the economy) gained power however, and here's Stromberg's explanation of what did happen:

Unfortunately for both sides, Stalin gradually eased himself into control of the Party and state and purged them all. Once firmly in control, he adopted most of the Left's economic program, sending cadres of armed Party members into the countryside to divide the peasants and push them into collective farms as called for by ideology and interest. With all kinds of violence and dislocation necessary, the prosperous peasants, the kulaks, were eliminated as a class, many of them physically. With their much-feared leaders eliminated by the Stalinst Terror, the peasants had little choice but to acquiesce in this bureaucratic enclosure movement. Only after Stalin's death could any debate on the direction of Soviet economic policy, however mild, reemerge. The Soviet state itself had become the new landlord. It seems clear enough that the "right" program was viable. Certainly, it did not entail the level of violence, death, and economic destruction required to carry through the Trotsky-Stalin model. But just as in the case of the English enclosures, political power decided the event, not necessarily in the interests of the peasants - short or long run. Perhaps the two cases, though they differ considerably, will shed light on some persistent fallacies concerning peasants, agriculture and development (it might be too much to ask for justice, too).

Stromberg concludes the essay by lamenting the role of these two examples and their proponents in the promotion of large-scale agriculture and the inaccurate dismissal of the small-scale alternative. He also ponders the conceivability of alternative routes being taken in both England and Russia, concluding that the routes that were chosen did not have to be chosen. However, the political class cares not for justice or free markets, which is why corporatists and their "left" counterparts chose to collectivize, centralize, and rely on their fellow "exceptional individuals" to run things, all other considerations dismissed.

One of the interesting things about this comparison is that it adds to the criticism of corporate state capitalism promoted by left-libertarians that likens nominally private institutions to the bureaucratic collectivism of "communist" states. Of course, if we consider the leftist equation of the Soviet Union with state capitalism, we're left with viewing the ideological rift of the Cold War as being between two varying and competing versions of state capitalism - one that was entirely collectivist and one that was (and still is) pseudo-individualist in nature. Libertarian communists rightfully reject the former system while free market libertarians reject (or at least should reject) the latter.

There is much that I have left out, so consider visiting KoPubCo and purchasing a copy of The Agorist Quarterly before it sells out.

obedience & authority

2006-04-16T22:23:00.000-04:00

James Leroy Wilson recently wrote a column about the famous experiment carried out by psychologist Stanley Milgram back in the early '60s. He provides a good description of Milgram's work and also makes the important point that Milgram's findings are just as important now than ever. James also encourages people to teach children about disobedience and rebelling against authority, which is good advice to heed if liberty is something one values. Being an obedient little worker isn't wise when the job orders being dictated from above involve things like theft, torture, enslavement, or murder.

Aside from bringing attention to James's column and the experiment itself, I'd also like to inform y'all that a documentary about the experiment is now available for download via bit torrent. Click here to get the torrent.

micro$oft: how would you like to be raped today?

2006-04-16T16:42:00.000-04:00

The following report is from February 17th, although this is my first encounter with such news. Micro$oft, always looking for ways to screw over both competitors and consumers, has come up with a new idea to screw over the latter group: training police to decrypt the upcoming Vista software. From this vnunet.com article:

Microsoft may begin training the police in ways to break the encryption built into its forthcoming Vista operating system.

The news was revealed in a parliamentary committee session in which Professor Ross Anderson of Cambridge University warned MPs that if such a move was being considered then the police should start learning sooner rather than later.

The need to decrypt hard drives was a prominent reason given for extending the length of time that the police could hold terrorism suspects.

"It is our goal to give PC users the control and confidence they need so they can continue to get the most out of their PCs," said a Microsoft spokeswoman.

"At the same time, we are working with law enforcement to help them understand its security features and will continue to partner with governments, law enforcement and industry to help make the internet a safer place to learn and communicate."

I decided long ago that I'd never switch to Vista once it is released. This news will likely be the nail in the coffin to many others who may have been wary about Vista. Anyone who cares about liberty and privacy should consider M$ to be a serious threat. Anyone who is troubled by state/corporate collusion should place M$ near or at the top of their shit list.

While some may just stick with an older M$ OS, others will either choose or stick with the Mac route or switch over to a Linux distro. I recently recieved some install discs for Ubuntu Linux, free of charge. I'll be installing it on an external hard drive once it's formatted and begin to get a feel for the distro. If I like it, I'll eventually do a full transition. Sooner or later, I'll be using Ubuntu or some other Linux distro full time, dumping M$ into the recycle bin of history.

reisman revealed

2006-04-15T01:21:00.000-04:00

There are plenty of wonderful thinkers affiliated with the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. However, there have been occasions where I have read things from there that disappointed me, or worse. More often than not, those bad apples from an otherwise healthy tree were written by the same person - George Reisman.

The one disappointment to go alongside the great news of the mutualist symposium issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies was finding out that Reisman had written one of the critiques of Kevin Carson's mutualist ideas. I thought that his essay would represent the token example of "vulgar libertarianism", the plague within the libertarian movement that serves to exacerbate the false notions of libertarianism held by various non-libertarians.

His essay is indeed pretty bad. With people like Reisman identifying themselves with free enterprise and libertarianism, it's no wonder that many leftists view libertarians as being fascists in disguise. To read Kevin's thorough rebuttal, click here. (pdf file)

As thorough and satisfying as Kevin's own rebuttal is, I found a much much smaller one tonight that reveals a rather unlibertarian side to Reisman. Adam B. Ricketson left the following comment behind in response to Sheldon Richman's post titled "Capitalism versus Capitalism:

I read George Reisman's essay in Journal of Libertarian Studies and was surprized and kinda disgusted by his (Randist) definition of "individualism"

He writes:
"Here Carson, the “individualist” anarchist shows himself to be
quite the collectivist, attributing to the average person qualities of
independent thought and judgment that are found only in exceptional
individuals."

I side with Carson's definition of individualism, and can only see Reisman's view as socialism or collectivism. Individualism means that, as a rule, each individual is capable of directing his own life. If most individuals are incapable of directing their own lives and must be subsumed into an unthinking mass (for their own good), then we have collectivism...whether it is run by a benevolent dictatorship of market selected (meaning "self-selected") "meritocrats" or by an elected aristocracy.

Yep, I cringed when I read that remark by Reisman. All those leftists who view libertarians as corporate apologists who wish to have tyrannical megacorp executives rule the world actually have a point, at least if and when they're referring to people such as Reisman. In Reisman's world, we're only a tiny hop, skip, and jump away from "free market" paradise, complete with Wal-Mart type enterprises in charge of every human endeavor, and including bureaucratic managerialism and top-down orders from those "exceptional individuals" who know how to be responsible and successful, unlike all the common peons who must be disciplined by the iron fist...er, invisible hand of the "free market". In other words, it seems as if many aspects of statism are just fine in Reisman's mind, as long as they're "privatized" and run only by wealthy businessmen who actually have the ability to engage in independent thought and judgment.

Adam is correct - Reisman does indeed appear to be a collectivist. How can one so consistently defend an institution (the modern corporation) that is so thoroughly hostile to individualism and not be collectivist? I'm reminded of the following portion of the classic 1976 Karl Hess Plowboy interview that elaborates a bit on all this:

PLOWBOY: Is there any similarity between this pressure being exerted by America's big businesses and, say, the collectivism of Soviet Russia?

HESS: Certainly. They're much the same. In the Soviet Union, the economy is developed under the ownership of a bureaucracy which shot its way to power, while in the United States exactly the same pattern exists except that our collectivists just buy their way to power. In either instance, the final result is the same: You owe your loyalty to the collective unit the corporation or the state, as the case may be. You're subordinated to its plans and processes.

There's no essential difference in the kind of world that either the large corporations of the U.S. or the collectives of the U.S.S.R. would impose on us. Back in the thirties, in fact, Jim Burnham wrote a book, The Managerial Revolution, in which he said that a DuPont bureaucrat could join a planning commission in the Soviet Union and never even know he'd changed jobs!

By the way, I recommend checking out that Sheldon Richman post I linked to above. He does a nice job of critiquing Walter Block's attempt at smearing Kevin Carson. He also plans on writing a similar post about the Reisman essay in the near future.

scumbags: john mccain & the usda

2006-04-14T22:07:00.000-04:00

Time for another post acknowledging various scumbags within our midst. Like last time, an individual and a gang of thuggish individuals comprise the examples of scumbaggery for this installment.

*White Amerikan Thief & Scumbag: John McCain
The USSA government has engaged in various forms of violent oppression against Native Americans (or American Indians, or whatever one wishes to call them) over the past 200+ years. Upon reading a standard issue government history text, one gets the idea that such things are essentially a thing of the past. Such an idea needs to be tossed aside in favor of the truth, with scumbag John McCain attempting to continue the long tradtion of stealing and general bullying of Native Americans.

This Hammer of Truth post by Stuart Richards reveals McCain's plan. Richards provides the following quote from this link:

Navajo and Hopi families residing on Big Mountain and the surrounding area of the Black Mesa in northern Arizona may be forced to relocate as a new senate bill, S1003 “The Navajo Hopi Land Settlement Act Amendments of 2005,” goes before Congress. If passed, the bill will permanently displace the Navajo and Hopi, and, according to a press release by the Black Mesa Indigenous Support organization, “relieve the federal government of any further responsibility for the relocated people.” Sponsored by Senator John McCain, S1003 was initiated at nearly the same time as Peabody Coal, the world’s largest coal company, expressed an interest in the Navajo land. Peabody Coal plans to expand its strip mining into this area, where billions of tons of low-sulfur coal are located

What we have here is a blatant promotion of eminent domain targeting a paricular group of people who will wind up in a state of destitution because of such theft of land and autonomy. Dare I say... ethnic cleansing? I don't care if ethnic cleansing is a chief motivating factor or not, such will be a consequence of further crimes committed against the Najavos and Hopis. And for what? The enrichment of Peabody Coal seems to be a motivating factor, making this yet another example of corporate welfare allowing the political class to pillage and rape the masses.

This reminds me of a poem of sorts that I once read for a Native American Literature course - Carter Rivard's "A Brief Guide to American History Teachers". Another recommended read I'd like to point out before moving on with this scumbags post is an essay by Peter Spotswood Dillard titled "The Unconquered Remnant: The Hopis and Voluntaryism". Those sure are some great people that McCain is sicking Leviathan upon.

*Gang of Scumbags: The USDA
James Leroy Wilson has written a quality column called "Totalitarianism Through the Back Door" that shines light on the fact that humans aren't the only critters being targeted by Leviathan's plan to utilize a "mark of the beast", so to speak. The USDA has come up with what it calls the National Animal Identification System, a clear example of government scumbaggery. Here's an excerpt from the James Leroy Wilson column that provides a glimpse of what NAIS is all about:

What is the rationale for NAIS? Supposedly, it is to trace back diseased animals to their source, within 48 hours of discovery of the disease. This sounds like it will protect the public, but the real reason is expressed quite well at RedState.org: "NAIS was developed to give the large meat exporters more markets to countries like Japan who are demanding trace-back on meat they import, specifically cattle."

NAIS is a classic case of corporate welfare. After all, if foreign (or domestic) markets want reliable trace-back, agri-business can supply that on their own, and do not require the government's help. Nor would it have to apply to those who sell only in local, or raise animals only for personal pleasure or consumption. What doesn't make sense, as RedState.org points out, is that NAIS would apply to "all livestock at all farms, homesteads and even for livestock kept as pets. [italics added]"

Here's the worst of it: the big producers get to tag their livestock by the lot, while farmers who keep smaller numbers of animals will have to track and report the movements of each individual animal. This is costly in time and many, and will drive many smaller farmers out of business.

One may wonder what the purpose is. The answer is that this is what government does. Government is essentially a predator of the small businessman, including the small farmer. Profit margins are usually quite small for them, and every additional tax, form, and regulation they must comply with eats more and more into those margins. Corporations, on the other hand, already have lawyers, accountants, and human resource staff to handle compliance issues. Compliance costs are proportionally much smaller for them.

To learn more about NAIS, check out one or more of the following sites focusing on the issue: NoNAIS.org, Don't Tag Me.org, and Stop Animal ID.org

What really burns my nuts about this is rhe fact that I've been recently reading about people who are raising chickens in urban environments with quite a bit of interest. Once I own some property and get going with my gardening plans, I've decided that having a hen or two would be great for things like providing pest control, fresh fertilizer and eggs - all organic. They're also supposed to be very friendly and affectionate, as opposed to roosters. I'll really have to scope out the immediate surroundings, including prospective neighbors, to make sure that everything is "cool", if you catch my drift. Why? Because no critter of mine will be tagged, catalogued, and monitored by the biggest pest of them all (Leviathan), along with it's scumbag minions.

gridiron gumption

2006-04-12T19:28:00.000-04:00

Wide receiver Mike Williams of the Detroit Lions had this to say recently concerning the need to get in gear and compete for playing time:

"There's no government jobs here. I've got to do my part to get my position."

mp3 motley

2006-04-07T18:24:00.000-04:00

I've been quite sick these past few days. Two different afflictions at once have whipped my ass, resulting in no desire to blog. I have done a little bit of web surfing though, and I've been inspired to post something. Not one thing in particular, just a few random things with mp3 accompaniment.

The new issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies came out just in time for me to spend some birthday dough on a subscription. Since the current issue happens to be a symposium focusing on Kevin Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, it should be an extremely interesting read.

This was the one thing I wanted to mention in this post that didn't spark an initial mp3 accompaniment in my mind. After some thought, I decided on an Antibalas song that provides a critical yet funky critique of corporatist state capitalism.

MP3: Antibalas - Big Man (Who Is This America?, 2004)

The editor of JLS is none other than Roderick T. Long, who deserves praise for setting up the Carson symposium issue. Long deserves additional praise for his recent speech titled "Rothbard's "Left and Right": Forty Years Later". The preceding link goes to the online text of the speech, while this link is for downloading an mp3 of the speech.

Next up is this Bombs and Shields post (hat tip to William Gillis) about a spontaneous demonstration against police brutality in NYC led by over a thousand Hasidic Jews. Good for them for standing up to police state thuggery!

Speaking of police state thuggery and Hasidic Jews, I've been waiting for some time now to share a great song by a klezmer/jazz/rock outfit known as Hasidic New Wave. The song is about Rudy Giuliani, and I'm sharing it now since I'm sick of waiting for Giuliani Uber Alles to do or say something newsworthy. For those who are curious, the song is indeed a knockoff of the classic Dead Kennedys tune "California Uber Alles."

MP3: Hasidic New Wave - Giuliani Uber Alles (Kabalogy, 1999)

I've listened to King Crimson a few times recently, which is one of the reasons why I appreciated coming across Eugene Plawiuk's post on progressive or "Classical Rock" earlier today. While I enjoy many different types of rock music, progressive rock is what I turn to when I want to zone out, put some headphones on, and immerse myself in the richness and experimentation of rock that is influenced more by classical and jazz than R&B and other rock precursors.

I'll have to familiarize myself with some of the artists that Plawiuk wrote about, although I'm already quite fond of some of them. I need no introduction to King Crimson or Frank Zappa, and the following mp3s showcase a couple of great studio recordings of the former and some rare live cuts of the latter.

MP3: King Crimson - 21st Century Schizoid Man (In the Court of the Crimson King, 1969)
MP3: King Crimson - Indoor Games (Lizard, 1970)

MP3: Frank Zappa - Black Napkins (live)
MP3: Frank Zappa - Peaces en Regalia (live - SNL, 12/11/76)

Finally, I'd like to give some blogprops to some of the great music-related blogs that I frequent. Ian and his blog Retrobabe is smokin' as of late, with great posts about artists ranging from Augustus Pablo to Can. Matt at los amigos de durutti is dishing out all sorts of hip sounds from the rap world, including some dish about the upcoming release by Gnarls Barkley. Another great music blogger, etnobofin, has embarked on a journey away from his native New Zealand. Best wishes to ya!

blogprops

2006-03-29T21:18:00.000-05:00

In the spirit of Thomas Knapp's occasional posts designed to point out cool happenings on other blogs, I'd like to acknowledge a couple of relatively new blogs that may not have recieved much attention yet.

I mentioned Lady Aster Francesca in my last post, and I encourage y'all to check out her blog. She has written a number of stimulating posts regarding libertarianism in an attempt to plead for a more socially-conscious current within the movement. Some of her posts have taken people such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe to task for holding some rather unenlightened social conservative views, while others have made the point that racism, for example, is something that libertarians should spend more time openly rejecting since the State is not the sole monopoly holder on oppression. Other posts shed light on issues such as pornography and sex work, an occupation that is subject to much demonization by social conservatives and should be entirely legalized.

Next up is David Reynolds's blog titled "the view from below". David's blog appears to be one of the growing number of blogs promoting libertarianism from a more left-oriented point of view. A fine example of this is his recent post about Mexican maquilas that are built on stolen land, faux trade (as opposed to genuine free trade), political corruption, and state terrorism.

asserting libertarianism as being a people's movement

2006-03-29T19:36:00.000-05:00

There have been a number of discussions about the French CPE issue in recent days on various libertarian blogs. In response to those who signed the MLL letter of solidarity, many libertarians have been baffled at the sight of libertarians showing sympathy for the young French workers affected by the new law, while attempting to show how logic should compel libertarians to support the new law as a legitimate "free market reform".

To this day, none of those who have objected to the libertarian solidarity have influenced me to change my mind on the subject. Some of them may have some valid points to make, but it seems as if this issue is helping to reveal a more broad difference of opinion amongst libertarians that may help to shed additional light on why some have embraced the left-libertarian moniker.

Many like to criticize the American media and it's coverage of foreign policy and other international issues (and for good reason), and it seems as if the CPE issue is no exception here. I bring this up upon reading Sheldon Richman's latest blog post on the subject. He quotes a BBC article that explains what the new law is all about, and then offers his two cents:

Thus the controversy is about a government-written labor contract that is to be imposed on all employers and under-26 workers. The government is not repealing a restriction; it is merely tweaking the restrictions it imposes on all. Freedom of contract be damned! The new uniform contract may have some benefits for young people who cannot find jobs and for upstart firms that had a tougher time than large incumbent firms coping with the earlier, less-flexible contract. But nevertheless, this is no retrenchment of French fascism. (And that's what the French system is.) It is a continuation of corporativist social engineering. I can see nothing for a libertarian to do but to condemn the blasted system root and branch.

Even before those of us who are ill-informed due to the shoddy American press became aware of the specifics, many of us libertarians already rejected the new law as a faux market reform aiming at expanding state capitalist privledge. As Sheldon Richman points out upon reading the BBC piece, there isn't even any reduction of statism going on here, which should further show that there is nothing wrong with libertarian opposition to it.

To further elaborate on my mentioning of a difference of opinion amongs libertarians, I'd like to quote a passionate comment left by Lady Aster Francesca at Liberty & Power's CPE post:

Mark: "'Cutting welfare from the top down, and taxes from the bottom up.'" I guess that's as valid as 'cutting welfare from the bottom up, and taxes from the top down' but an implicit interpersonal valuation is present either way.... I suggest it involves some interpersonal valuations different from those that are inherent in mainstream libertarian doctrine."

Um... I think the 'interpersonal valuation' involved is that shifting the tax burden to the poor while favouring the rich will end up with the poor trapped in misery, squalour, and poverty, while a tiny elite benefits. Simply put, one way of reducing net societal technical coercion ends up with a much more awful situation in human terms. Cutting corporate welfare in a semi-statist society isn't going to destroy anyone's life; cutting welfare for the otherwise destitute, in a society where state favouritism still directly and indirectly walls off their choices and opportunities, it might.

If detesting this involves valuations at odds with mainstream libertarian doctrine, so much the worse for mainstream libertarian doctrine. Libertarianism may not logically require simple human compassion but 'tis my hope it would not make it controversial. Why exactly is cutting the the budget on the backs of privileges built up by the state, rather than those who've been ruined by it, a potential problem?

I could also point out that if libertarianism were to try to dismantle the state while selectively attacking social benefits for the poor while ignoring the structural advantages of the rich, the result would be that the working class would make one great rush for the local state socialist party's recruiting office while classical liberalism remained the party of a few intellectuals and middle-class eccentrics out of touch with social reality. I rather submit that this is what has been happening for the last 150 years or so.

The modern libertarian movement believes its politics are in the interest of everybody yet converts no one (except intellectuals). I suspect this has something to do with the fact that the poor don't see any reason to think libertarians take their perspective or interests seriously, while the comfortable are often regimented sheeple who don't object very much to having the state economically and culturally prop up their institutions. Do you desire libertarianism to succeed? I think there's no way to do that without a libertarian theory that resonates with the actual lives and struggles of human beings.

Too many people view libertarians as being cold-hearted, intellectually aloof and out of touch with social reality, and thus don't take their ideas seriously. What is serious about this is that many libertarians are not only unaware of this, but don't seem to mind all that much.

While reading Lady Aster's comments, I was reminded of this Uncapitalist post by Kevin Carson where he quotes Karl Hess referring to libertarianism as being a "people's movement". It seems long overdue for libertarians who wish to make their ideas more persuasive to become more assertive and promote a "people's libertarianism", if you will, to counter the various libertarian sects that have helped to shape the public's perception of libetarians as "cold-hearted" or "pot-smoking Republicans" or whatever.

The MLL has taken the initial step, and without resorting to statist apology, contrary to those who misunderstood the MLL solidarity letter to the French students. Rather than supporting further state intervention or whatever else the French may likely support, along with the needless and unfortunate destruction of property that has occured during the riots, the signatories of the letter merely wish to reach out and show support the plight of French workers who have to live in such an appallingly statist system, while showing them an alternative libertarian-based approach toward achieving a better life for all. Failure to do so or even supporting the CPE will only result in furthering the negative portrayal of libertarians while also, as Lady Aster correctly put it, resulting in masses of people embracing even more state socialism to counter the reforms carried out on behalf of the ruling class.

I'd also like to use this post to refer readers to this post by Adem Kupi. Adem links to three different Los Angeles Indymedia articles about the mobilization of people who are opposed to HR 4437. Immigration is another issue where libertarians differ in opinion, and one where I find myself agreeing with the sentiments expressed by those who are opposed to the legislation. I support the supposedly hundreds of thousands of people who have taken to the streets and even interfered with various government offices in protest of the latest statist BS.

"harass the brass" with SDS/MDS

2006-03-27T22:04:00.000-05:00

Kyle Taylor of SDS Michigan has written a proposal for a campaign to be carried out later this year called "Harass the Brass", which you can read over at this SDS Organizer post.

It sounds like a good idea, and Brad Spangler and other MLL members seem to agree. Brad is thus collecting endorsements and asking people to consider joining either SDS or MDS (Movement for a Democratic Society). Libertarians may not agree with all actions promoted by SDS/MDS, but that shouldn't hold anyone back from joining. To add your endorsement, click here.

left-libertarian solidarity with French workers

2006-03-23T21:27:00.000-05:00

Young French workers are outraged over the recent new French law titled Contrat première embauche (CPE). The CPE allows French employers the right to fire workers under the age of 26 without any justification during the first two years of their employment. Despite it being technically an example of market liberalization on the surface, it represents an example of the type of market reform that benefits the political class at the expense of workers while preserving the overall corporate statist framework.

