Thoughts on Friedman and Chile

Milton Friedman is often accused by leftists of having collaborated with the Pinochet regime in Chile. Friedman and (American) libertarians defend him by claiming that he only provided abstract, universal policy advice and that the implementation of Friedmanesque policies resulted in the democratization of Chile.

This debate recently flared up on a few left-libertarian blogs (Mutualist Blog and Freedom Democrats), leading me to develop an opinion on this issue, which I figure is worth reprinting:

It seems that the damning act was his 1982 Newsweek article (which I can't find online), in which he publicly lauded the Pinochet regmine for the economic policies. From what I can piece together, at that point, the Chilean people had been suffering economic deprivation for much of Pinochet's regime--first with the assault on inflation and then with a recession brought on by international conditions. For the Pinochet regime to get the endorsement of a Nobel-prize winning economist at that point would have been a meaningful propaganda victory: just as people would have been most likely to abandon the Pinochet regime, the wise-man (Friedman) comes in and says "you are on the right track." This seems to have been a lapse of judgement equal to those of the communists who defended the USSR in the early 20th century.

This analogy is strengthened by his apparent support for "shock therapy" (supposedly recommended in his policy proposals to Pinochet) -- the drastic restructuring of the economy without concern for the severe hardship that it would cause. This attitude is reminiscent of the USSR's drive to industrialize regardless of the price paid by the people, and the drastic reforms called for in Harry Browne's presidential platform.

Both his praise for Pinochet and his endorsement of drastic, painful changes suggest that Friedman had a certain top-down bias that I find fundamentally incompatible with liberty and democracy (by which I mean including regular people in the governance of society, not simple majoritarianism). Perhaps Friedman was just reflecting the mainstream bias of his society, or he was blinded by his own influence among powerful people--but it's really disturbing. Too often libertarians simply reject these criticisms of Friedman, and hold him up as an icon of liberty. Failure to heed these criticisms and integrate them into libertarian thought will continue to marginalize the movement.

P.S. I don't blame Friedman for what his students did, and I don't blame his students for taking an opportunity to improve their country (assuming that they weren't explicitly trying to transfer wealth to the elite). I don't blame him for giving a lecture in Chile, or even for writing a list of policy proposals specifically for Pinochet's Chile (except to the extent that this was supposedly congratulatory towards Pinochet). Finally, I don't believe that his economic policies are incompatible with democracy, though his recommended implementation of these policies may have been.

Blogger censorship?

It seems that Blogger will not allow users to register the subdomain "regicide.blogger.com". I tried to register this site, but was rejected, despite the fact that no-one else seems to be using it.

It is understandable that