Here's what Brad Spangler had to say about the CPE:

On the face of it, that initially might not sound so unreasonable to us as Americans and market-oriented libertarians. The French are fighting mad about it, though, and with good reason. The overall economic environment in France is so thoroughly statist that they quite reasonably expect no tangible benefit from this one small so-called market reform — and quite probably a fair amount of pain.

Young people in France currently often have to live at home for several *years* while job hunting. The consolation that sustains them is that once they’re in, at least they have job security. We ought to be able to express sympathy for their plight and point towards a better way — a revolutionary way.

The CPE is technically market liberalization — but representative of perhaps the worst possible choice of priorities, I would counter. Such is the nature of political reformism — to subvert the market toward the interests of the political class and bring it into unjustified disrepute. It’s up to agorists to put forward the alternative — counter-economic revolution. (emphasis mine)

As a representative of the Movement of the Libertarian Left, Brad has taken it upon himself to write a letter of solidarity to the French workers, explaining the reasons for solidarity along with an invitation to explore the agorist alternative to statist reformism. I have already signed the letter myself, and I ask any of my readers to do as well if they support the messages contained within the letter. To do so, simply visit Brad's post on the subject and leave a comment expressing your interest to be included as a signatory to the letter.

Here is the letter:

Students and Workers of France,

Professor Roderick Long once wrote:

“When Marx called the French government ‘a joint-stock company for the exploitation of France’s national wealth’ on behalf of the bourgeois elite and at the expense of production and commerce (’Class Struggles in France’), he was only echoing what libertarians had been saying for decades.”

France and all other nation-states remain so today. You and we live in a world where freedom and economic
opportunity exist only at the sufferance of a political class that allows us only some small amount of them for sake of their own convenience and take the rest from us by force and coercion for sake of their own parasitism.

Under such circumstances, state-sponsored market liberalization is a cruel joke. The legislation you protest and rebel against seeks only to increase the latitude given your overseers, while maintaining the overall restrictions on your own liberty that, if abolished, would empower you to seek your own prosperity. We believe you and we would be very good at that, mixing both cooperation and peaceful competition, if we were not slaves.

For those reasons, the signers of this letter offer their solidarity to you and present themselves as a sample of a small tendency known as the Movement of the Libertarian Left (MLL), advocates of revolutionary market anarchism or “agorism”.

It is not the place of others to tell you how to wage your own revolution against tyranny. We have some suggestions, though — a version of dual power strategy called “counter-economics”. We humbly recommend MLL founder Samuel Edward Konkin III’s small book on agorism, counter-economics, and revolution “The New Libertarian Manifesto” in hopes you may find it useful or inspirational. It is available free online at:
http://agorism.info/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf

Signed,
The Movement of the Libertarian Left
Agora! Anarchy! Action!

UPDATE: The MLL letter has been published by Next Left Notes, the unofficial publication of the new SDS. Click here to view it along with the SDS letter. (the latter letter is also translated in French and German)

in defense of libertarian communism & markets

2006-03-22T18:23:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Brad Spangler, I recently discovered that author and artist Victor Koman has an extensive amount of old libertarian periodicals for sale through his KoPubCo Publishing site. I purchased a few things and will likely follow that up with another order sometime in the future. I'll likely be writing an occasional post about some of the stuff I've read in these periodicals, with this post being the first one.

One of those periodicals is the Strategy of the New Libertarian Alliance. I have a copy of issue number two, which is full of interesting and important material. For starters, it includes the introduction and first chapter of Samuel Edward Konkin III's unfinished book Agorism Contra Marxism, the book which influenced Wally Conger and led to his wonderful synopsis called "Agorist Class Theory". I highly recommend reading that essay if the idea of a libertarian-based class theory seems out of whack to you.

Another essay from that periodical that I found interesting was Kerry Thornley's "In Defense of Libertarian Communism". The essay is clearly written for a market anarchist audience, although many of the ideas he wrote about could also be used as a defense of markets amongst a libertarian communist audience. What follows are some choice excerpts from the essay:

But the charges that libertarian communism ignores the laws of the free market do not simply result from ignorance of its doctrines, but comprise instad an intellectually formidable position. In the first place, Berkman failed miserably to comprehend the significance of monetary mutualist ideas about central banking - blaming the warlike nature of capitalism upon the overproduction of goods and the consequent necessity to find new markets, unaware that in a free society stored overproduced goods could become a basis for mediums of exchange. Moreover, he failed to see that the prospect of war is needed by multinational banking corporations and failed to realize that credit monopolies such as central banks virtually thrive upon the misery and destruction that create debt.

Beyond that mistake, however, his thesis does not express an ignorance of free market principles, but instead depends upon a view of human nature that differs from that of most Conservatives and laissez-faire capitalists. Conservatives accept Original Sin and libertarian rightists assume that the laws which result from present economic values will always prevail, although those values result in turn from centuries of authoritarian conditioning.

As Hagbard Celine points out in the Illuminatus! Trilogy, left anarchists disagree with right anarchists only in their predictions as to how people will behave in a free market - the leftists believing that cooperation will take the place of competition, the rightists assuming that people will remain as competitve as ever. In other words, while authoritarian economics are proscriptive, libertarian economics are predictive - a realization which facilitates left-right unity among anarchists and libertarians.

...

But if, by libertarian methods, authoritarian values and the ignorance that they require are at a future point in history eradicated, what then? Will communist anarchism remain an anti-market philosophy or will the so-called laws of the market, being nothing mroe than descriptions of observed human behavior, change in accord with a proliferation of economic choices that result from psychologically liberated and informed values?

Like most higher mammals, human beings are herd animals, or tribalists. But the theological conceit that they are not mammals at all, but creatures "a little lower than angels,"causes them to behave in a way that alienates them not only from their own bodies, but also from their own emotional and social needs.

Imagine, as one example, belonging to a voluntary extended family of twenty-five individuals, children included, that lived in the same village neighborhood, labored in the same workplace, and enjoyed the same recreations together. Assume that these individuals had located one another through a computer matching service and taht therefore their lifestyle values were very much alike. Such a group might be further bonded in multilateral marriages, or it might be monoagamous and bonded vicariously in collective autoerotic sharing, or it might be sexually monogamous but held together by strong religious convictions or nonmystical values. Would such a group necessarily function in a manner that was anti-market? Even if it was organized internally for the equal sharing of what it produced?

...

That communist anarchists are by and large ignorant of free market principles is simply not true. For while their choices of words are different from those of the libertarian right and they therefore seldom use the term "free market,", it can be seen from a close reading of either Peter Kropotkin or Alexander Berkman that they recognize, as one example among many, that economic values are subjective, although they did not know this would become known among Austrian capitalists as the "law of marginal utility." In keeping with their contrasting view of human nature, the anarchists use marginal utility concepts to justify equal rations, since subjective value also implies that it is impossible to ascribe an objective value to anyone's labor.

Evidence that the communist libertarian view of human nature tend to be the more correct one is contained in A.S. Neill's Summerhill, where it is observed that in an environment of complete freedom children tend to be self-regulating and to master their subjects in the absense of any immediate rewards for so doing. That the resentment generated by compulsory measures is also absent in such a milieu seems to go a long way to explain why bribery, or reward, also becomes unnecessary. Further evidence is to be found in abundance in the study of anthropology, the Hopi Indians being only one very conspicuous, very extreme example of how far cooperation can develop in the direction of eliminating competition without crippling productive activity.

A logical political compromise between communist anarchism and libertarian capitalism would seem to be individualist anarchism of the kind espoused by Josiah Warren and Benjamin Tucker - for it makes the least number of assumptions in either direction about human nature and developed from experience with both utopian communist communities and the laissez-faire capitalism of teh last century.

Instead of making metaphysical assumptions about the nature of human beings in a free society, it asks: With people as they are how can we arrange social institutions to allow for the optimum in both individual choice and useful cooperation?

Once we construct our alternative institutions with that question in mind, generations of human beings will begin to grow up in genuine freedom - and no past or present communist anarchist or laissez-faire capitalist can predict with certainty what will happen after that, but it seems to me they should be able to agree that this is where to begin.

For libertarian capitalists that means becoming aware of communist anarchist doctrines, and realizing that they are based not so much on ignorance of economics as on unlimited optimism for the potential rationality of genuinely free people.

That is indeed some interesting stuff to ponder. With that last sentence from Thornley in mind, it would likewise behoove libertarian communists to become aware of market doctrines, especially realizing that markets are far more encompassing than merely the cash nexus. Here is a link to one of many posts written by Kevin Carson on the subject of markets and how broadly they are viewed amongst non-vulgar market advocates. As I stated in my previous post, anarchy is as simple as giving someone a hug, trading an apple for an orange, or purchasing a muffin at a bake sale, and none of those actions are anti-market.

v is for verb?

2006-03-21T20:29:00.000-05:00

One of the hot topics of conversation right now is the new movie V for Vendetta, with anarchists and other libertarians displaying an especially high amount of interest in the film. I haven't seen it yet, and I don't know when I'll have a chance to do so. (next week maybe?) Until then, I'll have to rely on other peoples' comments to get an idea of what to expect when I finally do get around to seeing it.

One of the better V-related blog posts out there is Wally Conger's "Exhorting the right of revolution", where he relates the film to the subject of revolution and ponders the relevance of revolution not just at some far off point in the future, but right now. There have been a number of comments generated by the post, with one that caught my attention being the one by Butler Shaffer. At one point in his comment, Shaffer wrote the following:

James criticizes this film for its failure “to demonstrate what an anarchic society would look like”; of failing to provide “even a hint of blueprint for a non-Statist society” or a “plan.” Here, he makes the same mistake as so many other libertarians: treating “anarchy” as a noun (i.e., a place, a specific system) rather than a verb (i.e., ways in which people deal with one another without force). The idea of a “planned” anarchistic society is simply too much of a challenge to my sense of humor. Suffice it to say that I have no idea how 300 million -– or, for that matter, 6 billion –- people will choose to deal with one another once they free themselves from state violence to adopt whatever systems and practices suit their individualized needs and preferences.

This is a very good point. Most people view the concept of anarchy as being either a noun (i.e., a state of anarchy) or an adjective (i.e., an anarchistic society). Indeed, many anarchists themselves view it that way. Viewing it as a verb, however, is an interesting way of presenting such a complex subject that may cause some people to think about it in a different light. As Shaffer puts it, viewing anarchy as "ways in which people deal with one another without force" removes one from not only having to come up with some sort of concrete blueprint - a tough task considering various individual preferences that would be put into action minus state coercion - but also allows for a conception of anarchy that may avoid the typical "anarchy = lawlessness or chaos" conception that is not only false, but hurts the credibility of anyone claiming to reject statism. It may seem weird for some to view anarchy as a verb, but it makes sense.

Let's face it, anarchy is in dire need of a reinvention from a P.R. standpoint, and anything that shakes it up in a positive and thoughtful way is a good thing. It also seems to be compatible with the whole "anarchism without adjectives" perspective since any sort of voluntary action, whether it's gift-giving, trading, or a monetary transaction, falls within the realm of anarchy. Anarchy is as simple as giving someone a hug, trading an apple for an orange, or purchasing a muffin at a bake sale. The ultimate goal is, of course, to be able to maximize the amount of anarchy one can engage in without being thwarted by coercive forces.

Getting back to the subject of V for Vendetta, you can read more of what Butler Shaffer has to say about the movie here. For a negative review of the flick from an anarchist perspective, click here for William Gillis's review.

iraq progress report

2006-03-20T20:29:00.000-05:00

Reason recently published an Iraq progress report consisting of a Q&A session with "a wide range of libertarian, conservative, and freedom-minded journalists and academics". There are a number of liberventionists that were included, and even Christopher Hitchens, meaning that the whole "freedom-minded" thing wasn't really that accurate.

Not only have I been against the invasion of Iraq since it was first conceived, but I've been a critic of American foreign policy in general for years. The concept that some refer to as blowback is something that was on my mind on 9/11 upon hearing of the terrorist attacks, and I knew right then that the likely response by the government would make things worse. My skepticism of and opposition to the war machine hasn't wavered one bit since then.

With my opinion out of the way, I thought I'd quote the two best Q&As from the Reason piece. A number of good statements were made, but the best responses, in my opinion, came from Wendy McElroy and Robert Anton Wilson:

Wendy McElroy

1. Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

I opposed the invasion on both principled and practical grounds

2. Have you changed your position?

My opposition has deepened as the war has exceeded my worst fears in duration, blatant economic motives, political incompetence and military brutality.

3. What should the U.S. do in Iraq now?

Get out right now. Declare victory, declare defeat, remember a pressing engagement back home... it doesn't matter what reason is given. Get out immediately.

Robert Anton Wilson

1. Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

No. I loathe invasions and occupations and all violence against non-invasive individuals.

2. Have you changed your position?

Yes. I oppose the invasion even more vehemently, since Bush has used it as an excuse to destroy the last few tattered remnants of the Bill of Rights.

3. What should the U.S. do in Iraq now?

Stop killing people, bring the troops home, and rebuild Katrina damage. (But they never listen to me.)

music: st. patty's day edition

2006-03-17T20:37:00.000-05:00

I may not be Catholic, but I am a part-Irish critter who loves beer. With that in mind - Happy St. Patty's Day! I'm not in a Guiness mood this year, so I went out and purchased a 6 pack of O'Hara's Irish Red, brewed in Carlow, Ireland. Good stuff.

Speaking of good stuff, I have some music to share. I am extremely lacking when it comes to Irish music, but I have just enough to make a musical St. Patty's Day post worthwhile.

For starters, I have an album by the worldly and prolific producer and bassist Bill Laswell titled Emerald Aether: Shape Shifting/Reconstructions Of Irish Music. The album is nothing special, but it does represent Laswell's attempt to work with Irish music and come up with something unique. The following two tracks sound especially Irish and give a good taste of what the album is about. The first one is his mix of a song by Karen Casey called "The Labouring Man's Daughter" and the second number is a re-working of a Jerry O'Sullivan tune called "Wendel's Wedding".

ALBUM: Emerald Aether: Shape Shifting/Reconstructions Of Irish Music (Shanachie/The Orchard, 2000)
MP3: The Labouring Man's Daughter
MP3: Wendel's Wedding

There is an instrument that is a part of my Irish and Scottish heritage that has a love/hate relationship with many people. Personally, I love the bagpipes! The rest of the tunes I'm sharing today feature this simply marvelous instrument in both traditional songs and something, well, off-kilter.

First, the traditional. The following two songs come from an album titled Irish Uillean Pipes, Northumbrian Small-Pipes, Scottish Highland Pipes.

ALBUM: Bagpipes of Britain & Ireland: Irish Uillean Pipes, Northumbrian Small-Pipes, Scottish Highland Pipes (Saydisc - Qualiton/The Orchard, 2001)
MP3: Rowsome's Slip Jig
MP3: Wild Hills O' Wannies

This last song does not come from an Irish artist. In fact, the only relation to Ireland whatsoever is that it features the lovely sounds of bagpipes. Free jazz legend Albert Ayler recorded the album Music is the Healing Force of the Universe in 1969, and one of the tunes is noticeably different from the others. "Masonic Inborn, Part 1" is a long and chaotic number that showcases Ayler's ability to take the bagpipes and blast off into another dimension. I doubt that many people will care for it, but I love it! Even though this album in general was rather disappointing, I'm glad I bought it just because of this song.

ALBUM: Music is the Healing Force of the Universe (Impulse!, 1969)
MP3: Masonic Inborn, Part 1

I'd like to end this post on a serious note. This Liberty and Power blog post by Mark Brady brought my attention to a website called Black Shamrock.org. From the site's main page:

Welcome to the Black Shamrock dot org, the website of the Black Shamrock Campaign, where people are invited to post photographs of the Black Shamrock at various locations in Ireland and throughout the world.

The Black Shamrock symbolises our mourning for all those who died as a result of Irish collaboration in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, for which the airports at Shannon, Aldergrove and Baldonnel have become pit-stops. It also symbolises our mourning for the loss of Irish Neutrality.

Equally the economies both north and south are daily becoming more integrally linked to the fortunes of the US led ‘military industrial complex’. What price is being paid for ‘peace’ in the north and ‘prosperity’ in the south with the arrival of Raytheon (the world’s largest Missile manufacturer) in Derry, and companies like Timoney, Data Devices Corporation, Zillings and Moog Ltd (all of whom make components for the international arms industry) in the south?

Among other conflicts this collaboration is fuelling, is the one caused by the ongoing Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories.

The Black Shamrock is also, of course, a symbol of resistance. In wearing it, all of those who do declare their opposition to any Irish involvement, be it economic, strategic or logistical, in the unjust and illegal wars.

The Black Shamrock campaign is a grassroots non-party political, non-partisan campaign to highlight the views of the majority of people in Ireland and in the rest of the world; that we want no part in these dirty occupations and instruct our leaders to follow Irish and International law and immediately withdraw support for the occupations. The campaign welcomes the support of members of all political parties and none.

Wear a Black Shamrock! Get your friends to wear Black Shamrocks! Download posters, pictures and graphics here, or make your own Black Shamrocks for display in your window, your car, your workplace, or elsewhere. Get pictures of your Black Shamrocks and upload them here for all to see!

quote of the day

2006-03-07T00:57:00.000-05:00

From Vache Folle:

I reckon the state is as much the instrument of God as smallpox or lava flows, and there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus that obliges us to die of smallpox or stand in the path of a lava flow.

To know why he came up with such a great line, I suggest reading the whole post. He includes a clutch Hitler reference as well.

mmmm... forbidden fruit

2006-03-05T19:03:00.000-05:00

A great article from today's Toronto Star provides plenty of reasons to reject the prohibition of drugs or any other item that people may want to consume. Author Taras Grescoe rips prohibition pretty hard right from the beginning of the piece:

When you can't have it, you want it.

It's simple human psychology, but generation in, generation out, governments fail to understand this and try to restrict access to certain goods on the grounds they're harmful, addictive, immoral or demotivating. Then they react with shock when their citizens act like naughty children, breaking the law to get at what they've been deemed too immature to handle. The situation is as absurd as it is wasteful: Punishing and incarcerating people for their appetites and excesses costs governments billions of dollars a year.

Another great excerpt:

Everywhere I went, I saw confirmation of a lesson that humanity should have learned in 17th-century Constantinople (where the sultans tried, and failed, to ban coffee); Enlightenment London (where Parliament, overstocked with brewers, strove to ban imported gin); and jazz-age Chicago (where forbidding alcohol corrupted city hall and empowered Al Capone).

The lesson is this: Ban something and it only becomes stronger, costlier and more coveted than ever before. I've returned from the experience, my liver weakened but my eyes opened, with a renewed disdain for the simple-minded idea we call prohibition.

He goes to provide the examples of Norwegian moonshine, Époisses cheese, animal testicles, Cuban cigars and "smoke-easies" in smoke-free California, Swiss absinthe, and coca leaves to illustrate this crucial point about the futility and danger associated with prohibition. This research was carried out for a book he wrote on the subject titled The Devil's Picnic : Around the World in Pursuit of Forbidden Fruit. I was especially interested in the first two examples he provides:

Norwegian moonshine

Outside the Islamic world, no country has a more restrictive alcohol-control regime than Norway. Wine and spirits can be purchased only in state-monopoly liquor stores, most of which are open till 6 p.m. on weekdays, 3 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays. A litre bottle of Smirnoff vodka costs $63 (Canadian), 86 per cent of which is tax. The 1.14L bottle of the same stuff costs $33 at the LCBO.

The results are entirely predictable: There is extensive cross-border smuggling from Sweden, people make their own booze at home and every drinking occasion turns into a binge. Most disturbingly, the enlightened inhabitants of the world's richest welfare state are reduced to drinking the Scandinavian equivalent of bathtub gin. I bought some hjemmebrent (literally "home-burnt") in a back alley from a massive neo-rockabilly moonshiner; it was noxious stuff, at least 95 per cent alcohol, more useful for lighting fires than drinking. It turns out that I was lucky to escape with only a hangover: Shortly before my arrival, 20 Norwegians died after drinking cheap, methanol-laced spirits smuggled from Portugal.

Époisses cheese

This so-called "killer cheese" is a product that is seen by many as further proof that the filthy French are as sloppy about food safety as they are about driving... except that this is complete nonsense. I visited the Burgundian village of Époisses and discovered that the cheese said to have provoked an outbreak of listeriosis that killed a young woman was in fact made from pasteurized milk.

The simple fact is so-called unpasteurized cheese (which people have been eating for millennia) is perfectly safe if it's well inspected, as it currently is, with almost ludicrous efficiency, in new EU-approved French factories. The danger actually comes from pasteurization, which produces a false sense of security — as in the case of the 224,000 Americans who were severely sickened by pasteurized ice cream in 1994. Every year, 500 people in the U.S. alone die due to listeriosis, most commonly from hot dogs or luncheon meat. But no illness outbreaks have been reported from hard, aged unpasteurized cheeses.

And yet, when I try to bring cheese-lovers in New York some nice Époisses, FDA inspectors systematically chuck it into a garbage bin.

There are, however, two minor portions of the article that detract from the otherwise greatness of it. While discussing animal testicles, Grecoe says the following:

Spain, like Japan, may actually be in need of the curbing of some of its appetites: Its vast, deep-sea fishing fleets are sucking the oceans of the world dry. Sitting over a plate of angulas, or baby eels, which cost 51 euros a serving, I found myself admitting — much to my surprise — that in certain cases, some kind of oversight and control over human appetite is not only justified but essential.

He thinks that some oversight and control is needed? Hmm... and how exactly are the rare instances of such tyrannical interventions that he actually approves of going to be exempt from the inherent flaws and counterproductiveness he reveals throughout the rest of the article? I suppose it'll actually be done right when he wants it to be, eh?

My other quibble with the article comes at the end when he seeks to distance himself from libertarianism by taking a jab at market proponents. He claims to want clean and safe beef and coca and whatnot and feels that government intervention is necessary for such things. Of course, I feel that a free market would provide safer food and drugs, especially since present dangers usually result from either naive faith in corrupt government bureaucracies (such as the ones that scoff at unpasteurized cheese) or practices engaged in by State-backed corporations that would likely be far less prevalent in a free market. This is all a subject for another day though, so I'll leave it at that.

Minor quibbles aside, Grescoe's article is well worth reading, and I'll bet that his book on the subject is good as well.

scumbags: bill o'reilly & the DEA

2006-03-04T18:31:00.000-05:00

This post is all about scumbags. Perusing the blogosphere today has led me to read about two particular incidents that warrant further exposure for the sake of revealing some of the scumbaggery prevalent in the world today. Maybe this will be the first of a series of occasional posts pointing such lowlifes out, or maybe not.

Teevee Scumbag: Bill O'Reilly
I don't watch much teevee, but I have been subjected to bits of his show here and there. It didn't take long for me to view the man as being a pompous, small-minded bully who likely hasn't changed since the days of his youth where he probably engaged in activities such as stealing lunch money from kid A in order to pay off kid B in an attempt to get kid B to go and beat up kid C for saying something funny (and likely true) that hurt poor wittle O'Reilly and his Montana-sized ego.

I've heard about his on-air bullying. I've heard about his supposed sexual harassment. Now, I read a Hammer of Truth blog post titled "Bill O'Reilly: Worst Person in the World" about his recent engagement in scumbaggery. Starting a petition to get Keith Olbermann fired for criticizing him and threatening a caller who dared to mention Olbermann's name. What a fucking scumbag!

Gang of Scumbags: The DEA
I'm inclined to think of anyone involved in waging the drug war as being a scumbag by default. Matthew Bryan recently wrote about some particular scumbags working for the DEA who are particularly deserving of the scumbag moniker. Read Matthew's post to learn why, and don't forget to click on the G-bomb links he provides to teach those thuggish scumbags of the State a lesson.

For daily reminders of why the drug war is waged by scumbags, check out the great site maintained by Pete Guither called Drug War Rant and pay a visit to the Vigil for Lost Promise.

bushit stinks up India

2006-03-02T20:02:00.000-05:00

Yup, he's in India right now. Folks there aren't too happy about it. Arundhati Roy is definitely not happy about it, as one can tell by reading her thoughts about it.

I also recommend checking out the info. provided by Eugene Plawiuk in this Le Revue Gauche post on the subject. Bush is apparently being met by a black flag protest over there, especially in reaction to his visit to the memorial of the "Gentle Anarchist" Mohandas Gandhi.

In addition to Eugene's post, I'd like to point out a website that I like to mention from time to time called "What Would Gandhi Do?". After reading some of the quotes on that site, you'll have a greater understanding of just how Caesar's visit to the memorial is truly an act of sacrilege.

arrivederci to monaghan

2006-03-02T18:43:00.000-05:00

I guess some of his ave marias are being answered, or something.

Tom Monaghan, founder of Dominos Pizza and former Detroit Tigers owner, is creating a new town in Florida named Ave Maria. Accoring to that Times article:

Abortions, pornography and contraceptives will be banned in the new Florida town of Ave Maria, which has begun to take shape on former vegetable farms 90 miles northwest of Miami.

Tom Monaghan, the founder of the Domino’s Pizza chain, has stirred protests from civil rights activists by declaring that Ave Maria’s pharmacies will not be allowed to sell condoms or birth control pills. The town’s cable television network will carry no X-rated channels.

Sounds like it'll be an absolute appalling place to live, but he has the right to embark on such an endeavor. Likewise, the town's future inhabitants will voluntarily choose to live in such a Puritanical, hellacious environ. Different strokes for different folks, eh?

I applaud the effort to engage in building a new community with a particular vision in mind, even if that vision makes me ill. It reminds me of efforts made in the 19th century in America by anarchists to build communities that would be havens for freedom, except that Ave Maria's holy vision would be hell for practically any anarchist.

Part of his Florida plans also involve building the first new Catholic university in America in 40 years, also named Ave Maria. Prior to my recent move, I lived about a block away from his Ave Maria College in Ypsilanti. Heh... my only experience with using psilocybin took place in an apartment building (see picture) that is now owned by the college. I won't even mention how many times I've wizzed on their property while walking home from a party or bar. I will say that I didn't wizz alongside one of the two gorgeous 19th century houses that are also on their property.

I'm glad to see him leave Michigan. I remember hearing a few years ago about his plan to build the world's tallest crucifix near Ann Arbor. His right to build such a thing on his own property should not have been thwarted, but that thing would have been an eyesore of Biblical proportions that would have brought all sorts of undesirable tourism to the area.

To celebrate Monaghan's departure, I think I'll have me some ~~Dominos~~ good pizza.

p.s.: I'm hellbound, right?

i've been tagged

2006-03-01T15:14:00.000-05:00

Another one of those chain blog meme thingies is circulating, and I just got tagged by MDM. My life thus far has not been as exciting and, uh, long as many of the others who has participated thus far, so this whole "4..." theme doesn't work with me very well, as you'll notice below.

4 Jobs I've Had:
working at a cabinet shop
working at a university library
caretaking for my mother (my current unpaid gig)

4 Movies I Can Watch Over And Over:
The Big Lebowski
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
any of the Star Wars flicks
Where The Buffalo Roam

4 Places I've Lived:
Utica, MI
Ann Arbor, MI
Ypsilanti, MI

4 Teevee Shows I Love:
The Simpsons
Hockey Night in Canada
Seinfeld
Kung Fu (the '70s series)

4 Highly Regarded And Recommended Shows I Haven't Seen (much of):
Firefly
Six Feet Under
Lost
The Colbert Report

4 Places I've Vacationed:
Beckley, WV
Winston-Salem, NC
Mackinac Island, MI
Washington D.C.

4 Favorite Dishes:
pad thai
chicken marsala
chicken shwarma
BBQd meat (type of meat doesn't matter)

4 Sites I Visit Daily:
Dimeadozen
Mutualist Blog
Strike The Root
LRC

4 Places I'd Rather Be Right Now:
Ann Arbor, MI
Amsterdam or some other cosmopolitan European city
Vancouver, BC (I've always wanted to check it out)
someplace warm

4 New Bloggers I'm Tagging:
Kevin Carson
Wally Conger
Sunni Maravillosa
Matt @ Los Amigos De Durutti

walmart post #4

2006-02-28T20:11:00.000-05:00

If Walmart is gonna be the subject of blog posts here every so often, I may as well just start numbering them, eh?

You can count on the LRC/Mises contingent of libertarianism to sing the holy praises of WalMart from time to time. In fact, that practice is perhaps more common coming from there than the time-honored libertarian tradition of critiqing drug prohibition. While many adore these Walmart love sessions, a growing number seem to be growing mighty tired of them.

I'm a libertarian, and I don't like Walmart. This shouldn't come as a surprise to those who stop by here regularly, since I've written three other posts about this particular beast (uno, dos, tres). My primary point is that Walmart is certainly no beneficiary of a free market, and in fact happens to love taking advantages of various laws and other goodies from the State to gain a competitive edge. Despite this, many libertarians champion Walmart while quite often leaving genuine criticism out of focus.

As I've stated before, there is nothing wrong and much that is good about those who wish to refute some of the typical Walmart bashing that is rooted in protectionist and otherwise anti-market thought. What gets on my nerves though is the wholesale glorification of Walmart that ensues as if there is practically nothing wrong with the corporation, other than perhaps having to deal with big crowds or less than helpful employees.

The latest example is this Lawrence Vance article from Mises.org that lists ten reasons not to like Walmart. The problem is that all ten of these reasons are pretty superficial compared to some of the real reasons to dislike Walmart. Again, aside from stuff like this, many libertarians will go right back to explicit pro-Walmart prose, as if Walmart is as wonderful as sex and they often find themselves hard-pressed not to cream their pants whenever they're strolling down WM's spacious aisles. This may be a bit of an exaggeration, and there are times when they'll mention the use of eminent domain, but such instances are most definitely pretty rare. Is it possible for these particular libertarians to justifiably tear apart the bad criticisms without also engaging in Walmart idolatry?

I got a kick out of reading the many comments inspired by this article on the Mises blog. There were some quality, well-reasoned responses, such as the many written by Roderick T. Long. For example:

"Wal-Mart has never caused any firm to go out of business. Wal-Mart can't close down any store but one of its own. It is the customers who no longer do business with a company or shop at a particular store who put that company out of business or closed that store."
Well, yes and no. It's not as though Wal-mart is a pure market firm, operating with no government patronage. For one thing, Wal-mart often gets the land for its stores by eminent domain. Since land obtained by eminent domain is generally land obtained below the market price (i.e., below the price at which the owner would have sold voluntarily -- otherwise eminent domain wouldn't have been needed), Wal-mart's operating costs are lower than they would have been without government help.

So, sure, customers voluntarily choose to shop at Wal-mart because of its lower prices; but those lower prices have been made possible, in part, by theft -- so it's not exactly fair competition. If I got to steal my means of production I could offer lower prices too. (And eminent domain is only one of the many ways in which big corporations are aided by state violence.)

And if Wal-mart first uses government intervention to help it defeat its competitors, and then takes advantage of the absence of such competitors in order to offer employees lower salaries than they could if the competitors hadn't been wiped out, then Wal-mart's low salaries are not exactly a pure market phenomenon either.

To be sure, Wal-mart's success isn't due solely to state patronage; there's been genuine entrepreneurial skill involved too. Still, Wal-mart's success is rather tainted.

A commentor named Beefcake the Mighty inserted some humor into the discussion by calling Vance "the Sean Hannity of libertarianism", implying that he apparently writes things that make libertarianism look bad. I don't endorse that ad-hominem by Beefcake since I'm unfamiliar with much of Vance's work, but it did make me chuckle and it does have some relevance, at least as it pertains to the Walmart article in particular.

Another good and insightful comment came from "JB" who revealed another (and largely unknown, I'd guess) reason to dislike WM:

I would like to add a "good" reason to not shop at WalMart. I do not "hate" WalMart, but I find some of their business practices questionable and virtually unknown to the consumer.

The "reason" I would like to add is DECEPTION.

The example I will use is from a lawnmower manufacturer about 15 miles from me: Simplicity in Port Washington, Wisconsin.

I own a manufacturing facility here. I have 100 employees and do about 10 million a year - been in business since 1986.

We met with Simplicity (some salesmen and a VP) about 5 years ago for a project. After discussing our deal, we began making small talk. One of the things that came up was our feelings about WalMart as a customer to our companies.

I had a bad experience with WalMart prior to the meeting (basically, the buyer took my price and hammered his current vendor to match it - not illegal, but not something that will have new vendors beating down your door if word gets around - it's like a guy in highschool who screws every girl he can as quickly as he can: he gets a "bad rep" pretty quick and no girls will go out with him at all soon enough).

When I brought this up (my bad experience with WalMart, not bad reps from too much sex!), I was surprised to hear that Simplicity had recently turned down a huge deal with WalMart - until I found out why.

According to the VP in our meeting, WalMart was all set to go with a specific model of Simplicity lawnmower. On the day they went to see the buyer in Bentovnille to get the final p.o. and go over a few minor changes to the graphics, the buyer suddenly let the VP (and owner and a few others that flew down)know that in order for the purchase to go through Simplicity would have to "cheapen-up" many of the parts, but not change the name or model number in comparison to what was sold at their "mom and pop"/other dealers.

So, in a nutshell, the buyer wanted to undercut all other vendors (which is understandable) not with volume, but with DECEPTION.

I have heard so many stories like this from so many different manufacturers, that I have a hard time seeing myself using WalMart as a vendor in the future. To me, this IS "the market" working - it won't start with consumers, it will start with vendors such as myself depriving WalMart of selection due to their behavior - if WalMart responds to the concerns, they will stay in business, if they don't, they will be Kmart in 30 years.

I now must question just about any product I buy from WalMart - am I really getting a "better price" or am I just buying lower quality product that has the same name/label as the higher quality product?

With WalMart, it really may be that we are "getting what we paid for".

One of the libertarians who is sick of all the Walmart praise is Stephen Gordon from Hammer of Truth, who recently wrote a great post titled "The Real Reason to Hate Wal-Mart". He starts off by pointing out all of the good arguments made by libertarians who defend Walmart from shoddy but persistent criticisms. He then shows the flaws in certain other comments and brings up the examples of three Walmarts in his home state of Alabama that have exploited bad laws and greedy politicians to gain favors from the State that wind up giving Walmart a competitive advantage over other stores.

A large debate continues in response to this post as well, with the primary point made by those disagreeing with Gordon being essentially that it is the laws and the system that need to be criticized, not those who benefit from it, such as Walmart. I wholeheartedly agree that the system is the root of the problem and should be condemned, but Walmart and other companies that similarly benefit should not be getting off scot-free from exploiting the system for their benefit. There is nothing libertarian about that. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with criticizing both the government and those who use the government to engage in certain dirty deeds. Just because Walmart is a business and not city hall or a large federal bureaucracy doesn't mean that they should be given a free pass to engage in or profit from political coercion without scorn.

When I see people seeking to eliminate any criticism of companies such as Walmart just because they're not the one who wrote the eminent domain laws, I'm reminded of why some libertarians are increasingly engaged in defining and pointing out instances of what Kevin Carson has dubbed "vulgar libertarianism". While glorifying Walmart may not necessarily equate promotion of faux free enterprise, it does (to return to the idea promoted by Beefcake The Mighty) serve to make libertarianism look bad. As a former left-wing statist who wishes to make libertarianism look good to the left, I'm especially sensitive to examples of corporate glorification that is not justified on libertarian grounds.

The one valid point that was made by those who questioned all the Walmart criticism is that Walmart is not the only corporation benefitting from eminent domain and other government goodies. This is certainly true, and all other corporations, such as Target or Costco or whomever, who fall into this category should be criticized as well. Walmart gets all the attention because it's the biggest and is subject to criticism from all sorts of people, but it certainly isn't alone in terms of gaining unjust nourishment from the government teat. Additionally, libertarians shouldn't need to be reminded that the State is ultimately the root of the problem. With that in mind though, this libertarian critter is not going to be compelled to back off from criticizing corporations who benefit from the State just because they may not be the root of the problem.

Agorism.info

2006-02-26T19:00:00.000-05:00

Cheers to Brad Spangler for putting together and launching a new informative website called Agorism.info. This new site is the place to check out to learn more about the radical variant of left-libertarianism known as Agorism. As of now, the site includes some great PDFs of work by Samuel Edward Konkin III and Wally Conger, the republished MLL pamphlets that Wally has been releasing, and some links and definitions related to the movement.

olympics post

2006-02-21T18:53:00.000-05:00

This is the first Winter Olympics year I can recall in which I haven't really paid attention to much of anything. I certainly haven't watched any speedskating given the fact that I had no idea who Shani Davis was until I read this Karen De Coster post about him. I guess Davis has been painted by fellow US speedskater Chad Hedrick and the media as being "selfish" and "unpatriotic" for focusing on his preferred event, one in which he had the best shot at winning, instead of a team race involving Hedrick. I not only agree with Karen's assessment of this situation, but also of one of the societal flaws prevalent in our culture today:

Shani Davis was the class act in this brouhaha; Hedrick is a scurrilous creep. Adds Wojnowski, "If Davis is not well-liked by teammates, it's not unanimous. Silver medalist Joey Cheek sat happily with him on the podium, and was one of the few Americans to embrace Davis after the victory."

That's because individualism is not acceptable in today's egalitarian-collectivist society of also-rans and parasites. Being above and beyond your "teammates" is somehow equated with seditiousness or dissent. That Shani's years and years of training gained him that one big objective that he had forever strived to reach is unacceptable to his petulant and lesser peers.

I reject all that prattle and instead celebrate Shani's dedication to success and refinement. Wojnowski closes with a no-brainer: "And here's a newsflash: Speedskating is an individual sport, always has been."

Bullseye. Case closed.

The fact that speedskating is an individual sport is irrelevant to those who feel that one must sacrifice his/her individual status for the good of the nation. I obviously reject such nationalistic crap, which is why I wished to bring this whole thing up. With the exception of team sports such as hockey, the Olympics are supposed to be a showcase for individual athletic excellence and goodwill, not nationalist exaltation and petulance. Well, that's at least what the founders of the modern Olympic games had in mind, prior to the rise of the nationalistic and commercialistic trends that have perverted so much in the past century or so.

Additionally, since when is there some sort of written rule stating that one must root for the "home team"? Despite all the wonderful individual events taking place in the Olympics, the one sport that I have watched a bit of is hockey. I must say that I was glad to see the Swedish team knock off the Americans the other day. I'm also not rooting for the American team to win gold. Some would call that blasphemy, but I don't give a shit. Aside from a couple of players, I'm not a fan of most American players, and there are a few that I flat out don't like. With that in mind, why should I root for them? I'm not gonna let nationalism and geography dictate to me which teams or individuals to support.

The hockey team that I am rooting for is the Swedish team, despite the fact that I have no Swedish heritage or anything. Why? For starters, many of my favorite hockey players are Swedes - Nicklas Lidstrom, Henrik Zetterberg, Tomas Holmstrom (pictured), Peter Forsberg, and Daniel Alfredsson. I also love their uniforms, especially the yellow sweaters. While most other teams seem to alter their look for each international competition, Sweden always sticks with their classic three crown look.

presidents' day

2006-02-20T19:03:00.000-05:00

What a lousy day. A day where Americans are supposed to sing praise for the first President (whose warning against foreign entanglents has been shit upon by his successors), the American Lenin, and all the other guys who took part in moving away from the ideals that spawned a revolution over 200 years ago.

I was hoping to recieve a book about Benjamin Tucker and other champions of liberty in the mail today, but there is no mail delivery today. Curses!

I spent most of the day with my mom while she was getting her chemo treatment. While my mom slept through practically the entire ordeal, I spent some time there in the infusion room reading Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln, followed by a short nap. Everyone in the infusion room was talking to each other about the same thing when I awoke. They were looking outside at the massive traffic jam that was created when the road was temporarily closed. Why was it closed? Because Caesar himself was escorted right past the office on his way to visit some sort of solar plant in Auburn Hills.

The people in the clinic were excited at the fact that glorious, almighty Caesar was actually in town, the people in the traffic jam were justifiably pissed off, while I was upset over the fact that I slept through an opporunity to give Caesar himself the finger on one of the State's holy days.

ambiguous collectives revisited

2006-02-20T18:42:00.000-05:00

Returning to the topic of ambiguous collectives, there is another example that is rather frequent these days. It seems as if many collectivist minded individuals want to throw all Muslims together and refer to them collectively as "they", then condemn them all for the actions carried out by a few individuals who happen to be Muslims. Not only is such a thing stupid, but it can also be dangerous.

James Landrith addresses this specific example of the ambiguous collective in this Rational Review editorial. Notice in the following excerpt how he uses quotation marks when referring to the pro-war "libertarians" who engage in this fallacious practice:

The choice of words by some "libertarians" are interesting. For instance, constantly referring to Muslims in general as "they" and then assigning collective guilt to "they" for actions committed by specific individuals or small groups. "They" didn't burn Danish missions. Specific individual Muslims burned Danish missions. "They" didn't fly planes into the World Trade Center towers. Specific individual Muslims flew planes into the World Trade Center towers. It is fascinating to me that some of my fellow "libertarians" are so eager to engage in gross generalizations, rather than see the distinction between thousands of SOME vs. 1.6 billion of THEY.

I sure see the distinction. It isn't hidden. And it isn't complicated. Why are there suddenly special rules that require Muslims to be treated as less than worthy of the same individuality granted other human beings? Of course, not being prone to promoting simplistic generalizations I see 1.6 billion individuals, some of whom suffer from group-think, and some who don't. Some who live in despotic regimes and some who don't. Some who have poor educations, some who don't. Some who live in the Middle East, and some who don't. Some who subscribe to violence and hatred and some who don't.

Call me "simplistic" if it makes you feel better, but I just don't promote group guilt or assign blame to 1.6 billion individuals on the basis of the actions of a small group of individuals. Should all members of the United States military be blamed for the actions of those who lost their military bearing and violated Geneva Convention restrictions at Abu Ghraib? If we apply the logic of some "libertarians", surely so. Should we label all men rapists on the basis that some of them are? If we apply the group blame philosophy presented by some "libertarians", yes we should. Shall we affix the designation of child molester to all priests on the basis that some of them have been identified as such? Sure, that is the logic of generalizations that strip whole classes of humanity of their individuality, relegating them to a status lower than that of the person making the generalization.

And that is usually the whole point.

ambiguous collectives & other statist myths

2006-02-12T19:51:00.000-05:00

Since I know that most people go through years of schooling and never learn one lick of logic, I thought I'd pass some along today. From Hogeye Bill's Dictonary of Logical Fallacies comes the following:

Ambiguous Collective
[Rel] The use of a collective term without any meaningful delimitation of the elements it subsumes. "We" "you" "they" and "the people" are the most widely used examples. This fallacy is especially devastating in the realm of political discussion, where its use renders impossible the task of discriminating among distinctly different groups of people. I often challenge those who commit this fallacy to eliminate from their discussion vocabulary all general collective terms, and each time they want to use such a term to use instead a precisely delimiting description of the group the term is intended to subsume.

An antecedentless pronoun is an example in the singular of the Ambigious Collective fallacy. Here are two examples of the Ambiguous Collective fallacy: "Last November, 77% of us voted in favor of term limits." In this statement, who exactly are the "us"? The speaker wants to convey the idea that term limits are very widely supported, but if in fact the 77% refers only to those who voted, that subgroup may well be a quite small percentage of the total population. "We need to train doctors to teach us how to get and stay healthy." In this statement, who are the "we" and who are the "us"? Is the speaker trying to promote socialized medicine by advocating government control of the medical schools? When he says "we need to" does he really mean "the government should"? And is the "us" merely a subtle way of saying "me"?

Examples of this fallacy violate my senses regularly and I've been meaning to get the subsequent frustration off my chest. Recent examples include: "we invaded iraq", "we need some sort of government to exist", "we love the fuggin power ballads". My question to those who use the ambiguous collective term "we" is this - who the bloody hell is "we"???

Well... what's the answer? Is it explicitly you and me? Our class? Our family? Our town? Brown-eyed people? No...well who then? I can tell you right off the bat that I never agreed to nor took part in any invasion of Iraq, I don't consent to nor need any sort of government telling me what to do, and I sure as hell don't like power ballads.

Are some of these people trying to suggest that people living on the land known as the United States of America are owned by some sort of being or institution, and thus all such people can be collectively referred to as "we" and that we have no mind or autonomy of our own? Am I part of some gang, club, or cult that I'm not aware of?

Truth is, there is no "we". There is, however, an "I", and there is a "you". There is no living, breating, observable "we" that individuals can point to. The State, it's minions, and it's actions certainly cannot be lumped together with you and me and referred to as "we". On this last point, I refer to an entry on the new anarcho-capitalist FAQ (also by Hogeye Bill) that is pertinent enough to share:

8. What are the myths of statism?
The paradigm of statism divides the world into competing States, and men into subjects of those States. The State generally succeeds in buying the services of "court intellectuals" to convince the people that wise leadership is necessary, for their own good, inevitable, and at any rate better than any alternative. Here are some common myths:

1. We are the government.
This is perhaps the most insidious myth - a form of extreme victimhood. This Stateholm syndrome is a virulent form of Stockholm syndrome. This identification with the ruler is ubiquitous in statist societies. A person who's never been near a military jet might say, "we bombed Iraq" or "we are fighting to bring democracy." In fact, the ruling elite are making the decisions, and their milfare minions are doing the killing. It is very important to avoid using the slave we in speech, as it impairs critical thinking. Beware the ambiguous collective. It may takes practice to be instantly able to translate "Support our troops" to "support the ruler's hired goons."

2. The government acts for the common good.
There are problems with this vulgar utilitarian view. What is the common good? (No one agrees.) If we somehow knew the common good, how do we implement it? (No one knows.) Even if we implemented a plan, how do we know it would have the desired results? (We don't, and coercively imposed social planning often has substantial perverse consequences.) There are also institutional objections to the myth. Why would the State act for the common good rather than the interests of the rulers. The rulers make the decisions, and have incentives like all men. Public choice theory is a more reliable prediter of political behavior than naive faith in Pollyanna pluralism.

3. Government is the only way to solve problem X.
This is the fallacy of government solipotence - the erroneous belief that only the State can solve society's problems. In fact, every valid service that governments now perform can be done more morally, and usually better, by voluntary means. Virtually every current government service has been done, at some time in history, by voluntary means. Private roads, private courts, police, and legal systems, cheap private health insurance, mail delivery, quality control certification, wildlife preservation, and so on have all been done privately.

4. State and society are are the same, or at least closely allied.
Similar to myth #1, this is an attempt to obscure the important difference between society and State. Society is the sum total of all voluntary human interactions; the State is the institution of monopoly force and legal plunder. They are mortal enemies. The more power government gets, the less power society has. The struggle between liberty and authority is a zero-sum game.

The example of an ambiguous collective provided in the FAQ is another popular one that needs to be ridiculed and rejected. "Our" troops? Who the hell is "our"? I don't own any troops, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't send them off on missions to spread evil (er, "freedom" and "democracy") abroad. If they really are mine, I should be able to instruct them to stop killing people and return home immediately, but alas, I cannot.

that elephant in the room smells rotten

2006-02-08T20:28:00.000-05:00

When I speak of elephants, I'm actually referring to Republicans. I can't possibly express how sick I am of the various myths portraying the Republican Party as being in favor of things that only libertarians believe in. The two big things to come to mind are free enterprise and reducing the size of government. The Busheviks have done a thorough job trashing such myths over the past few years, but it's of course not acknowledged by those who voted for or otherwise supported them, not to mention those who oppose the current regime but still view free enterprise and reducing government as being conservative goals. (note: they're not!)

I know of a few people who lean to the right who generally haven't followed political issues since the Clinton years except for news concerning terrorism, and they continue to give lip service to the myth of Republicans as being "a lesser of two evils" or "sound on fiscal issues". It's all complete balderdash, but some people simply refuse to have certain illusions challenged for fear of being thrust into some sort of limbo or (gasp) have to consider non-mainstream alternatives.

Over on the other end of the narrow mainstream spectrum, people still buy the typical Reaganisms hook, line and sinker, as if Reagan and his GOP successors all view free enterprise and limited government as being the hallmarks of conservative ideology. I was rudely smacked by this tiresome BS yet again recently while reading the latest by Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut may be a great writer and overall nice and intelligent guy, but it's safe to say that he doesn't exactly have the right wing accurately pegged, let alone does he even know what free enterprise is.

Now, with all this said, I of course must state that I also think that the jackass party smells, but the odor is somewhat different. For one thing, if you want to find people in the mainstream who are actually criticizing foreign policy and recent attacks on our liberty, you won't find them amongst the elephant herd. Amongst the actual cretins serving in the House, Logan Ferree has recently shown that most elephants are flat out authoritarian (some seem to be on par with Hitler and Stalin), while Democrats seem to vary. In fact, the libertarian portion of the Nolan chart he presents has only one red dot (Ron Paul), while there are ten blue dots.

Another thing to consider in regards to my occasional targeting of Republicans is that I used to belong to the statist "progressive" left politically and I've always loathed the Republican party. Add to that the fact that Republicans have done more to tarnish noble ideals such as free enterprise and distrust of big government, and you can see why I have an especially high level of contempt for them. The Republican party and it's supporters are enemies of free enterprise and enemies of liberty in general.

It is thus with great pleasure that I present a link to Anthony Gregory's latest column, titled "The Republican Ideology of the Total State". Here's an excerpt:

The Republicans have lost even the thinnest pretense of being a party for smaller government. They might prefer deficit spending to taxing people up front. They might understand economics well enough to know that some overbearing regulations favored by Democrats will kill the host on which their parasitic operations depend. They are lower-tax imperialists, perhaps. But they do believe, when push comes to shove, that the president should have unchecked power to spy, detain, torture and wage war. Perhaps the only Constitutional provision worth observing is the guarantee of a Republican form of government – that is, a government of, by, and for the Republicans.

Wait, there's more! On the subject of Ronald Reagan in particular, here are a couple of other things to check out. While perusing Roderick Long's excellent blog and jumping from link to link within it earlier today, I came across this 2004 post where he posts a letter to the editor that he submitted to the Opelika-Auburn News (but not published) where he reveals Reagan as being a wolf in sheep's clothing:

To the Editor:

Ronald Reagan spoke with such apparent sincerity about free enterprise, free trade, deregulation, cutting taxes, and downsizing government that he somehow managed to convince both his supporters and his opponents that his administration had actually enacted some of those policies.

In reality, the Reagan presidency’s actions were diametrically opposed to its rhetoric.

Reagan’s 1981 “tax cut” was offset by higher Social Security taxes, resulting in a net tax increase for most taxpayers. He then followed it up with the 1982 TEFRA Act, the largest tax increase in American history. The federal government’s tax intake was $252 billion higher in 1986 than in 1980.

The Reagan administration increased federal spending from $591 billion to $990 billion, the deficit from $74 billion to $200 billion, and the federal debt from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Entitlement spending soared from $197 billion in 1981 to $477 billion in 1987.

Despite paying lip service to free trade, Reagan pursued a far more aggressively protectionist policy than his predecessors. He did continue the Carter administration’s deregulation initiatives, but launched no new ones, and reneged on his pledge to rein in the federal bureaucracy. The number of civilian government workers rose by 230,000 during the course of his presidency.

The real Reagan legacy is that, thanks to Reagan’s pro-market rhetoric, the free market unfairly gets the blame for the harmful results of his anti-market policies. In that sense, Reagan perhaps did more harm to the cause of genuine free enterprise than any President in American history.

Roderick T. Long

The other thing concerning Reagan that I'd like to share is this classic 2004 Russmo cartoon:

*Addendum: I just thought of something else that I'd like to add to this post. Another link I came across while perusing Roderick Long's blog today went to Arthur Silber's epic essay titled "I Accuse: To Those Who Pave the Way for the New Fascism". Since the series of entries that comprise that essay were on Silber's old blog that no longer exists, the link doesn't work. Thanks to the Internet Wayback Machine, however, I was able to find the hidden nook within the interweb where the essay can still be found. The entire thing can be found here.

funniest. post. ever.

2006-02-06T01:58:00.000-05:00

If you've had a rough or depressing week, sit back and prepare for the following. I must thank Strike The Root for linking to a blog post by "The Anti-Communist" titled "George Soros and the Libertarians". Who needs Comedy Central and whoopie cushions when you've got grade A comedic gold coming from the ranks of Mr. I Hate Commie Pinkos?

Here's how it starts:

George Soros' ties to Libertarian "anti-war" groups like Lewrockwell.com are a concern for cause. Soros is merging the ideals of hardline Socialism and Libertarianism which is suppose to be the exact opposite of hardline Socialism into a Libertarian-Socialist.

Ties between Soros and Lew Rockwell? News to me. I don't even recall anything written by Soros ever being published at Lew's site. Despite being opposed to the insane War on Humanity (er... drugs, that is) and critical of USSA foreign policy, what in the world would these two people share any sort of vision on? Now, it may be silly to label any gazillionaire like Soros as being a "hardline Socialist", but he is waaaaay too statist to have any sort of influence upon principled anti-statists. And the idea that Soros actually exerts any sort of influence over any sort of actual libertarian is silly enough to make the commentary over at The Onion seem downright amateurish and pedantic. What's next... Osama bin Laden influencing the Bushevik agenda? (hey, both camps aspire for bloody wishes and despotic dreams)

Later on, this war porn loving comedic genius writes:

This group that I displayed is linked to someone who works for Lewrockwell.com as a columnist. He has regularly made anti-drug war comments in attempt to bash America as the "Great Satan" along with attacking America's position on drugs. Many of these "alternative" groups are also linked to the ACLU another Soros' funded outlet which is tied to MoveOn.org. There is a clear case that Soros is attempting to influence Libertarian groups into going against the drug war America is waging. Soros is using Libertarian ideologues and turning the ideologues into anti-American ideologues to what Anthony Gregory at Lewrockwell.com and Lew himself have become.

Libertarians were supportive of the Drug War prior to handing their agenda over to George Soros? News to me. I wonder if he's gonna shatter even more of my illusions by informing me that Christians didn't start believing in God until His Holiness began conversing with Dubya and urging him to bomb Baghdad. How ignorant I must be!

Then there's this gem:

Soros is also merging these Libertarian ideologues with other anti-American ideologues that are found on the radical Left which are mostly made up of hardline Socialists and Communists. Thus the term-Libertarian-Socialist.

Wow... what an intellectual specimen this Mr Anyone Who Doesn't Worship Dubya is a Commie guy is! He even invented the catchy term "libertarian-socialist" to define his recent 2 minutes of hate target! I guess people like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon must be a figment of my imagination. And of course I suppose that those people affilated with Lew Rockwell who call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" must be lying through their teeth since they obviously must have posters of Stalin and Castro all over their bedroom walls. (why else would Mr. Commiebusters hate them so?)

One of his concluding remarks was the following:

Libertarian ideologues are so hardline with their beliefs, that they believe anyone who disagrees with their policies is to the Left of them. That type of thinking can lead to exploitation by anti-American ideologues and Communist agents through people like Soros and his associates.

What stunning logic this man has! He's much more than a mere comedian, folks! He must have been an honor roll student back in his state schooling days. (snicker)

Seriously, this has been some of the funniest shit I've read in ages. I left him the following comment on his blog letting him know how much I appreciated his comedic brilliance:

Thanks for the comedic material, Max!

A libertarian who opposes the Drug War? My God! What's next, A Christian who believes in God?

I just shit myself laughing!

Unfortunately, all comments must be approved by Mr. "There are Commies under my bed!" himself, so there's no guarantee that my salute to him will actually be published.

While he may be a comedic genius, he ain't perfect. While he fixates on George Soros, we all know that the real culprit behind the anti-war movement must be Emmanuel Goldstein!

an interweb roundup with it's own soundtrack

2006-02-04T20:07:00.000-05:00

Lots of bloggers, myself included, occasionally wish to shed light on items of interest elsewhere in the online world or otherwise get into a writer's rut of some sort. Rather than just follow the formula of linking to interesting stuff, I thought I'd spice things up a bit by providing a soundtrack to go along with it. Neat, huh?

I'm gonna start things off by linking to a column on LRC by Christopher Westley titled "Living Without Television". In it, Westley chronicles his family's decision to withdrawl from teevee land, along with some criticism of the culture encompassing all of us that is largely generated by the boob tube. Here's an excerpt from the essay concerning the latter subject:

This is a particular area in which television’s costs are great. Becoming informed takes some work. This traditionally involved reading books, newspapers, and magazines to develop opinions about what you believed (or didn’t). Unfortunately, some of the most uninformed people I meet each day receive their news solely from television, which reduces complex social problems into emotional, highly manipulative one- or two-minute segments.

And these people vote.

The Framers of the Constitution created a decentralized republic, and explicitly not a democracy, because they knew that the latter tended toward centralization and tyranny. Even Jefferson believed that the small role actual voting would play in the new country would only be tolerable with an educated electorate. Not only would he hate television, he’d despair over a culture that promotes democracy and television as goods that must be universally available. What does it mean for freedom when so many voters are only informed to the extent possible through CNN and Fox News?

This column has also been noted by Karen De Coster, who refers to the slime projector as being a "Tool of the State's Totalitarian Democracy". I recommend reading her post as well since she provides her own commentary as well as outside commentary on television from Wil Grigg.

Is teevee a "tool" of the political class? Is there a reason why I referred to it as being a "slime projector"? Yup, and Frank Zappa would certainly agree with such sentiments. Zappa once put his criticism of television into musical form with what is one of my favorite rock songs of all time: "I'm the Slime", complete with backup vocals by Tina Turner and the Ikettes (they're not credited because Ike is a toolbag).

MP3: Frank Zappa - I'm the Slime (from Overnite Sensation)

Kevin Carson is at it again discussing the subject of workplace hell within Corporate America, this time dissecting the repugnant philosophies within books being pushed on a growing number of workers by their useless and pathetic managers. "Choose Your Attitude" is the name of the post and the target philosophies are "Fish philosophy" and the "Who Moved My Cheese?" philosophy, both focused on making people love Big Brother's rat race by encouraging them to deny their sense of self and dignity. Kevin makes a number of thoughtful and humorous remarks on it all, including the following:

Look: I work because I need the money to pay my bills, period. The 1500 or so cubic centimeters in my skull belongs to me. "It's not enough to do your work, Winston. You have to love Big Brother."

I expect any day now to turn on the six o'clock news and see a disgruntled worker on top of his office building with an AK-47, and a sign that says "I'm choosing my attitude right now, motherfucker!" The fact that a popular video game is called Blow Away Your Boss (just upload a digital photo of his face) tells us all we need to know about the state of morale in Corporate America.

For those of you who see some sort of appeal to that video game Kevin mentioned, you might appreciate the lyrics of the following song by hip-hop group The Coup:

MP3: The Coup - 5 Million Ways to Kill a CEO (from Party Music)

Finally, this Hit and Run post by Jesse Walker brought my attention to an Iowa bill meant to restrict the use of certain sexual devices. As Jesse puts it:

In other words, the legislators want to keep the kids safe from dildos -- aside, that is, from the dildos currently serving in the Iowa General Assembly.

As a liberty advocate, I of course object to such puritanistic zealotry. The living dildos that Jesse refers to that are serving in the Iowa General Assembly and all the others working for other state governments and the federal government are far more dangerous and offensive than, say, a large purple dildo.

Why did I bring this subject up? Why a purple dildo? Well, I honestly was just looking for an excuse to share the following song, one that I've been enjoying quite a bit lately. It's from an Indiana based group that I don't think is together anymore called The Japonize Elephants. The music is a crazy and appealing blend of bluegrass, jazz, folk, exotic ethnic music, and some classical. The following song is a good example of all that and is good from start to finish, especially the purple dildo portion of the song.

MP3: The Japonize Elephants - Dirty Old Lady (from La Fete du Cloune-Pirate)

Enlightened Liberty post

2006-02-02T16:42:00.000-05:00

Just letting y'all know that I contributed a post to the Enlightened Liberty blog today. It's called "The Danger of Unenlightened Institutions", with a focus on transnational corporations and the State.

At the end of the post, I mentioned an essay that's over at LRC that I'll recommend over here as well: Jeff Knaebel's "Remembering Gandhi".

music: shibusashirazu orchestra

2006-02-01T22:55:00.000-05:00

Although jazz has it's roots here in America, there are many international hotbeds of jazz providing plenty of ear candy that is pushing the boundaries of music. While most of these hotbeds are in Europe, there is no question that Japan is home to a lot of innovative stuff. Perhaps the wildest example of Japanese jazz comes from the extravaganza that is the Shibusashirazu Orchestra, although their music encompasses far more than just jazz.

Here's how the band's website introduces these guys:

Just like our japanese name 'Shibusashirazu' (loosely translated: "Never Be Cool") says, we don't stay within the 'cool' frame of jazz bigbands. We reach over into Rock, Japanese Enka, Japanese Pops, Latin, Folk Music, Groove, House and - let's not forget - Jazz.
Our lineup consists of about 20 musicians - the most skillful and creative players in Japan - as well as singers, butoh-dancers, groovedance girls, artists and actors/JapTrad performers. In addition we turn the stage itself into a piece of art with live painting, japanimation screens, stage decoration, and balloon creatures (e.g. a flying dragon of 20m length!). In short, our stage is a big interaction of multimedia, art and improvised music. We are original, and we dare to say: No other band like us exists anywhere on the planet...

I'd love to be able to see them live one day, although they've actually never performed here in America. They of course perform regularly in Japan and they also tour Europe from time to time. Their albums are also unavailable here in the States, although that hasn't stopped me from acquiring a couple of them.

As you'll quickly find out once you take a listen to some of the songs being offered below, their sound is absolutely relentless. Not only is their music loud, but it's also fast, complex, and as rich as Belgian dark chocolate (which I happen to be munching on right now). Below are songs from two of their studio releases as well as a couple of songs from a live recording of their show in Moers, Germany on May 18, 2002.

ALBUM: Shibu-Hata (Smash, 2004)
MP3: Hyottoko
MP3: Senzu

*This next song has one of the most hard core and coolest openings I've ever heard.
ALBUM: Be Cool (1995)
MP3: Angura-Zu No Ketto

From their May 18, 2002 show at the International New Jazz Festival in Moers, Germany:
MP3: unknown title
MP3: unknown title

*UPDATE: Thanks to Furious for pointing out which files weren't working. It turns out that the bad files were the ones that contained kanji, which Yousendit apparently can't handle. All is good now.

freakin' the suburbs

2006-01-31T20:30:00.000-05:00

How? By spending the day out on the town wearing this new bad boy:
I donated $30 to Strike The Root during the holiday season and recieved that hip tee for doing so. It didn't elicit as many reactions as my shirt that says liberty in Arabic, but hey, I've only worn it once. For the record, I know better than to wear that Arabic liberty shirt to any of the local watering holes. The last thing I need is for a bunch of drunk "America - Fuck yeah!" types thinkin' that I'm some sort of jihadist or something.

Aside from wearing that shirt and reminding people to keep their hands and laws off other people, I also left behind a few of those MLL pamphlets released by Wally Conger everywhere I went. Unfortunately, too many of the slumbering suburban folk around here are completely blinded by their USSA flag decals and otherwise distracted by the current Stupor Bowl mania (the game is being held about 20 miles south of my current abode) to care about anything, like, serious or something.

If that shirt is not enough to freak you out, maybe the music I'll be blogging about tomorrow will. Some of my favorite freaky musicians from Japan will be the subject of a music post that'll appear here sometime tomorrow evening.

quality quotes

2006-01-29T21:43:00.000-05:00

I'm back! My computer is up and running and I will resume regular blogging this coming week. In the meantime, here are a couple of quality quotes from blog posts I've read today.

From Lew Rockwell at the LRC blog:

One example of why they hate William Blum: "America's state religion is patriotism, a phenomenon which has convinced many of the citizenry that 'treason' is morally worse than murder or rape." (Thanks to William Marina.)

From Rad Geek:

Bureaucratic rationality, n.: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may have something good in their life without permission.

Sorry for no new posts lately...

2006-01-05T20:06:00.000-05:00

My computer is currently not working. All of a sudden, I get a message on the screen that says "frequency out of range" when I turn the computer on. I can't do anything. Continuous phone problems where I'm at, lack of internet access aside from going to the local public library (where I'm at right now), and other obligations are keeping me from getting the problem taken care of sooner than I'd like.

I won't be blogging at all until I figure out what the problem is and get it fixed. The blog post I said I was gonna write for the Enlightened Liberty blog will appear there sooner or later - ideas for it are still brewing in my head. It's a little late for posting xmas music though, and my holiday cheer is most definitely gone. Sorry.

merry xmas or whatever

2005-12-25T19:58:00.000-05:00

Whether you're eating ham with all the fixings or Chinese take-out, I hope y'all are having a fine day.

As I've already mentioned, I'm in the process of moving, and I still can't find the holiday music that I wanted to share (my packing was quite unorganized and I have over a thousand CDs in various forms of storage). It'll be belatedly posted whenever I find it, and you'll just have to keep it in mind and enjoy it next year at this time, unless you're into listening to holiday music year 'round.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to eat some cherry pie!

on deck

2005-12-22T21:07:00.000-05:00

For those of you out there who will be away from the computer over the next few days as the holidays, and their many activities and whatnot, take up your time, I'd like to wish you all a happy holiday season. I'll extend my wishes again on Saturday when I post again.

I've been busy with not only holiday stuff, but with moving as well. Despite all of that, I do have a couple of things on deck in the next few days. I'll be writing a musical holiday post on Saturday when I'm done moving and I find the music I wish to share. I also plan on blogging one day next week over at Enlightened Liberty, where I'll discuss a Buddhist critique of corporations and point out how such criticism applies equally to governments.

knee-jerk anti-leftism

2005-12-22T14:12:00.000-05:00

I know that Brad Spangler has already linked to the following blog post, but I wanted to do so as well while also throwing in my two cents on the topic.

The blog post of interest is one recently written by Roderick Long about the phenomenon he dubs "knee-jerk anti-leftism". As he puts it:

One might call the problem knee-jerk anti-leftism, or in other words, automatically responding negatively to certain issues (at least when those issues aren’t obvious applications of libertarian principle, like drug legalisation) merely because those issues have typically been the concern of the left.

Aside from the examples that Long provides, there are others that come to my mind. I have addressed this issue in two separate posts about WalMart (here and here). Then there are various causes promoted by people of a green persuasion that are ridiculed by conservatives and some libertarians even if statist actions aren't being promoted or even mentioned. Not everyone who is concerned about the use of certain chemicals or is interested in alternative energy wants the State to do something about it. Caring about the Earth isn't gonna turn you into a Stalinist.

Food is another issue that I'm concerned with that falls into this category. Many libertarians see nothing wrong with mocking the consumption of organic foods while defending genetically modified foods. It seems as if much of this is a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that most critics of GMOs are leftists who want the State to take the initiative. I'm not holding my breath to see any criticism of GMOs on major libertarian sites anytime soon, even from a strictly anti-corporatist perspective (the aggressive enforcement of patents and much of the R&D funding that make GMOs attractive and profitable for agribusiness are statist, along with other regulatory measures that serve the interests of agribusiness). The only libertarian writing I can recall seeing that refers to organic food in a positive manner is this LRC column written by Cathy Cuthbert back in 2004.

If libertarians are interested in making their beliefs more appealing to outsiders, they should really consider keeping some of their culutral biases to themselves. Mocking minority studies and granola eaters while praising WalMart and Monsanto isn't gonna win over any potential converts from the left. And as Long pointed out in his post, attempts to reconcile libertarianism with it's historical roots involves looking leftward since it's historical roots were not at all conservative.

People of all persuasions need to be careful not to let overly generalized or otherwise inaccurate stereotypes get the best of them. Not all Christians are blood thirsty neo-cons, and not all organic consumers are market demonizing state socialists. Such knee-jerk judgements wind up painting inaccurate pictures of certain people and values.

libertarians and the labor movement

2005-12-21T01:03:00.000-05:00

Radgeek, the finest blogger west of I-275 and east of US-23 (even when I lived there, which was up 'til yesterday), has written a thoughtful post about the subject of libertarianism and the labor movement. The post includes links to numerous recent blog posts from elsewhere on the subject, links to past posts he wrote on the subject, and some additional commentary of his own. Well worth checking out.

Meanwhile, Brad Spangler, the finest blogger living whereever it is he lives, has chimed in on the subject of the NYC transit union strike. His post is also well worth checking out.

That corporation everyone loves to hate is at it again

2005-12-21T00:38:00.000-05:00

Yep, I'm referring to WalMart. And yes, I've had a habit in the past of leaving out the hypen in their name. I guess that's how it's supposed to be, although I wasn't really aware of that, and I really don't give a rat's arse.

Anywhoo, the following should be common knowledge by now for those who have followed some of the criticism hurled at the corporate giant:

* WalMart has no qualms whatsoever with colluding with various governments to promote their interests.
* WalMart has no qualms whatsoever with holding others' property rights in contempt.

Their latest target: land that is sacred in the eyes of the aboriginal S'Amuna people of Canada, land that should be rightfully theirs.

Thanks to Eugene Plawiuk for drawing my attention to the matter with this post and the sidebar button visible below and in my sidebar. Thanks also to Meaghan Walker for her extensive writing on the subject.

Wal-Mart Is Desecrating
The S'amuna' Peoples
Sacred Burial Site
And Despoiling Our Lands!

late night CBC rant

2005-12-18T03:03:00.000-05:00

I will always appreciate CBC for their weekly institution known as Hockey Night in Canada. I also love the fact that they show games practically every night during the playoffs. I watch as much of it as I can, being fortunate enough to live close enough to the Canadian border to pick it up with or without cable.

For the last two weeks, I've decided to watch their late-night movie that follows HNIC since they've had two great flicks on: The Maltese Falcon and The Pink Panther Strikes Again.

For the second straight week, the picture and sound have begun going in and out near the end of the movie. This isn't happening on any other channel. Curses! What's the deal? I've at least seen tonight's movie a few times before, but I had never seen The Maltese Falcon prior to last week's showing, which amounted to being a tease.

I just had to rant about it somewhere, since this is happening as I type this, and I'm pretty ticked off. I coulda and shoulda gone to bed earlier. I hardly ever watch the boob tube as it is, and crap like this often happens when I do. Curses!

Special fundraising auction

2005-12-14T19:58:00.000-05:00

Claire Wolfe has informed her readers of a special fundraising auction taking place on ebay between now and Monday. Here is a link to the auction page. While I'm financially unable to offer a bid at this time, I thought I'd help out by spreading the word.

What is being auctioned is an autographed leather-bound copy of Vin Suprynowicz's novel The Black Arrow. As to the cause being supported by this auction, here's the description from the auction page:

THE CAUSE: Walter Bark, the founding webmaster and guiding spirit of The Claire Files discussion forums is dying of cancer. His friends Elias Alias, Basil Fishbone, and Iloilo Jones have been bearing the entire cost of the herbal medicines that are making Bark's final days tolerable. They're spending about $400 per month out of their own pockets and Elias has taken Bark and his mother and daughter into his home.

State sanctioned murder

2005-12-14T02:48:00.000-05:00

I've refrained from writing about the news concerning Tookie Williams, although it's not because I haven't thought about it.

For the record, I do not support capital punishment at all. The term "capital punishment" is a euphemistic cover for what it truly is: State sanctioned murder. Not only is it an act of murder carried out by the State, but it's support amounts to a deification of State agents, which is both disgusting and dangerous.

Rad Geek has done a far better job than I could describing the essence of this situation. Please give it a read.

He also provides a link at the end that points to yet another potential murder on the horizon, and one that is even more of an outrage than the one that took place yesterday morning. The link goes to Radley Balko's account of Cory Maye's plight. If I were in Cory's shoes, I would have done the same thing. Then again, I'm not a black man living in Prentiss, Mississippi, although that shouldn't matter. This story is truly appalling.

The blood lust of Leviathan grows...

*UPDATE: If you wish to keep up to date with infromation and commentary concerning Cory Maye, here are two links to check out. The first is Mayeisinnocent.com, a site devoted to the story. The second is a comprehensive tracking of blog posts and other references to the story being carried out by Battlepanda.

Say one thing, while working towards something entirely different

2005-12-14T01:36:00.000-05:00

You see what this post is titled? People who see through the Bushevik lies concerning Middle East policy would say that such a statement applies quite well to those who persist in claiming that bombing the shit out of and then occupying foreign countries over there is all about protecting and promoting freedom.

Many war critics realize this, yet don't apply the same idea to another topic that many consider to be important. Corporations and their shills regularly claim to support and clamor for free trade and free enterprise. What many don't realize is that these people are not being honest with you. They may, in fact, be even less honest than the Busheviks who may genuinely believe that they are saviors of freedom.

This is something that some libertarians realize, although it unfortunately may not appear that way if your exposure to libertarians consists of the more mainstream lot who croon about that schmuck Neal Boortz and dismiss corporate criticism as being "anti-capitalist lunacy". While checking out Larry Gambone's Porkupine Blog tonight, I discovered that he has linked to a recent George Monbiot column that deals with this subject. Apparently, Monbiot gets it too, at least this time.

Corporations may claim to support free enterprise, but this excerpt from Monbiot's piece shows a completely different picture:

In the submission it made to the chancellor's pre-budget report, it demanded that the government spend less on everything except business. The state should cut its planned spending on health, social security and local authorities, and use some of the savings to protect and enhance its "support and advisory services for trade and businesses". Our higher-education budget should be used to supply free research for corporations. The regional development agencies should "expand their activities to support more extensive business-to-business networking and collaboration". Further road taxes should be abandoned, and the climate-change levy "should be frozen", but the government should help businesses by building more roads and airports. This is what the CBI means by free enterprise.

(emphasis mine)

He then goes on to expose how big businesses have been the biggest beneficiaries of the EU's farm subsidies, including many businesses that have no connections to agriculture. The examples he provides on this subject are outrageous, as are the ones he provides related to other government expenditure programs, both in Eurpope and here in the USSA.

There are many examples other than the ones Monbiot provides that reveal how the growth and maintenance of large corporate giants usually has more to do with what Gambone calls "the state socialism of the rich" than market forces. These corporations who benefit so tremendously from government subsidy most certainly don't want to lose it all and have to compete in an actual free market, just as imperialists and war profiteers most certainly don't want to see genuine freedom in the Middle East and elsewhere thwart their sinister plans.

Automaker promotes walking!

2005-12-13T17:38:00.000-05:00

Now here's something you don't see everyday.

Walk to work, carmaker tells staff

In case you don't care to click on the link, here's the opening of the article:

TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- Japanese automaker Mazda Motor Corp. is recommending its employees walk to the office, rather than drive, to improve their health and protect the environment, a company spokesman said Friday.

Those meeting a set of requirements by going to office on foot are eligible to receive 1,500 yen ($12) a month, Mazda spokesman Ken Haruki said.

Neato. And quite surprising coming from an automaker.

I may not walk to work, but I do ride the bus and get off at a stop further away from work so that I have to walk for about 15 minutes to get to work. I also have a 15 minute walk home from the bus station after work. I may have to fork over $1 to ride the bus, but it sure beats paying for gas, insurance, maintenence, and other expenses that go along with car ownership.

(link via A day in the life of Fred, a blog I discovered through Wolfesblog)

Obama is an idiot

2005-12-13T00:33:00.000-05:00

I just got through reading a ridiculous article about Senator Barack Obama's latest claim about Republicans. He claims that Republicans are all about Social Darwinism.

Now, to some extent, he does have a point. He then tarnishes that point with the ignorant claim that:

"They have a philosophy they have implemented and that is doing exactly what it was designed to do. They basically don't believe in government. They have a different philosophy that says, 'We're going to dismantle government',"

Idiot.

Republicans have no interest in dismantling government. They LOVE government! They believe in it immensely as the key tool to promote their grand ol' vision of corporatism, militarism, nationalism and almost any other ism that'll make ya wanna vomit. They're all about increasing the size of government in some areas, like the military for example, while shifting things around in other areas in order to promote efficiency in government. In other words, they're all about reducing the level of state socialism in government while promoting a more corporatist agenda. That doesn't result in a dismantling of government, it results in a restructuring of government. Their faux privatization of Social Security plan is a fine example of that.

Further down the column, we find this:

Social Darwinism applies Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection from biology to human culture. Popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the theory advocates free competition and a minimalist role for government in society. Darwin himself rejected the application of natural selection to human society.

Now, if Obama truly believes that Republicans are interested in "free competition and a minimalist role for government", then he not only is an idiot, he's also a jackass. Then again, a jackass is the symbol of his party.

Meanwhile, lest you think that I'm somehow defending the elephant party, I'm not. In fact, I'd love to see those elephants poached (*note to animal lovers: I'm not talking about REAL elephants). While I absolutely loathe both major parties, I've always had a more negative view of the Republican party, which goes back to my days as a statist leftie.

I wasn't about to let idiot Obama slide though with his promotion of nonsense about the Republicans. There are endless ways that one could go about bashing Republicans. Painting an inaccurate picture of them only makes you look like an idiot.

Another WalMart post

2005-12-04T23:32:00.000-05:00

It has just come to my attention that Karen DeCoster was disappointed by the criticism of WalMart I wrote awhile back. You'll have to scroll down a bit to get to the part where she addresses my post.

My original post pointed to Lew Rockwell's commentary on WalMart's support of a minimum wage hike, and then questioned why certain free market advocates supported WalMart, an institution that is an enemy of free markets. I also provided a link to a Jonathan Tasini article that provides some of the reasons why WalMart is not pro-free market. With that background taken care of, here is what Karen's response begins with:

Then the libertarian critter--a fellow Michigander and all-around good guy--disappoints with this post. He links to an absolutely spot-on article by Lew Rockwell that shows how Wal-Mart does exactly what many other corporations do to squash competition, in concert with the state. (Lew discusses the backing of a higher minimum wages by Wal-Mart executives.) Now how does this set Wal-Mart apart from every other state-supporting corporation across America? Of course, it doesn't. But these anti-free market moments need to be pointed out, always.

Here's where the critter makes me go {sigh}. He links to this absolutely left-wing, anti-free market article, and he himself equates Wal-Mart with evil on the basis of all those usual hysterical accusations made by the Left and the Luddite Right. Rather clumsily, the critter attempts to make libertarians defending Wal-Mart look as if they are in grave error:

If you ask me, it must be a knee-jerk reaction for some of these otherwise consistent free market types to defend anything criticized by certain leftists.

The pro-Wal-Mart free enterprise types, are, in fact, the ones defending against knee-jerk hysteria and the hate against free trade and "bigness." It is NOT just leftists that rail against Wal-Mart; in fact, it was the Luddite, Mom-and-Pop "Right" who formerly had the biggest voices and the craziest accusations. The Left jumped on the bandwagon with a different tack (human rights, unions, health care, job loss, etc.).

Yes, the Tasini article is anti-free market in nature, but i'm not concerned with his ideas on what to do about WalMart. I'm interested in his expose of Walmart as it pertains to showing WalMart as being just another beneficiary of state capitalism as opposed to the bastion of free enterprise as many portray it as being. Additionally, I did not equate WalMart with evil for all the usual reasons cited by the anti-WalMart crowd at large. Again, my concern is with their increasingly apparent animosity towards free enterprise.

I recognize where free market types defend against complaints from typical anti-WalMart people and have no problem with it to the extent that they're addressing the arguments that are imprecise, or worse. What concerns me is when people equate WalMart with free enterprise, as if what all free market types yearn for is a world where everything winds up being run like a WalMart. WalMart is not the embodiment of free enterprise, it is a beneficiary of state capitalism. We don't even have a free market, so how can an actually existing corporation be the embodiment of an economic order that is actively suppressed by state intervention? Free market advocates such as Karen and myself may realize this, but many people do not.

As a radical free market advocate with an interest in making free market libertarianism more appealing to the left, I have no interest in defending an institution that is both hostile to free enterprise and seen as evil by leftists, even if I don't agree with all of their criticisms. I also condemn any statist remedies that leftists may have in mind, but the typical statist nature of WalMart criticism isn't going to keep me from joining in, albeit while singing a different, pro-free market tune. To praise an institution that benefits from state privledge is inconsistent with free market advocacy, and I thus have no interest in doing so, even if I enjoyed their low prices (which I don't since I don't shop at WalMart).

If certain free market types wish to defend WalMart's "bigness", their wages, or other things targeted by the anti-WalMart crowd, be my guest. I just wish that such defenses don't leave an impression amongst those who may read them that the WalMarts of the world are consistent with a free market vision, because they're not. I happen to be similarly bothered by lefties who criticize "free trade" treaties like NAFTA and know that they're not really about free trade, but then don't let their readers know that there is a difference between "free trade" and the real deal. It creates confusion amongst people who may not know the difference and wind up thinking that the huge government-managed treaties that largely serve corporate interests are what free trade is all about. Similarly, when free market types equate WalMart with free enterprise, some people wind up thinking that a free market would result in a world where everything would be like WalMart, which is totally inaccurate.

Before moving on, I wish to point out that not all critics of "bigness" are luddites. "Bigness" is not necessarily synonymous with progress, and some people view progress differently from those who view big box stores as the greatest thing since sliced bread. If some people like shopping at WalMart, then more power to them. I'm not one of them, but that doesn't make me a luddite, just like buying my produce at the local food co-op and planning on one day having my own organic garden to take care of my produce needs doesn't make me a luddite. Oh, and I also think that big box stores are ugly, but I'm still not a luddite.

Karen then confronts the portion of Tasini's article that focuses on WalMart's relationship with China. She dismisses what she calls "anti-china hysteria" as being "old and worn", without going in depth as to why. The only analysis she provides involves correctly noting Lew Rockwell's commentary about WalMart supporting a rise in the minimum wage, along with the fact that WalMart pays higher than the minimum wage here in the US, which is also, to my knowledge, correct. The problem is that she states these things in response to Tasini's claim that Chinese workers would have to be paid more in a free market. Regardless of Tasini's potential flaw in perceiving who is ultimately responsible for the paychecks of these Chinese workers, Karen has not addressed the ultimate claim that WalMart, in a free market, would be hard pressed to remain the giant that it currently is, let alone even exist at all.

While some free market advocates may think that large corporations may still exist in a genuine free market, others do not agree. While I again don't have much of anything in common with Tasini, I linked to his article because he does point out that a) WalMart's practices are inconsistent with free enterprise, and b)things would be radically different for WalMart in a free market. The fact that Tasini is also hostile to free enterprise does concern me, but not at this moment.

Additionally, I don't see why criticizing China is "old and worn". Why is criticizing government corruption "old and worn"? Why is criticizing the artifical suppression of wages and other state distortions of the market "old and worn"? Why is criticizing prisoner slave labor "old and worn"?

So China may be involved in a transition from a state socialist hellhole to a more state capitalist hellhole. I see no reason to celebrate, and the fact that China remains being a totalitarian hellhole and that corporations like WalMart would rather support such totalitarian hellholes than promote free enterprise makes me see much relevance in continuing the criticism of China and those who support China's tyrannical system. Again, I don't agree with all of the criticisms, such as the ones rooted in pro-protectionist beliefs, but some of the criticisms are valid and warranted.

Finally, she concludes her post with the following:

This is what the "free market types" (as espoused by the critter) are defending against: the authoritarian, anti-free trade hysteria (especially concerning China): the war against "bigness" and progress; the socialist-protectionist takeover of the economy under the umbrella of the "American Dream" and "national interest"; and the war on the lower and middle classes and the improvement in living standards therein.

Yes, Wal-Mart is guilty of many crimes--including eminent domain issues--and so are many other corporatist state players. But "ugly buildings," world-class inventory systems, higher wages, more jobs, progressive supplier relationships, and lower prices are the "crimes" Wal-mart is unjustly accused of because people just love to hate Wal-Mart.

To the extent that these free market types criticize protectionism and further state intervention of the economy, I salute them. But as I've already stated, "bigness" is not inherently synonymous with progress, and the anti-free market practices of Wal-Mart make them an institution that I view deserves scorn rather than praise. WalMart may not be much different than any other player in the corporate statist system, but the fact that they are part of that system is what bothers me. I may not boycott all such corporations, but that doesn't mean that I have to like them.

It's true that many people love to hate WalMart, and their reasons for doing so and their proposed remedies may not jive with me. My only reason to chime in on the subject of WalMart is to defend free enterprise from those who are hostile to it and from those who falsely equate WalMart with free enterprise. When people make that false equation, it gives free enterprise a bad rap that it doesn't deserve amongst those who may be open to free market ideas if they understood some of the things that so many people make confusing.

I appreciate much of Karen's writing on various issues of importance (especially her criticisms of the automotive industry), but I must say that we wind up disappointing each other on the issue of WalMart.

Brad Spangler on war, socialism and semantics

2005-12-04T21:04:00.000-05:00

I encourage y'all to give Brad Spangler's new blog post titled "War, Socialism and Precision in Thinking" a good reading. He begins by stressing the difference between pacifism and the type of anti-imperialist position held by many war critics today. Switching over to the topic of socialism, Brad goes into an extensive dissection of corporate statism and the varying definitions of both capitalism and socialism in order to show where both the conventional Left and the "vulgar libertarians" go wrong in their understanding of the two isms.

Some people may lament the constant discussion of semantics, seeing it as a waste of time that diverts attention away from supposedly more important things. Brad's post shows why I must disagree with such sentiment. What is the point of action and the promotion of ideas if such things are rooted in imprecise understandings of other people and their positions? People are very rarely on the same page when engaging in political discussion, which is why some people can view the term "libertarian socialism" as being an oxymoron while others roll their eyes when hearing someone praise "free market capitalism" due to having a different idea of what capitalism is. As Brad puts it:

If “capitalism” is held as being genuine devotion to a free market, property rights, productivity and resulting prosperity — then clearly saving money (accumulating capital) is a “Good Thing(tm)”.

But if “capitalism” has nothing to do with a free market and is instead all about using the power of the state to craft market distorting privileges on behalf of a political class — then accumulation of capital by ordinary people becomes something mildly subversive to the established order and will be discouraged.

Clearly, capitalism[1] is not capitalism[2].

This also reminds me of the various conceptions of "property" that Proudhon discussed in "What is Property?" A condensed treatment of Proudhon's ideas on the subject by fictional character Hagbard Celine were included within the appendices of The Illuminatus Trilogy, and can be read here.

Music: Kevin Sawka

2005-12-04T18:41:00.000-05:00

The drum machine has become obsolete.

Well, maybe not, depending on what you may want to accomplish and listen to, musically speaking. The intense, hyper fast beats that such machines are used for in creating various types of electronic music have been replicated and improved upon by a flesh and blood human being who has been mesmerizing people in the northwest and other locales for a few years now. His name is Kevin Sawka, and his insane talent is bound to make him a big shot in the music world anytime now.

He's already been noticed by various jazz musicians in the Seattle area, along with original Santana drummer Michael Schrieve for his unique, bionic-like skills. While he has performed with such cats, lending his services to enhance jazz or rock based projects, his primary focus is in the world of live electronic music. Drum and bass and jungle are two styles that come to mind when listening to his mind bending dexterity on the drumkit. His enduring ability to perform for hours on end is also amazing in it's own right.

Sawka performs both solo and with various musicians, mostly from the Seattle area. He has performed in numerous late night Seattle loft party sessions where musicians gather to throw down some serious improvisation and grooviness. One such session took place on June 8, 2002 with musicians such as Skerik (Critters Buggin, Les Claypool) on sax, Brad Houser on bass, Eric McFadden (P-Funk All-Stars, Stockholm Syndrome) on electric guitar and mandolin, and Reggie Watts (Maktub) on keys and voice box. Over three hours of exhilirating madness took place, which the following mp3s will confirm. The first one is almost 80 minutes long and fills up an entire CD. I recieved it that way, and I don't have the software needed to break it up. The other two tracks come from the very end of the performance and feature a supercharged rendition of the Charles Mingus classic "Haitian Fight Song". Again, I recieved it broken up in two instead of being one track as it should be.

Seattle Loft Party 6/8/02
MP3: disc 2 (79:48 long!)
MP3: Haitian Fight Song pt.1
MP3: Haitian Fight Song pt.2

A collaboration that appears in Seattle once in a while called Varmint also features Sawka working with people from the jazz and improv world. This exciting mesh of jazz improv and drum and bass includes Sawka on drums, Bill Frisell on guitar, Wayne Horvitz on keys, Eyvind Kang on viola, and Paul Kemmish on bass. Their improvisations represent more pleasant listening than the more youthful and raw loft party show while still being high octane in nature, largely because of Sawka's contribution.

Varmint 4/20/02 I-Spy Seattle, WA
MP3: Varmint sample

Siamese is the name of the group that largely made Sawka well known in the Seattle music scene. Although the group is no longer active, they still get together once in a while to put on a wild live drum and bass and jungle experience that takes electronic influenced music to another level. Siamese consisted of Sawka, Jeremy Lightfoot on bass, and Dave Z on keys and guitar. They released an EP in 2003 called Ancients of Days that provides a polished sample of their profound sound. I've also included a track from a live performance from a private party in Seattle on December 6, 2002 that really embodies their trademark hardcore style.

ALBUM: Ancients of Days (Mixtape Meditation, 2003)
MP3: Jade
From a private party in Seattle on 12/6/02:
MP3: live Siamese sample

Sawka's current project is called KJ Sawka and consists of both solo performances and performances with band members and various female vocalists from Seattle. His music here seems to emcompass numerous different electronic styles besides just drum and bass and jungle, displaying his growing compositional and sytlistic maturity. Two albums, one live and one studio, have been released recently and I've enjoyed both of them. I've provided one song from each for your ears to enjoy.

ALBUM: Chop Suey Live (Wax Orchard, 2005)
MP3: Sapphire (Magic Mix)
ALBUM: Synchronized Decompression (Wax Orchard, 2005)
MP3: For Oily to Normal Skin

*Addendum: I forgot to include mention of a group that Sawka was involved with for about a year called Live Evil. If you click on the link, you'll find a brief description of the band, along with some mp3s to check out. The version of the song "Boogaloo" provided there is long and is also good, but not as good as the version I'm offering up below. The version I have is much shorter and cut, but is very much worth downloading if you've liked any of the other songs from this post.

MP3: Live Evil - Boogaloo

The BCS is bad enough as it is

2005-12-03T01:37:00.000-05:00

Congress intervening in the sports world can trigger at least two different reactions by libertarian sports fans. Some may be appalled by legislators seeking to wield power over the way a game is played, or called, or what an athlete is allowed in ingest. Others may look at the bright side and acknowledge that they're at least not spending even more time fucking up more serious issues, like the economy or something.

Either way, it's not good for Congress to be doing much of anything at all, and that includes meddling with the sports world. With baseball season over (thank goodness) and the steroid issue seemingly settled, members of Congress have now decided to befoul another sport: college football. According to this ESPN report, Congress has decided to conduct a hearing next week on the "deeply flawed" Bowl Championship Series, otherwise known as the BCS (or BS, depending on what team you root for). That's just great. The system is bad enough as it is, and will continue to be until some sort of playoff system is implemented. Given the inevitability for Congress to screw up anything it gets involved with, the BCS might end up seeming fair in contrast to whatever those meddling bureaucrats come up with. And I thought that referees sucked!

The good news is that no actual legislation is in mind, that they just want to brainfart (er, storm) some ideas and spark discussion. I think that there is something else that they have their eyes on though. As commitee chairman Joe Barton, a Republican from Longhorn country put it: "College football is not just an exhilarating sport, but a billion-dollar business that Congress cannot ignore"

An apology and an FYI or two

2005-12-02T21:41:00.000-05:00

I apologize to those who have checked in lately and found nothing new here. I've been busy lately and will continue to be busy until the end of the year. Posts will be sparse between now and then.

For those interested in music related posts, I have one on deck for this weekend with a drum and bass flavor to it, and will write at least one additional post before the end of the year. Posts about politics or anything else will pop up if and when I've got time.

Oh, and I'll be yet another blogger to recommend reading the latest essay by Roderick Long titled "Liberalism vs Fascism", which provides more on the 19th century libertarian acknowledgement and critique of the militarism, corporatism, nationalism and other tendencies that go along with fascism.

Beware of the Fiendish Diabolical Agents

2005-11-24T01:37:00.000-05:00

They may be known as the Food and Drug Administration and claim to have our best interests in mind, but don't fall for such nonsense. These fiendish and diabolical agents of Leviathan are more likely to engage in fraudulent and decieving antics than protect our lives, something that they have no business intervening in anyways. The list of reasons why these parasites are actually a threat to the lives of the hosts they prey on (we, the people) is mammoth, and I'd like to bring attention to just the most recent news to strike my attention.

I've been upset for some time over the fact that people here in the state of Michigan are unable to go to the store and purchase unpasteurized, or raw, milk (some call it real milk). It is also a crime for dairy farmers to sell it on their farms. There are many similar laws in place in most states. People who are aware of the major health benefits associated with drinking raw milk are being denied the opportunity to improve their health and drink a tastier version of milk because the FDA steadfastly insists that it is dangerous to drink.

The people who drink and promote raw milk respond by claiming that such claims are way overblown, that pasteurization destroys many important enzymes and vitamins, kills beneficial bacteria and results in a product with links to many more potential health problems than raw milk, and that drinking raw milk may even help prevent certain diseases due to it's far superior healthful content. This article by Dr. Joseph Mercola is one of many examples of testimonies in favor of raw milk that also cautions people about treated milk.

All of that is not to say that there is no risk involved with drinking raw milk, but it sounds like something I'd like to get my hands on myself. The fact that the FDA condemns it, resulting in draconian laws implemented in most states, is in fact a full out assault on consumer choice and individual liberty. It's no surprise though when you consider the fact that consumer choice and individual liberty are seen as toxic by government parasites who live off of the active suppression of such things. We are getting a raw deal here, and yes, that pun was intended!

Tricia Shore recently went off on such ridiculousness in a LRC column where she not only condemned government intrusion but also spoke out as an individual who should be free to drink the milk she wants to drink. Three days later, I learn from Cat Farmer's post on Sunni Maravillosa's blog that some people are so determined to acquire and consume raw milk that they're willing to go underground and engage in a black market for raw milk. In their minds, taking the tiny risk associated with drinking raw milk in order to enjoy it's taste and nutritional bounty is well worth the risk of potentially being victimized by government thuggery. Kudos to these folks and a big, fat "Fuck You" to anyone who dares stand in their way.

The FDA's stance here also hints at a subject often brought up by yours truly and other libertarians: big government serving the interests of big business. Who benefits from pasteurization laws beside government bureaucrats? Why, the large corporate dairy operations do! These costly measures have already been taken into account by the large operations and don't threaten their bottom line, but they do add another costly burden onto smaller dairy farms. The profit margin also rises as a result of treated milk having a longer shelf life, another consideration that is undoubtedly recognized by industry lobbyists who seek favors from political prostitutes. The government not only benefits from merely growing in size and power, but also from pleasing it's many private sector johns. We, the people, don't mean a damn to them. We are here solely to be put to work, bled dry, and coaxed to vote for various representatives of the ruling class every few years.

Moving on to another food now, many claims have been made over the years about the healthful benefits associated with eating tomatoes. There is one claim, however, that the FDA apparently does not want you to know about. I learned about this via Norman Singleton's post about it at the LRC blog. He links to this story and then informs readers that Ron Paul is thankfully promoting the Health Freedom Protection Act in order to stamp out FDA censorship. Considering the massive corruption of the FDA (which is inevitable) by various private interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry and various corporate food giants, it is no surprise that the FDA seeks to promote certain things while actively suppressing other things. Another example that comes to mind is their campaign against stevia, further showing that their claims are rooted in predatory politics, not science.

Bill Sardi doesn't beat around the bush, and flat out states that "The FDA Kills" in a recent LRC piece. Switching from food to drugs, we learn from Sardi's column about studies showing that glucosamine and chondroitin supplements reduce the symptoms associated with arthritis. Check out the following excerpt:

It’s not just that millions of arthritics endured pain while modern medicine drug its feet over acceptance of these dietary supplements, it’s that the delay actually cost many thousands of people their lives. Oh, arthritis is not life threatening, but the pain relieving drugs arthritics take are. Had modern medicine embraced these safe and natural remedies two decades ago, relatively unsafe drugs like Vioxx, Bextra, and Celebrex, as well as aspirin and ibuprofen, would have never been used so widely.

Dr David Graham, an official at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, independently reported that the use of painkillers known as Cox-2 inhibitors since 1999 resulted in between 89,000 and 139,000 premature deaths from heart attacks or strokes. [Lancet 365(9458):475–81, 2005] Both the COX-2 inhibitor drugs (Vioxx, Celebrex, Bextra) and ibuprofen increase the risk for a mortal heart attack. [British Medical Journal 330:1366, 2005] The heart attacks and strokes emanate from an increased risk for blood clots caused by the COX-2 drugs. [Annals Rheumatic Diseases June 7, 2005]

“Whistleblower” Dr. Graham had to travel outside the country to disclose the mortal risks associated with these drugs. His superiors at the Food & Drug Administration were covering up the problem. What goes unreported is that since the 1980s the FDA was also abrogating its duty to educate the public that safer and more appropriate remedies for osteoarthritis are available – namely glucosamine and chondroitin.

The FDA did more than just approve problematic pain relievers, it promoted them over glucosamine and chondroitin.

The things I've mentioned here represent merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of revealing the corruption, the deception, and the outright thuggery associated with the FDA. It is no wonder that the Jacob Fred Jazz Odyssey once performed a sly and sinister sounding improvisation that they called "The FDA is Making Our Food Worse Than Drugs". They also referred to the FDA as being "Fucking Drug Addicts". Whether it's "Fucking Drug Addicts", "Fiendish Diabolical Agents", or "Freedom Denying Assholes", the point is that the FDA is a threat to the health of people nationwide and to the health of liberty.

From their September 21, 2002 show in Portland, OR:
MP3: Improv: The FDA is Making Our Food Worse Than Drugs

Warmongering is the health of statism

2005-11-23T01:29:00.000-05:00

No one puts the warmongering "libertarians" in their place better than Anthony Gregory. The speech that he gave recently at the Burton S. Blumert Conference on Gold, Freedom, and Peace can now be read at LRC.

Some of the truisms that such closet collectivists can't hide from are stated clearly by Gregory in the following:

We can summarize the diagnosis for economic freedom simply by saying that war and the free market are totally incompatible. Even the most defensible war one can imagine – to repel foreign invasion – presumably involves taxation when the government plays a role. This alone makes every warfare program as much an attack on the taxpaying class as welfare. Last time I checked, we were still paying McKinley's telephone excise tax for the Spanish-American War, though I hear there are plans to repeal it.

Particularly devastating to the economic well-being of Americans, especially the poor and middle class, is the central bank inflation that typically accompanies any serious-sized war. Every major war in American history has depended upon the power of the state to monopolize the money supply and counterfeit dollars in mass to finance its slaughter. It is fair to say, then, that to support war, to advocate war, is to support this grand larceny.

No one who favors the warfare state can disown the methods by which it’s financed. It is no less economically collectivist to root for war than to root for any other government program. If a socialist told you he wants universal healthcare, but he does not favor the taxation and coercion to fund and implement it, you would quickly point out his naked contradiction. Every warmonger is an inflationist and a taxmonger, whether he knows it or not.

To accept war is to accept the warfare state, and to accept the warfare state is to accept all the fundamental premises of statism – the collectivism, the aggression, the ability of central planning to succeed.

He also addresses their puzzling and naive faith in democracy and the ability of the US government to promote it, not to mention their practice of equating democracy with freedom. As Gregory puts it, those hawks who actually believe in such nonsense see freedom as "just one more big government program."

Click here to read the whole thing.

Music: The Bad Plus 11/11/05

2005-11-18T01:41:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned on Wednesday, the following is a live recording of The Bad Plus from their November 11th show at Pizza Express in London. It was part of the opening night festivities of the annual London Jazz Festival and was broadcast on BBC Radio's "Jazz on 3".

It is a short, but sweet set that should be a quick download if you have anything other than a dial-up connection. The files are all in mp3 format.

Let Her Garden Grow
Rhinocerous Is My Profession
The Empire Strikes Backward
Anthem For The Earnest
Chariots Of Fire

*UPDATE: Thanks to Siggidóri for pointing out that the links weren't working. I was using the wrong format at Yousendit. They're fixed now. Sorry for the delay.

Political Prisoners

2005-11-17T01:40:00.000-05:00

I just read this article (link via Strike the Root) about the election difficulties in Anamosa, Iowa stemming from the fact that most residents of the town's Ward 2 are in prison. Now, depending on your political persuasion and present mood, your reaction to this might vary from laughter to disgust. This story made me think of the types of "criminals" who are currently incarcerated here in the US, and how many of these folks from Anamosa in jail are there for actual crimes or for stuff such as drug possession.

The US continues to lead the world in the proportion of it's citizens that are behind bars, a fact that should make anyone seriously question the validity of the claim that this is indeed the "land of the free". The USSA government often criticizes certain other governments for their detaining of political prisoners, but I have to wonder if such a claim may be rooted in hypocrisy.

One of the books I'm currently reading on my free time right now is Paul Goodman's Drawing the Line, a collection of political essays written in 1945 and 1962. I just finished reading a section early on where he is discussing the difference between natural society and the coercive society that increasingly haunts us and chokes out our ability to live naturally and non-coercively. On the issue of crime, he wrote the following:

Concerning the "crimes" that are actually punished, a free man must ask himself: which of these are detrimental to any society, including even a more natural noncoercive society in which discipline is somewhat but not so deeply and widely grounded in (reasonable) successful repression and deliberate inhibition; which "crimes," on the contrary, are precisely the acts that would undermine the present coercive structure? I think that the list of the former would be small indeed - an obvious instance is murder.

I now skip ahead to the next paragraph, where he states that:

It is often cited as an example of the barbarity of America that here no distinction is made between "political prisoners" and "common criminals," that the political prisoner is degraded to the level of the criminal; yet in fact the "common criminal" has, although usually by the failure of repression and rarely by reason, probably committed a political crime.

The point here is that actual crime amounts to acts that would be detrimental to any type of society, acts that ultimately violate natural rights, such as murder, rape, theft, and fraud. Most of the "crimes", as spelled out by the government, are in fact acts that do nothing but threaten the interests of the politically connected and the current coercive structure in general.

With this in mind, not only does the US lead the world in prison population, but doesn't it also thus lead the world in terms of detaining political prisoners? Aren't a majority of people in prison here in the US there for drug offenses? What about all the other "criminals" incarcerated for things that wouldn't be a crime in a free society? As far as I'm concerned, these people are all political prisoners, and those of us who object to their incarceration and promote liberty should keep all of this in mind and call these people what they really are. If anything, it'll at least make all those folks who blindly parrot lines such as "this is the freest and bestest nation on Earth" have to actually think about what they're saying.

MDM on multiple orders in a free society

2005-11-17T00:25:00.000-05:00

An interesting new blog post has been written by MDM over at Upaya. In this post, MDM takes on a critique of anarcho-capitalism made by Gus DiZerega. Before getting into this response, MDM notes that:

I think he’s one of the most important thinkers in the current left-libertarian milieu (though he doesn’t call himself a libertarian, but a left-Hayekian liberal). I also think his criticisms are answerable from a market anarchist perspective (I’m not an anarcho-capitalist, but his criticisms seem to me aimed broadly at all flavors of market anarchism).

Part of his response involves painting a rough picture of a make believe mutualist community called Tuckerville, which should be of interest to those who are interested in mutualism and goes to show how not all arrangments that are compatible and possible in a market anarchist society have to be entirely dependant upon a strictly market order.

Sony boycott

2005-11-16T23:36:00.000-05:00

I'm sure that everyone has heard about the malevolent tactics used by Sony to monitor and control their customers. I've read about much of it through the blog postings of Brad over at Wendy McElroy's blog.

He provided a link today to a blog that I'll keep an eye on. It's called The Sony Boycott Blog, and the action mentioned in the blog title is certainly a good idea, and something that I've been doing since before this news came out.

One of the bad things about all of this is that a jazz group that I like happens to be on the Sony label: The Bad Plus. I own their first two studio albums and their only live release thus far, but I have not purchased their latest studio album, and I don't plan on doing so. I do have a few great live recordings of them, and to further my dislike of Sony, I'll set up mp3s for download here tomorrow night of their perfomance at the London Jazz Festival this past Friday. The set was broadcast on BBC radio.

These guys have recieved plenty of promotion and whatnot from Sony the past few years, but they seriously need to get hip and ditch Sony ASAP. None of the other great modern jazz trios that I listen to are involved with major labels like Sony, and they're thriving.

The tao of tzu-jan and libertarianism

2005-11-14T02:38:00.000-05:00

BK Marcus has provided an interesting blog post about Taoism and libertarian thought called "ancient Chinese secret". The secret is that certain libertarian ideals, such as the free market, have roots in ancient Chinese thought, most notably within the Taoist tradition. As with BK, I previously knew of people like Lao Tzu as being libertarian in their thinking, but his post reveals information sent to him via e-mail that shows an actual historical link between Taoist thought and the Western birth of classical liberalism many moons later.

Since first encountering them, I've been quite fond of some of the Lao Tzu quotes that succinctly express his libertarian views. The quotes provided by BK include:

Why are people starving?
Because the rulers eat up the money in taxes.
Therefore the people are starving.

Why are the people rebellious?
Because the rulers interfere too much.
Therefore they are rebellious.

The more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people will be.

The more rules and regulations, The more thieves and robbers.

In addition to those, here are a few more that show the Taoist preference for nature (or tzu-jan) to take it's course as opposed to using coercive intervention to govern individuals:

"When government is too intrusive, people lose their spirit."

"Without law or compulsion, men would dwell in harmony"

"Therefore,
The sage does nothing and people govern themselves,
Provokes no one and people are peaceful,
Does not interfere and people prosper,
Is without desire and people fulfill themselves.
The more people are controlled, the less contented they become.
But when will leaders understand the significance of this?"

"The world is ruled by letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering."

"I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes as common as the grass."

Before deciding to write this post, I made a brief trip to Google to see if I could find anything else of interest to add to this post. I actually came across an article by Travis Stansel titled "Why I'm Not A Libertarian" that refers to Lao Tzu. The article is, unfortunately, largely another example of someone who mistakenly views all libertarians as a bunch of pot-smoking corporate apologists and the free market as a big business utopia. That is, of course, absolute hogwash. Stansel is correct in noting that all forms of power pose a threat to human liberty, but that is something that real libertarians acknowledge.

Although he refers to Lao Tzu earlier in the article, it is at the end where he claims to use the wisdom of Lao Tzu to discredit libertarianism. He writes:

Lao-Tzu answers the Libertarian privatization dogma with this: "Own no interest, and the people cooperate with each other."

I must say that the quote he refers to is an interesting one, and one that I don't quite understand. What I'm unsure of is what Lao Tzu means by "interest". I assume that Stansel uses that quote to refer to resources being owned by private (i.e. corporate) power - the type of power that he thinks that libertarians excuse. He's also likely referring to the various examples of faux privatization that conservatives and the vulgarites talk highly of. But how does a statist regulatory system represent any sort of salvation? It doesn't, and Stansel conveniently ignores Lao Tzu's dismissal of such a route. Then there's the alternative of government ownership, which Lao Tzu would certainly rule out as well. It may have been a cute ending to his piece, but I think that Stansel is out of his element here.

Anyone out there wish to comment on that particular Lao Tzu quote and what they think it suggests?

Liberal historical mythology exposed yet again

2005-11-08T17:37:00.000-05:00

With the minds of the masses firmly molded by state schools and state-sanctioned corporate media, it's not much of a surprise that the common mythology regarding the Progressive and New Deal era reforms and the role of government in dealing with business in general still reigns supreme despite being thoroughly debunked. It's a good thing that the technological marvel that is the interweb allows people a greater chance of eventually discovering things that otherwise would remain stuck in the memory hole. It is important that certain historical truths keep being repeated in order to heighten the odds that more people will come across and learn from them. Many may be reluctant to acknowledge such things, but they won't be able to avoid them forever.

Joe Vecchio is the latest liberal blogger to engage in the ridiculous practice of lumping all libertarians together and condeming them while praising government's role in keeping big business in check. Over at Karmalised, Diane Warth exposes who the real sucker is in response to Vecchio's parroting of historical mythology. Part of her response points to a reality of the New Deal era reforms that even libertarians don't usually point out - the role of such reforms in promoting a form of affirmative action for whites at the expense of blacks. She includes a link to a New York Review of Books review of a Ira Katznelson book that deals with the subject. This is an important aspect of the real role of government that needs to be brought to peoples' attention more often.

The real historical role of government has been to give privledge to a select few at the expense of others, with moneyed elites usually being the beneficiaries. Kevin Carson brought all of this up once again in a must read post that reveals the silliness of what he calls "a by-the-numbers critique of libertarianism" (his post also brings up a Daily Kos blog entry).

Not all libertarians are selfish pot-smoking Republicans who engage in corporate idolatry, so any generalized "by-the-numbers" critique is only going to apply to some people. Additionally, those who engage in such critiques are the ones who bought into the historical mythology of the state keeping big business in check. As Carson puts it:

Of course, anyone who's read Gabriel Kolko or G. William Domhoff knows that the leading figures in formulating the Progressive and New Deal agendas were representatives of big business. It really makes you wonder what kind of "party of the common man" has GE's Gerard Swope in the role of Hjalmar Schacht, or routinely has cabinets made up of investment bankers and corporation lawyers. Shit, the next Democratic president-elect ought to just have the treasury seat in his cabinet endowed, and call his appointee the Goldman-Sachs Secretary of the Treasury. What was that about the plutes rigging the system for their own benefit, again? And Vecchio accuses libertarians of "[k]nowing nothing about history"!

UPDATE: It turns out that Joe Vecchio has written a new post in which he admits that he over-generalized libertarians. He then displays confusion over what his defense of the New Deal has to do with criticizing libertarians, which is puzzling to say the least. He then predictably goes back to displaying ignorance on, well, much of anything other than knowing that his father was somehow better off because of the New Deal.

Kevin Carson then proceded with a follow-up of his own. One of the highlights of this is his reference to Tolstoy's Parable, which is something that he has referred to before but never provided a link to until now (thanks Kevin!). He goes on to explain that:

As I see it, welfare statism is well illustrated by the human farmer in Tolstoy's Parable. Corporate liberals are like a farmer who's smart enough to figure out that he'll get more work out of his animals in the long run if he takes good care of them; Banana Republicans, on the other hand, figure they'll come out ahead by working the animals to death and then replacing them. If I had to choose between systems of class exploitation, I guess I'd prefer to be smothered with paternalism in the Brave New World of social democracy than to get a jackboot in my face in the Orwellian world the neoliberals have planned for us.

I don't want to have to make that choice, though. I prefer a world where we keep our full labor-product in the first place, instead of having a fraction of our stolen surplus labor doled back to us to keep us docile; and in which ordinary people control the circumstances of our daily lives, through cooperative production and mutual aid associations, instead of being managed by big government and big business overlords. To get there, we have to roll back the state.

He then addresses comments made by Vecchio in response to Diane Warth's blog post and makes a key point that liberals and leftists need to realize (and libertarians need to keep in mind):

You accused Diane Warth, in her comment thread, of alienating her potential allies. Pot, meet kettle. There are lots of libertarians out there who oppose corporate power and the rule of the plutocracy, and want to break the unholy alliance of big government and big business. We are your potential allies. By dismissing all of us as pot-smoking Republicans, or as mindless apologists for concentrated wealth, you are doing yourself a disservice.

I simply have to post something here that almost made me wet my pants laughing. Someone who commented to Joe Vecchio's post wrote the following:

Joe, you probably got quoted and flamed because your description of Libertarians is so close to the truth for their comfort. What we have in this country now is the endgame of Libertarian philosophy: government of the people, by the rich and for the rich. Those whining about the New Deal have conveniently forgotten that it was the only thing standing between them (and us) and a Communist takeover.

WOW! That is, perhaps, the funniest, most ridiculous comment I have ever read! This should be proof enough that state schools should be nuked into oblivion! It may not be nice, but I can't help but laugh.

Music: Digable Hip-Hop

2005-11-06T23:51:00.000-05:00

There are plenty of people out there who have a negative impression of hip-hop music, much of it resulting from the types of hip-hop that gets mainstream attention. I'd have to agree with them regarding mainstream hip-hop since it, well, sucks! The kind of stuff you hear on the radio or on MTV (that is, if they still have music - don't ask me if they do) that is filled with glorification of the "thug life" and "bling-bling", with plenty of sexism and other crap thrown in. That's definitely not the kind of hip-hop I'm into.

There is, however, plenty of great hip-hop out there that is under the radar. There was a period of time (the early '90s) where some of these more quality acts recieved some attention within the mainstream prior to being sent down to the underground while gangsta' rap and other more unfortunate brands of hip-hop took over the mainstream. I had the great fortune last night to go see one of my favorite hip-hop groups perform live, a group that was one of those great early '90s acts that recently reunited and is now on tour: Digable Planets.

Digable Planets was one of the groups, along with De La Soul and A Tribe Called Quest among others, infused the hip-hop scene with jazz and funk, which made for, at least in my opinion, a more satisfying sound as far as hip-hop is concerned. Their lyrics were fresh and intelligent, far far removed from the types of lyrics you'd expect to hear from someone like 50 Cent or whomever else is poisoning young minds these days. Their debut album, titled reachin' (a new refutation of time and space), came out when I was 13 years old and is an absolute classic and must-have album for those who seek to explore the more rewarding reaches of the hip-hop world. I loved their hit song "Rebirth of Slick (Cool Like Dat)", but unfortunately wasn't exposed to anything of theirs until I got to college. I now have both their releases and I'm eagerly awaiting the release of their new album that will be released sometime next year. I also just found out that Blue Note Records just released a DP album containing b-sides, remixes, and some of their more popular tunes from the two earlier releases. I may have to check that one out as well.

The show last night was sold out and was absolutely electric! It was such a treat to hear their songs that I've been diggin' on for some time now, but performed live right in front of me, especially since I didn't really become a fan until years after the group members went their separate ways and I never expected any sort of reunion. An added bonus was that, just like Matt of Los Amigos De Durutti when he saw them in Boston awhile back, I had a chance to meet Ladybug Mecca (the female MC) after the show and get her autograph! I had the impression that she was feeling a bit old when others were telling her how old they were when Reachin' came out, so I chose not to do the same. She, and the others, still look and sound as great as ever though.

I picked up a copy of a CD by their turntablist DJ Jedi at the show, a compilation of original samples called Blowout Breaks. I'm gonna start off the musical portion of this post with the classic Digable Planets tune that some of y'all might recognize, followed by a track off of the DJ Jedi disc that features two different musical treats. Most of the DJ Jedi track contains a song called "Stretchin'", performed by Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers, in it's entirety, but then has a short pause before getting into a sample from "Jazzoetry", a song by The Last Poets. The "Jazzoetry" sample was used in the Digable Planets tune titled "La Femme Fatal".

ALBUM: Reachin' (A New Refutation of Time and Space) (Capitol, 1993)
MP3: Rebirth of Slick (Cool Like Dat)

From DJ Jedi's Blowout Breaks:
MP3: Stretchin/Jazzoetry

Next up is one of the songs that I enjoyed the most last night, a song called "What Cool Breezes Do". The song contains a couple of samples from an Eddie Harris number titled "Superflous", both of which were on the DJ Jedi disc as well.

From Reachin':
MP3: What Cool Breezes Do

From DJ Jedi:
MP3: Eddie Harris sample #1
MP3: Eddie Harris sample #2

Like I mentioned earlier, many of the more worthwhile hip-hop artists on the scene today are to be found in the underground. A couple of artists that I dig that may be inchin' their way toward the mainstream a bit though are MF Doom and DJ Danger Mouse. Some may have heard of one of Danger Mouse's projects, the infamous "Grey Album", where he combined the rapping from Jay Z's The Black Album with remixed samples from the Beatles' White Album.

These two cats recently collaborated together under the name Dangerdoom, and just released an album titled The Mouse and the Mask, an absolutely fabulous album that has themes throughout from the Cartoon Network's late night cartoon series called Adult Swim. I've never watched any of the Adult Swim toons, but I do enjoy the various guest appearances on the album by various characters from the toons. The following two tracks are a couple of my favorites from the album, both containing great samples and production by Danger Mouse and solid rapping from MF Doom.

ALBUM: The Mouse and the Mask (Epitaph / Ada, 2005)
MP3: Sofa King
MP3: Crosshairs

This album made me want to explore some of MF Doom's other stuff, so I recently acquired an album of his titled MM.. Food?. It's definitely a solid album that further showcases why Doom has such a good reputation among fans of underground hip-hop. For those who are interested, here's a short excerpt from his Wikipedia entry that provides a peek into his personality:

To many rap fans, Dumile is considered to be eccentric, but rhythmic rhyming, word play and lyrical flows make him a favorite of underground hip-hop fans. He is obsessed with old comic books, especially those of the Fantastic Four and their battles with Dr. Doom. Dumile's influences seem to draw heavily from American comic books and classic Japanese science fiction like Godzilla. In his role as King Geedorah, he inhabits a rap circle known as Monsta Island Czars, including rappers named Kong, Rodan, Jet Jaguar, and other rappers named after Japanese movie monsters. The Geedorah name itself is a derivation of Ghidorah.

One of the neat things about the following track from the album is the musical sampling he chose for it. I totally remember it from my youth, and I'm pretty sure it's from the closing credits of Sesame Street. If I'm wrong on this, please let me know. The other mp3 I'm offering up is from one of Doom's many instrumental releases (the Special Herbs series) and is the Sesame Street sample sans rapping.

ALBUM: MM.. Food? (Rhymesayers, 2004)
MP3: Kookies
ALBUM: Special Herbs, Vols. 5 & 6 (Nature Sounds, 2004)
MP3: Horehound

The kiddie show theme music provides a good seque into the next mp3 I'm providing here. I don't recognize the tune, but it sounds like something that is probably from the '70s. The sample is used in a song by another great hip-hop group called Jurassic 5. The song is called "After School Special" and features some quality lyrical contributions from Chali 2na, a man who is definitely one of my favorite MCs. It is from their most recent release titled Power In Numbers.

Chali 2na was also an original member of the Latin/jazz/hip-hop/pop group Ozomatli. The final song for this post features Chali providing some political commentary that has definite anti-corporate and anti-state messages within it.

ALBUM: Power In Numbers (Interscope, 2002)
MP3: After School Special

ALBUM: Ozomatli (Almo Sounds, 1998)
MP3: Coming War

This is just a small sampling of some of the hip-hop that I've been diggin' recently. There is a lot of other great hip-hop out there that I either know of and haven't featured here or just haven't discovered yet. This little bit that I've brought up here should at least provide people with a taste of hip-hop that won't piss you off, make you gag, or wanna cover the ears of nearby children (if you do that sort of thing).

Hip-Hop and Herbie

2005-11-04T23:10:00.000-05:00

FYI, I'll be writing a post about some hip-hop I've been digging recently on Sunday. It'll include a review of the Digable Planets concert I'll be attending tomorrow night. In the meantime, I'll point people looking for a musical fix into a couple of directions.

If hip-hop is what you're looking for, check out etnobofin's recent blog post about New Zealand's hip-hop scene.

If you're looking for something a little more old school in nature, I suggest a podcast featuring Herbie Hancock. This podcast was created by jazz producer Bob Belden and explores Herbie's session work as an accompanist during the late '60s, containing unreleased and rare stuff from Bob's private collection. Link via Ropeadope.

Some recommended reading

2005-11-02T23:00:00.000-05:00

Here are a few interesing things I thought I'd point out.

First, Roderick Long's recent speech titled "They Saw It Coming: The 19th Century Libertarian Critique of Fascism" is now available for all to read, thanks to Lew Rockwell.com. A brief clip:

In short, the 19th-century libertarians observed the rise of the various tendencies that would come together to make fascism – militarism, corporatism, regimentation, nationalist chauvinism, plutocracy in populist guise, the call for “strong leaders” and “national greatness,” the glorification of conflict over commerce and of brute force over intellect – and they bitterly opposed the whole package. And although they ultimately lost that battle, their fallen banner is ours to pick up.

The second item is a Guardian article revealing one way in which the law of unintended consequences has reared it's head as a result of Ireland's ban on smoking in bars, pubs and restaurants. Seems as if smoking is cooler than ever over there, thanks to government nannys and the clueless folks who cheer on such nonsense.

Last up in this installment are a couple of recent blog posts about Bastiat's broken window fallacy. B.K. Marcus wrote a nice post summing it up and relating it to the common confusion between wealth and money. Kevin Carson then chimes in with a post relating it to the GDP and those who either place too much emphasis upon it or wish to have it scrapped.

Music: Jacob Fred Jazz Odyssey

2005-10-29T01:16:00.000-04:00

There are plenty of young jazz acts out there looking to infuse some fresh blood and hipness to the scene, and I've listened to quite a few of them. One group that really blasted me beyond the notion of jazz being a music form whose odyssey has been stalled for the most part is the Jacob Fred Jazz Odyssey. Not only did I begin searching out some more recent jazz and improvisational artists after my initial consciousness-altering encounter with The Fred, but I also started exploring more avant-garde and free forms of improvisation instead of simply sticking to the more commonly known jazz masters like Miles and Herbie and 'Trane.

Their newest release on the Hyena Records label, called The Sameness of Difference reveals a new side of the band that could be described as more mature and melodic while still providing bits of the quirkiness that was so typical of their often chaotic live performances. Recorded in a studio session with legendary jazz producer Joel Dorn, this album features Brian Haas on acoustic piano rather than the Fender Rhodes that I was expecting, along with fellow band members Reed Mathis on bass and Jason Smart on drums. Dorn suggested to them that they perform their own takes on some jazz standards that influenced them, which eventually extended into songs from other genres members of the band have an appreciation for. The result is an album with only a few originals as the band also features covers of tunes by Jimi Hendrix, Bjork, Charles Mingus, Flaming Lips, Neil Young, Brian Wilson, The Beatles, and Dave Brubeck.

The musicianship is top notch as is Dorn's production efforts, and this album is their most polished and impressive to date. The only slight downside to me is that the longest track on the album is their rendition of the Charles Mingus classic "Fables of Faubus", which chimes in at 6:05. For a band that has made a name for themselves over the years by displaying some serious improvisational ability in the live setting with many compositions (some completely improvised on the spot) extending well beyond just a few short minutes, some of the song lengths were a surprise to me. Regardless of the short and consise nature of the finished products, they are sweet and open the door for new fans to hop aboard the odyssey as accessibility is at an all-time high.

Before I get to the tunes I'm offering up, I'll briefly note a couple of interesting things about the band. One is that while the band members are not neccessarily libertarian in their political orientation, they have been active in getting people to question authority. As is shown along the side of Brian Haas's Fender Rhodes (see pic.), they have been giving out free stickers at their shows with the following message: A TRUE PATRIOT QUESTIONS OUR LYING GOVERNMENT. They're also critical of modern medicine to a degree, as shown by the message appearing on the other sticker they offer up: DOCTORS SHOULD TEACH NUTRITION NOT PHARMACEUTICAL ADDICTION.

The other thing I'll mention before getting to the music is that while listening to the songs, you'll notice an instrument that certainly doesn't sound like a piano (acoustic or electric), a bass guitar, or drums. While Haas occasionally tweaks with the sound of his Fender Rhodes or whips out a melodica to spicen things up, it is bassist Reed Mathis who is known for his tweaking. He often uses an octave pedel and other effects with his bass guitar, allowing him to create otherworldly sounds with the bass while Haas lays down a bassline on the keys. The effects make for some wild sounds for your ears that have gathered the attention of many and has made Mathis a hot commodity among bassists.

Since there is often a sharp contrast between how they sound on their new album and how they sound live with a Fender Rhodes, I'm going to provide a few songs from the album followed by live versions that reveal a totally different side to the compositions. First up is a song that they have been performing live for a couple of years now titled "Slow Breath, Silent Mind", a song that is also the title track of one of their live albums.

ALBUM: The Sameness of Difference (Hyena, 2005)
MP3: Slow Breath, Silent Mind

From their performance at Harpers Ferry in Allston, MA on April 29, 2003:
MP3: Slow Breath, Silent Mind (live)

Next up is a song with a catchy theme to it called "Santiago".

From the new album:
MP3: Santiago

From their performance at The Granada Theater in Lawrence, KS on July 9, 2005:
MP3: Santiago (live)

The next song reveals their occasional penchant for mixing some politics into their musical odyssey. I especially love the live version since a song called Halliburton Breakdown should sound evil, and this particular live take is not only fittingly evil, but downright insane!

From the new album:
MP3: Halliburton Breakdown

From their live performance at The Granada Theater in Lawrence, KS on July 9, 2005:
MP3: Halliburton Breakdown (live)

I've decided to throw in a few extra tunes in order to further introduce people to the odyssey of Jacob Fred. The first track is their take on a song written by Howard Deitz and Arthur Schwartz titled "Alone Together". It features Brian Haas on acoustic piano and is from a live album titled Slow Breath, Silent Mind. The other two numbers happen to be my introduction to JFJO. They are from their performance on May 2, 2002 at the Old Pointe Bar in New Orleans (during Jazzfest).

ALBUM: Slow Breath, Silent Mind (Kufala, 2003)
MP3: Alone Together

From the May 2, 2002 show at the Old Pointe Bar in New Orleans, LA:
MP3: Thelonious Monk is my Grandmother (live)
MP3: Hunter Gatherer

Wal-Mart = anti-free market

2005-10-29T00:22:00.000-04:00

It comes as no surprise to me that Wal-Mart supports a minimum wage hike. I'm sure that news of this surprised the hell out of people with a "progressive" mindset. In fact, I've heard such people claim that corporations like Wal-Mart would love to hire people for far less than the minimum wage in order to boost the bottom line even more.

Well, Wal-Mart's CEO has come out and stated that he disagrees with that notion. If you want to get an idea of why a minimum wage hike would actually be in Wal-Mart's interests, check out Lew Rockwell's commentary on the subject. An excerpt:

Before looking at the evidence, let's do some a priori theorizing based on the history of US corporate regulation. Historians such as Robert Higgs, Butler Shaffer, Dominick Armentano, and Gabriel Kolko have chronicled how the rise of business regulation, including intervention in market wages, was pushed by large companies for one main reason: to impose higher costs on smaller competitors.

This is how child labor legislation, mandated pensions, labor union impositions, health and safety regulations, and the entire panoply of business regimentation came about. It was pushed by big businesses that had already absorbed the costs of these practices into their profit margins so as to burden smaller businesses that did not have these practices. Regulation is thus a violent method of competition.

Think of it this way. Let's say you run a retail coffee shop that sells only "fair trade" coffee, which is expensive to acquire, but for which consumers are willing to pay a high price. All is going swimmingly until a competitor shows up and sells unfair coffee that tastes just as good for half the price.

Let's say consumers begin to change their minds about the merit of your "fair trade" coffee and your profits fall. You must make a change to survive. You can compete by offering a wider range of choice. Or you can lobby the local government in the name of "social responsibility" (oh, such high ideals!) to require that all coffee sold in your town be "fair trade."

Who does that benefit? Your company. Who does it hurt? Their company.

Read the whole column to see how he applies all this to Wal-Mart's situation. This specific form of violent competition also reveals something else that your typical "progressive" might be shocked to realize. Says Rockwell:

Now here is the great irony. The left has long been in a total frenzy about how Wal-Mart saunters into small towns and outcompetes long-established local retailers. Wal-Mart's opponents have whipped themselves into a frenzy about the company's success, claiming that it always comes at a huge social cost.

Near the end of the column, Rockwell touches upon something that puzzles me and places me at odds with some people who nornally seem to promote the free market more consistently than your typical vulgar libertarian:

Free-market advocates who have long defended Wal-Mart can only be disgusted at this shift in the company's methods from competing on market grounds to calling for the state to crush its competition. Even more disgusting is how the company can count on the economic ignorance of its critics to help do it.

As a free market advocate, I have never defended Wal-Mart. I don't understand how someone committed to free market principles and is consistent about it could do so. As this article by Jonathan Tasini written back in April for TomPaine.com clearly shows, Wal-Mart has been at odds with free market thinking in numerous ways aside from just this recent example. As Tasini states, "Truth is, Wal-Mart could not survive in a real free market". If you ask me, it must be a knee-jerk reaction for some of these otherwise consistent free market types to defend anything criticized by certain leftists.

In order for free market support to become more appealing to "progressives" and other leftists, constant support for state capitalist institutions like Wal-Mart needs to come to an end. These corporate beasts need to be exposed as the enemies to genuine free enterprise that they really are.

Individualism: The ersatz form and the real deal

2005-10-26T01:23:00.000-04:00

Nelson Hultberg has confronted the phenomenom he refers to as "ersatz individualism" in a recent Free Market News.com column. Portions of this column are welcomed by yours truly and should be grasped by those who may have a false notion of what individualism is all about. There are parts of this essay that I'm also not real fond of. I'll briefly discuss both.

The column focuses on basketball icon Dennis Rodman, the man who is well known on and off the court as a ferocious defender and rebound specialist who displays many flashy, non-conformist traits while living a party hardy lifestyle. Here's the commentary from Hultberg that should be noticed:

To those on the radical left, Rodman is not corrupting society at all. He is merely American individualism blooming. He and others of his ilk like Larry Flynt and Howard Stern are manifestations of the American credo, the liberals tell us. Defying cultural traditions requires a contrarian courage and the ability to march to the beat of one's own drummer. It's one of the measures of a man's mettle. On the contrary, this is not what individualism is about at all; this is "ersatz individualism." True philosophical individualism has nothing to do with the crass defiance of common sense and decency that runs so abrasively through the hallucinatory veins of today's culture. Individualism is not a call for license and heedlessly doing whatever your whimsical fancy drives you to do; it is a call for self-reliance. It is expressed through personal productivity and the full exposition of one's abilities, not through compulsive weirdness in one's style of living...

Aside from what he mentions, I would add that true individualism involves respect for and defense of individual rights against those who wish to thwart them in an attempt to promote some sort of political agenda. It contrasts with collectivism since it rejects the illusory notion that some non-existant collective has rights and needs that trumps the natural rights of individuals. A non-conformist who fully expresses him/herself whose values conflict with true individualism (such as by advocating any sort of political coercion against individuals) is no individualist, no matter what he/she and others may claim.

What I don't like about Hultberg's column is his blatant cultural conservatism. I may not care for Rodman's nihilistic attitudes and many other aspects of his persona, but I respect his desire to express himself, even if much of it is nothing more than self-absorbed attempts to get media attention. There is nothing wrong with non-conformity. Nothing wrong with going against traditional gender roles, dressing like a "carnival geek", or anything else that these "ersatz individualists" engage in. In many respects, I'm a non-conformist. I may not cross dress, but I give those who engage in such a practice props for doing so. I don't like the fact that Hultberg flat out condems such people as symbolizing "everything that is wrong with our society". Not every real individualist who values non-coercion and the free market is a cultural conservative, a traditionalist who goes to church and expects people to dress and act in cookie cutter fashion.

Such mindsets can actually be dangerous. There are many everyday people of the "there ought to be a law" variety who hold such traditionalist views. If I wish to paint my own house pink, not maintain an artificially green and weed-free lawn, place goofy ornaments in my yard (that's yard, not lawn), have an organic garden, and perhaps even have a chicken or two, it is none of my neighbor's business. Such behavior that some may consider to be non-civilized "dementia" (a word Hultberg uses) is perfectly acceptable for people to engage in, and in fact they have every right to partake in such activities and live as they please. Unfortunately, many laws have been enacted that force people to do or not do certain things on their own property in order to please their traditionalist neighbors. I am reminded of a recent Cryptogon blog post that brings attention to people in Arizona who are not fond of their neighbor's organic garden and want the local government to do something about it.

Why can't people just mind their own damn business? Who cares what Dennis Rodman chooses to wear? Who cares how I decide to maintain my property? While Hultberg may not advocate such state action, he indirectly lends support to those who approve of and attempt to create and enforce such nonsense. And he is just flat out wrong if he thinks that being "consummate conservatives in a cultural context" is what real individualism is all about.

A couple of announcements

2005-10-24T19:21:00.000-04:00

First off, I thought I'd let readers know that I'll be writing a thorough music related post sometime this week (probably Friday). In fact, I'll have a new music post every week for the next three. This week, I'll be writing about the new Jacob Fred Jazz Odyssey album. The following two weeks will feature posts about some good hip-hop I've been listening to lately and an extraordinary drummer named Kevin Sawka and some of his projects.

Second, I thought I'd pass along news of Claire Wolfe's holiday book offer. Now is the time to order one of her great books if you'd like an autographed copy! I was apparently the first person to place an order since the offer began when I placed my order for her new book titled How to Kill the Job Culture Before It Kills You. Some good reviews of this much anticipated book have been written by Wally Conger, Sunni Maravillosa, Jorge, and B.W. Richardson among others that I must not be aware of yet.

What to do about the bird flu?

2005-10-24T19:11:00.000-04:00

The latest statist fear mongering is centered around the so called possibility of a bird flu pandemic. Aside from this commentary by Steve Trinward over at The Medical Freedom Channel, the best response I've seen comes from Jorge, one of the co-conspirators over at Sunni Maravillosa's blog. In this post, I learned of Jorge's response to a Jacqueline Passey blog post on the subject. His response:

What should the government do? In no particular order:

-- Eliminate patents which are an immoral grant of monopoly, thereby drastically lowering the cost of vaccines.

-- Eliminate the FDA (and equivalent agencies outside the US), thereby drastically reducing the cost of vaccines and drastically reducing the time to market.

-- Eliminate all licensing laws, thereby increasing the availability of medical personal, lowering the cost of services, and lowering the cost of infrastructure (by not requiring "licensed" electricians, plumbers, etc)

-- Eliminate all drug laws, including those requiring prescriptions for medication, that way people can medicate themselves if they choose, without wait for medical personal, and can get their vaccines from where ever they think best.

-- Eliminate all regulations for the medical, building and transportation (to name just there) industries, so that the necessary infrastructure can be built faster and more people can provide treatment.

-- Eliminate all taxes, thereby lowering the cost of vaccines, increasing the purchasing power of those who need the vaccines, making transportation and storage of the vaccines much cheaper as well. This will also make it cheaper for charities to purchase vaccines, to help those few who still cannot afford them.

-- Eliminate all immigration laws, including all types of visa requirements, thereby allowing medical and other workers to travel freely to where ever there services are needed.

If someone infects someone else, restitution is owed. Courts can also order a person confined if they pose an active threat to others.

Freedom is the answer. What is the question?

Yup, those are the only things the government can do that'll have any sort of positive effect.

MLL "War or Liberty" pamphlet available for download

2005-10-21T22:35:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Wally Conger, a classic out of print pamphlet by Samuel Edward Konkin III is now available again, with a minimal update and edit job by Wally himself. The pamphlet provides a concise description of the causes of war and how it is, as Randolph Bourne put it, "the health of the state". It is both futile and counterproductive to rely on the state to protect your freedom. He e-mailed me a copy of the pdf file, and I'm now making the file available for download here on my blog. The file is being hosted by Yousendit.com, so the link will work either for 7 days or for 25 downloads, whichever comes first. I'll refresh the link every week.

3 new ISIL "channels"

2005-10-18T21:14:00.000-04:00

When checking out Kn@ppster today, I discovered that the International Society for Individual Liberty has three new sites that they call channels. Each of these channels focuses on a different issue: The Choice Channel (education), The Medical Freedom Channel (medicine), and Question Earthority! (the environment). Thomas Knapp is the project coordinator for all three and the editor of Question Earthority.

I'm especially interested in the medical and the environmental sites and the topics covered by them. My initial visit to The Choice Channel left a bad taste in my mouth though since editor R. Lee Wrights seems to be fan of both school vouchers and charter schools.

Nader's state-free idea for revitalizing New Orleans

2005-10-18T15:10:00.000-04:00

Ralph Nader has proposed that New Orleans provides an opportunity for cooperatives to step in and help revitalize the city in a grassroots way that counters the state driven corporatization that is going on. Click here to read the whole thing.

He first criticizes the corporate statist response:

The corporate looting of New Orleans is underway. The charges of corruption, political favoritism and poor delivery of services by corporate contractors for government projects are already being leveled by the media and some alert officials. After all, over $100 billion of taxpayer monies will be flowing to New Orleans and the Gulf area communities in the next several months.

Plans for the new New Orleans by the large corporate developers are not including many poor or low income families in their plans. These developers see a smaller ritzier New Orleans with gentrified neighborhoods and acres of entertainment, gambling and tourist industries. In a phrase, the corporatization of New Orleans' renewal.

He then envisions an alternative:

New Orleans provides possibly the finest opportunity in many years for the cooperative movement to make itself known and to save New Orleans from being looted by corporate predators of various stripes who are presently designing the new New Orleans. Cooperatives demand grass roots organization and customer responsibility or they cannot exist. Cooperators, as customers are called, started these cooperatives in the early days-both consumer and producer cooperatives-throughout farm country USA.

Cooperative principles and member participation have been undermined by the hectic pace of a commuting workforce in a corporate economy that requires two breadwinners or more per family to have a chance at a middle class standard of living. Cooperatives provide many tangible and intangible community values but they need the time of their members to truly flower.

New Orleans and other Hurricane-stricken communities can give new life to the cooperative movement, and it can give new life to the shattered lives of these residents as they try to rebuild their livelihoods.

Since what he's proposing here consists of voluntary, grassroots efforts to create a coopertative alternative to the corporate state looting, it seems as if his proposal is one that free market types can support as opposed to all the statist "solutions" being talked about and implemented.

Yes, I know that he refers to "labor, environmental and other normal legal safeguards for the people" as if they are a good thing, but we all know that he's not a libertarian. Despite that, his vision for cooperatives in New Orleans as an alternative to statist measures is libertarian.

*UPDATE: Kevin Carson has addressed this Nader article over at the Uncapitalist Journal's blog. I apparently missed where Nader called for federal reconstruction aid to be channeled to cooperative alternatives. As with Carson, I don't support the use of federal aid, even though it would be slightly less noxious if channeled to decentralized cooperative institutions instead of the usual corporate suspects.

The inevitability of private interests

2005-10-18T02:49:00.000-04:00

Yep, that's right. Private interests are inevitable, which means that everything that goes along with such interests are also inevitable. As long as political power exists via some sort of state, there will be corruption, cronyism, and counterproductive measures to protect the populace and promote the non-existant notion of the "common good".

You don't just have to take my word for it. Check out Anthony Gregory's latest LRC column. As Gregory puts it:

The same private interests willing to cheat the consumer and worker in business are also willing to enter politics, to fund campaigns, to run for office, to bribe officials, to exploit every advantage the state offers to the dishonest entrepreneur. Further entrenching the monopoly of violence that is the state into the economy only ups the ante of the game over political influence. The more the state can regulate private interests, the more private interests will take control of the state.

The larger the state is, the more private individuals and groups have an interest in keeping the racket going. As the government expands to the detriment or assistance of specific sectors of the economy, collusion is inevitable. Those with power will use it to help the businesses they favor for whatever reason, and those in business will seek to deflect harmful legislation and encourage desired legislation. The more government intervention in the economy, the more the state and business classes coalesce, the more private interests can socialize their costs and privatize the profits to themselves. Socialism merely guarantees unearned profits and unjust power to whoever controls the state. And the state will be controlled by someone.

At the extreme this is all fascism or communism really is: the state becomes the principal corporation in society, with a monopoly on customers and no competition. Employer and producer become one with judge, jury and executioner. In a more mixed economy, social-democratic state-capitalism displays a similar kind of ugliness, but in smaller doses. Big Business and the most powerful private interests will categorically be the ones in government’s favor. How could it be any another way? That the top regulators of drugs are former drug company CEOs, the top regulators of banking are fat cat bankers, and the top regulators of the presidential debates are heads of the two political parties should leave no one surprised. The promise that it could be different should leave no one fooled.

The problem is not that the democratic system is somehow broken, or that the right people have yet to step up and demand change and/or be elected to public office. The problem is the system itself. As long as political power exists, private interests will wield control over such power and people will be reduced to being consumers of prepackaged political products that they'll be able to pick and choose from every four years. Power to the people, my ass!

There is no bigger illusion than the one that views the system as being fixable. If you want to be free of the tyranny of wicked private interests who wield political power, than you must reject the system that gives them that power in the first place.

Leviathan

2005-10-16T18:14:00.000-04:00

That haunting depiction of Leviathan was created by artist Tommy Castillo. I encourage you to click on the pic to see the enlarged version since you'll be able to see what Leviathan is composed of.

What made me want to look for a cool image of Leviathan was my recent used book store find. I was lucky enough to come across a copy of the 1972 book edited by Murray Rothbard and Ronald Radosh titled A New History of Leviathan. The cover of the book features red and blue vertical stripes and a fancy drawing of Leviathan. The book itself provides essays from both Rothbard and members of the New Left concerning the rise of the American corporate state. One of the Rothbard essays was recently posted on LRC and is a must read: War Collectivism in World War I.

Plutocracy bashing, Roderick Long style

2005-10-13T18:16:00.000-04:00

Brad Spangler pointed out that Roderick Long is going to be giving a talk this Saturday at the Advocates for Self-Government 20th Anniversary Celebration called “Fire the Rich! Why the Free Market Is the Proletarian Revolution.” I too really hope that a transcript or audio or anything is available at some point in the future. I'd love to hear what Long has to say on that subject.

In the meantime, I discovered via Long's recent blog post about his recent and upcoming talks that the Mises Institute already has a mp3 of his speech from their conference called "The Economics of Fascism" available for download. You can download it by simply clicking here. To check out other great speeches made available by the Mises Institute, click here.

A reason to laugh at the so-called prestige of the Michigan Law School

2005-10-13T17:05:00.000-04:00

The following comes from Karen DeCoster's blog:

Thanks to XM, I was able to hear a great Coulterism the other day. (A "Coulterism" is a jackass comment coming from the mouth of that jackass Ann Coulter.) Her rant was in regards to the nomination of Harriet Miers. Said she (a paraphrase): "We right-wing types don't care about all these different issues, we don't care if taxes are going up all over, and we don't care if Bush is tanking the entire economy. The only thing we care about is the Supreme Court." Now, realize that this remark came after she told her Fox comrade that the Supremes were there not to strictly interpret the Constitution, but rather, to interpret it in the way that it needs to be interpreted. The right way, is, of course, to "change with the times." Interpreting the Constitution liberally, is, of course, a horrific sin. She mentioned the Founding Fathers as being some guys from way back that don't have a clue as to what things would be like in the here and now. I am not making up this simpleton stuff. She stated it that simply. There ya go: reason and principles goodbye! And this broad has an advanced law degree?

Yup, and it's from the University of Michigan Law School. They may have a pretty quadrangle and library, but their standards must have gone down the tubes big time to let her through.

By the way, isn't it always conservatives who whine about the judicial activism and tax and spend nature of mainstream liberals? Maybe they should focus more of their attention on slamming lil ms. ball o' hate.

Holiday?

2005-10-10T00:31:00.000-04:00

Is today supposed to be some sort of holiday? No, it's not Halloween yet, but I'm pretty sure that today is being recognized by the government as a holiday.

I know, it must be a day celebrating some dead white guy. Well, if he was such a great man, then I'm sure that everyone would be tickled pink to celebrate the day.

Oh well. Fuck him.

Brownshirt Watch: George Mason edition

2005-10-10T00:17:00.000-04:00

The name of the following Counterpunch article says it all: Student Brutalized by Cops and Rightwing Students for Protesting On Campus Military Recruiting

A Pakistani-American who once served in the US Air Force stands in front of a military recruiting table outside the George Mason University student center with a sign saying "Recruiters lie, don't be deceived" taped to his shirt and receives verbal diarrhea on multiple occasions from enraged student brownshirts before they finally get campus security to amplify the harassment. Here's what followed:

The staff member called campus security, at which point a police officer, Lt. Reynolds, approached Khan and demanded to see his student ID. Khan said he told the officer he was not carrying his ID and tried to walk away when the policeman tried to arrest him and then became violent. "He threw me into the stage," Khan claimed, referring to a dance area in the student center left from an event earlier in the day, "and I just sort of raised my hands to show I'm not violent and tried to get as much attention by saying, 'I'm being non-violent and I'm being brutalized.'"

Fellow student and friend Amie Wells confirmed Khan's account, saying the officer "grabbed him, put him in a half-nelson headlock," and then "slammed him into a metal stage," propped three feet above the floor. Wells added that the officer then slammed Khan into the ground hard, resulting in his face hitting the surface.

Describing the atmosphere, Wells said a number of right-wing students were cheering on police officers who were attacking Khan, exclaiming, "Kick him!" She claimed most of the crowd appeared to be on the side of the police. "It was disgusting," she said. Another student who witnessed events, David Curtis, said some students initially implored the police to let Khan go, but others soon arrived to support the police, chanting "Kick his ass!"

According to Khan, Wells, and Curtis, one of the right-wing students who had earlier harassed Khan joined the cops in forcing him on the ground. Curtis asked the student what authority he was exercising, and the student backed off.

However, Curtis says, a university employee who stood about six feet eight inches and weighed around 300 pounds began helping the cops to further subdue Khan. "He performed jujitsu moves on me while the cops held me down, and the cops let him do it," Khan said. "Frankly, the cops were doing just fine without him, but this huge guy came and put [Khan's] free arm in a Kamora," Curtis said, referring to a jujitsu maneuver in which the arm is painfully bent backwards. "You could see on his face that it was really hurting him," Curtis said of Khan. A police officer claimed the university employee was an "auxiliary police officer," but Wells, who works with the man in the computer store, said she had never seen him in that capacity.

Khan said he was then dragged off by two officers toward a police car but was reluctant to get in. He says one cop was preparing to spray him with mace. "He held the can straight at my eyes, about five inches away from my face," Khan said. "So I started yelling, 'Hey, this cop is trying to mace me, someone take a picture if you have a camera!"

Wells quickly took out her cell-phone camera and began snapping pictures. "After I did that, the cop put away his mace can and said, 'Okay, no one's going to get maced today.' I mean, clearly, he knew he was doing something wrong," she said.

Khan says Officer Reynolds told him he had to arrest him because, "What with 9/11 and everything else, we didn't know what you would do." Khan also says another policeman told him that "You people are the most violent people in the world." Before being hauled off to the Fairfax County Jail, Khan was warned by the police who were questioning him that "If you even look at [cops] the wrong way, they'll hang you up by your feet."

LibertyFilter

2005-10-09T19:07:00.000-04:00

Those for those liberty lovers who wish to lower their time preference, there is a new site that utilizes RSS and Atom to provide an interweb hub for keeping up on the growing number of liberty blogs out there: LibertyFilter.

It may make me sick to my stomach to be included in a blogroll with a heartless "libertarian", but I do think that this site is a good idea and I recommend checking it out.

Time to drop the puck!

2005-10-05T18:37:00.000-04:00

At long last, hockey is back! The NHL hockey season begins tonight. Aside from college football, hockey is the only sport I really care about, so I'm pretty excited. Go Wings!

Hockey fans might appreciate the following link I'm gonna provide. It's for a site called NHL Uniforms.com and it provides pics of every uniform ever worn in the NHL, going all the way back to 1917. The Detroit franchise made it's debut in 1926 and was known as the Cougars before changing over to the Red Wings in 1932. They had a couple of cool uniforms that I've decided to post here.

Living so close to the Canadian border my whole life, I've been blessed to have CBC available, which means being able to watch Hockey Night in Canada and a much better overall coverage of the playoffs than any American network. The following mp3 is quite a nostalgic piece of music for hockey fans north of the border and even a few south of it.

MP3: Hockey Night in Canada theme song

What's libertarian about Lula?

2005-10-05T02:50:00.000-04:00

Today's edition of Strike The Root, edited by Ali Hassan Massoud, includes a link to an essay by Alvaro Vargas Llosa released by the Independent Institute about the demise of Brazilian president Lula da Silva. While I have no qualms with the essay itself, I'm not exactly fond of the tag that Ali gave it: "Brazilian “Left-Wing Libertarian” Flames Out".

I've heard of overly PC establishment libertarians being called left-libertarians, which is an inaccurate label, and now it's being used in reference to Lula? Using the word libertarian in reference to him is sorta like using the same word in referene to Dubya. Who's next - the Clintons?

I acknowledge the fact that there must be some sort of middle ground between democratic socialists (authoritarian lefties) and anarchists. A term that I've heard used before in reference to anti-authoritarian lefties who aren't quite anarchists is social minarchist. Such people, in my mind, are often just as libertarian (although sometimes more or less so) than minarchist libertarians of the right such as Ron Paul or your typical Catoite. The problem here is that my knowledge of Lula, although admittedly limited, seems to tell me that he doesn't fall into this category.

If you want to see some real left-libertarian people and ideas, then check out the blogs that are part of the Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left.

If there is anyone reading this who knows more about Lula's agenda and the overall situation in Brazil who has some level of disagreement with me over my judgement of him, I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on the matter.

Upon reading Llosa's essay, it seems to me that those who held some degree of optimism over Lula's agenda are receiving a rude awakening. Just another corrupt statist thug, Lula apparently is. Corporate-style globalization is indeed not the answer to the perpetual poverty down there, but neither is the type of bureaucratic planning and meddling that Lula and other statist lefties want to engage in.

Computer slavery, brought to you by Micro$oft

2005-10-04T00:02:00.000-04:00

I posted a link to this post by Brad (contributor at Wendy McElroy's blog) back in August. It describes how the upcoming Microsoft Vista operating system may tinker with your computer and prevent you from doing certain things, such as using copywrited material in ways that they don't approve of. That in itself is evil, but there's more. Here's a link to Brad's most recent post about Vista, which reveals that it will include encrypted file systems to prevent other operating systems from reading it's files.

If you wish to be able to use your own computer how you see fit without any interference, then steer clear of this new virtual prison by Micro$oft when it comes out. I'm using XP at the moment, but will be switching to Linux soon, and no computer of mine will carry any other M$ operating system.

There will likely be more revelations about Vista in the future, so stay tuned to Brad's posts over at the McBlog.

A fox in charge of protecting every henhouse

2005-10-03T19:29:00.000-04:00

Debra, one of the contributors to Claire Wolfe's blog, recently pointed out how the USDA has been both covering up cases of Mad Cow disease and forbidding private companies from engaging in their own Mad Cow tests. None of this is surprising to me in the least. Here's some of Debra's analysis after revealing the details of all this:

The point is that the federal government is calculatingly, consciously, willfully ensuring that consumers who are concerned about Mad Cow have absolutely no accurate data with which to make their purchasing decisions. This is no different than the government disarming you while cooing, "That's okay, we'll protect you." And then either leaving you to get mugged, or mugging you themselves. (Kinda like New Orleans, now that I think about it).

Indeed. The government should never be put in charge of anything important, such as safeguarding food from various threats. Corruption and ineptitude are amongst the unpleasant and inevitable results of such idiocy.

Many of the people concerned about Mad Cow disease are also concerned about other food related issues, some of whom happen to be consumers of organic foods. These people have unfortunately allowed the fox (government) to guard the henhouse (organic food) on yet another issue. I knew that government organic standards would be hijacked and watered down sooner or later; indeed, it's inevitable that such a thing will occur. Thus, I am once again not surprised one bit to find a sneak attack against organic standards to be in the works as we speak.

Private certification agencies were doing just fine safeguarding the integrity of the organic food movement. Now the fox is in charge, those tasty free range eggs that organic consumers enjoy are in danger of being consumed by corporate interests. Am I upset about it? Yep, but I'm not just upset at the government like so many organic consumers and lefties are right now. I also realize that those who supported government intervention in the first place are the root cause of whatever ends up threatening the integrity of organic foods in the future. Organic foods should have been kept as far away from the government as possible.

Liberty vs. Equality

2005-10-02T19:57:00.000-04:00

A relatively new blog out there that I have found to be quite interesting is Joel's Humanistic Blog, created by Joel Schlosberg. In a recent post about the pros and cons of Jonathan Kozol, he mentions and quotes from an essay by Bertrand Russell called Proposed Roads to Freedom. I haven't read the essay yet, but I'll get around to it soon. The excerpt that Schlosberg provides is actually a quote from G.D.H. Cole's Self-Government in Industry, and it's one that deserves quoting yet again.

What, I want to ask, is the fundamental evil in our modern Society which we should set out to abolish?

There are two possible answers to that question, and I am sure that very many well-meaning people would make the wrong one. They would answer POVERTY, when they ought to answer SLAVERY. Face to face every day with the shameful contrasts of riches and destitution, high dividends and low wages, and painfully conscious of the futility of trying to adjust the balance by means of charity, private or public, they would answer unhesitatingly that they stand for the ABOLITION OF POVERTY.

Well and good! On that issue every Socialist is with them. But their answer to my question is none the less wrong.

Poverty is the symptom: slavery the disease. The extremes of riches and destitution follow inevitably upon the extremes of license and bondage. The many are not enslaved because they are poor, they are poor because they are enslaved. Yet Socialists have all too often fixed their eyes upon the material misery of the poor without realizing that it rests upon the spiritual degradation of the slave.

Gregory strips away the mask

2005-09-30T01:20:00.000-04:00

The mask being worn by so-called pro-war "libertarians", that is.

Most of Anthony Gregory's latest LRC column provides a general description of these peoples' beliefs. This part of the essay concludes with this passage:

What else do we know about the average pro-war libertarian? He believes his right to self-defense includes a right to hurt innocent people. He typically leans Republican. He has lots of nice things to say about politicians like Ronald Reagan, yet forever loathes relatively powerless leftists like Michael Moore. He often overlooks abuses committed by the corporate state and sometimes confuses state capitalism for the free market. He views the federal government as his enemy, apart from himself, when a Democrat uses it to manage the economy, but refers to it as "we" when discussing military actions led by Republican administrations. He complains about big government but, in the end, considers Washington, D.C., and especially its imperial military to be the embodiment of American liberty.

Here's where the mask removal takes place:

Given the reality of the pro-war libertarian philosophy, I propose that those of us who are antiwar continue to be called libertarians, and those on the pro-war side simply adopt a new name: conservatives.

That’s what they are, really. They are run-of-the-mill, hawkish conservatives. Like most conservatives, they say they believe in liberty and limited government, but in the end they side with the state in its worst pursuits and orchestrations. We know that conservatism has a long, respected history, so these warmongers should have few reservations accepting the label.

Yup. Remove the "libertarian" mask and you'll see that they walk and talk like grand ol' elephants much of the time, so why not just call a spade a spade.

Let us not forget that war is the health of the state. The American corporate state needs militarism as much as we critters need food.

Further proof that we are enemies in the eyes of Leviathan

2005-09-28T16:44:00.000-04:00

Such proof is becoming more abundant these days. I'm sure most of y'all have already heard about Bush's desire for an expanded role for the military for domestic purposes. Well, the additional proof that I've come across today even comes with a picture that seems to drive the point home rather well if you ask me.

More cops or tank for Detroit?

That's right. The city of Detroit wants to buy an "urban assault vehicle" (read: tank) in order to keep the rabble (read: we, the people) in line. Anyone care to place a bet as to when Tiananmen Square meets Hart Plaza or some other American urban center?

For more on the issue of the population at large being the true enemy #1 of Leviathan, I suggest checking out Kevin Carson's recent post on the subject. Make sure you also click on the link at the end of the post, which will take you to a more thorough post of his on the subject from last month.

Banned Books Week

2005-09-27T17:19:00.000-04:00

Just a friendly reminder here that this week happens to be Banned Books Week, a celebration of books that have been challenged or banned throughout the years and a reminder of the dangers of such activity.

A few good sites that I've discovered that contain lists of such books can be found here, here, and here. If you have any of these books, now might be a good time to dust them off and give 'em another read if you'd like.

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." ~~ Mark Twain

Bush joke

2005-09-27T14:07:00.000-04:00

Here's a good one I just picked up from a friend:

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, Three Brazilian soldiers were killed."
"OH NO!" the president exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the president sits, head in hands.
Finally, president looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

Slime from schools and videos

2005-09-21T21:07:00.000-04:00

It's been awhile since I've provided a music related post. This post from WFMU's Beware of the Blog has motivated me to change that. The good folks at WFMU have provided a relic from the past: a video clip of Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention performing "King Kong" on BBC back in 1968.

VIDEO: Mothers of Invention - King Kong-BBC'68 (requires Real Player or something else that plays .rm files)

Some of the comments provided at the WFMU blog are also worth noting:

Largely classically trained, oversexed, jaded intellectual too-cool-to-be-hippie motherfuckers - they simply do not make bands like this anymore. They inspired so many, and were narrowly rewarded for their efforts. Of course, Frank Zappa's post-Mothers career and all-too-short life is well documented, but it's the Mothers era that never ceases to amaze me.

Note Frank's comment at the top of this clip thanking the BBC for "allowing them to do things..." - the US hasn't changed that much, if at all; we still have the worst artist-censoring record this side of Iran.

I not only agree that the American media is way too puritanical and censor-happy, but that bands like this just don't seem to come to fruition anymore, which is a shame. (*note: During the sax solo, I noticed two split second subliminal type messages appear on the screen. When I was finally able to pause at the right moment, I found that the message said "A Consultant Psychiatrist". Heh...)

Fortunately, Zappa wasn't completely absent from American slime projectors (read: televisions). He actually appeared on Saturday Night Live a couple of times back in the 1970s, when the show was not only good, but actually provided some decent musical guests. Here are a couple of clips of Zappa performing a couple of great instrumental pieces on SNL.

VIDEO: FZ - Peaches en Regalia (SNL '76)
VIDEO: FZ - Samurai Son of St. Alphonzo (with John Belushi - SNL)

It's truly a shame that music like this would never be found on SNL, or any other mainstream boob tube program, today. If you don't produce simplistic, radio-friendly pop music products and/or have a cute face or nice rack, you ain't gonna be performing in front cameras and an audience of millions. I hestitate to call any of the crud you hear on the radio today music. I think that terms like music product, muzak, or musicstuff (like foodstuff) seem more appropriate.

There are times when I wonder if schools have wound up turning many minds off of good, wholesome music at an early age. There's plenty of good rock music and hip hop music out there, but it's a rare event to find youngsters who listen to anything other than those two primarily pop genres. I can recall music classes in elementary school where the teacher was old and boring and unwilling to let us experiment with instruments. She would usually make us practice singing Christmas carols or whatever awful songs struck her fancy in preparation for a holiday concert. I can't think of anyone who actually enjoyed music class, let alone anyone who actually took something worthwhile away from it. The "Doctor of Rock & Roll", guitarist Lowell George (who was once a member of the Mothers of Invention) once stated in an interview that he also had a low opinion of music classes in school.

At about five years old, I started playing harmonica. Taking lessons and learning all the notes. A teacher taught me how to read music, and all the time I was faking it... playing by ear. He'd say, "Hold that note." And I'd go humm. And he'd go, "No, that's not it." And then I would say, "You play it first..." which in terms of reading turned out to be a real drag. I never really did get to read a whole lot until I started playing flute and then... Music education at this stage is way out of the hands of the Board of Education. Most kids learn to play music completely disassociated from school. They learn in another place. They learn from private teachers if they're classically oriented and they learn from records if they learn how to play... other kinds of music. The elementary school system has almost no business trying to teach music. Only at the college level does it ever get anywhere... maybe one out of fifty kids get some kind of information that is useful later.

This brings me to recognition of Kevin Carson's latest great post titled Free Time, Scheduling, Schooling and Independent Thought. Carson's post is chock full of testimonies on how important free time away from authority figues is crucial towards broadening minds and developing them in ways that may run counter to the interests of the corporate state ruling class. There is also plenty of criticism towards government schooling and how they're ruining young minds. It seems to reinforce my belief that hordes of fans of performers like Britney Spears, P Diddy (or is it Doody), and Creed are one of the many effects of such conditioning and general mind assaults.

Carson also quotes a Joel Schlosberg blog post that brings the ideas of Erich Fromm to the table.

Erich Fromm, who had the courage to use psychology to critique rather than reinforce the status quo, pointed out with his concept of an "insane society" that when a society's norms run counter to the conditions for human mental health, what is considered to be normal behavior is actually mental illness.

This reminds me of a passage from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World Revisited that has always been stuck in my mind, especially since I was a weirdo in school who was diagnosed as having ADD (non-hyperactive). Huxley also refers to Fromm quite a bit, with the parts of the following excerpt in quotes coming from Fromm directly.

The really hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be the most normal. "Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existance, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does." They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society. Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted, still cherish "the illusion of individuality," but in fact they have been to a great extent deindividualized. Their conformity is developing into something like uniformity. But "uniformity and freedom are incompatible. Uniformity and mental health are incompatible too... Man is not made to be an automaton, and if he becomes one, the basis for mental health is destroyed."

Heh... at this point, this blog post has seemed to lose it's focus as we've gone from Zappa to educational critiques to Fromm. At least it seems that way to me. Maybe it's my lowered attention span. Many people seem to have a lowered attention span these days, and a likely culprit aside from schools is another tool of social control - television.

I'll finish off this post with Zappa's commentary on the slime projector, performed on Saturday Night Live of all places! Notice how the line "I'm the slime oozing out from your TV set" has had the TV set removed from it, replaced by Frank yelling out "take it away, Don Pardo". Pardo seemed to be amused by it all, as he took over for some of the lyrics, and later yelled out "I am slime, Frank, I AM SLLLIIIME!"

MP3: Frank Zappa - I'm the Slime (SNL)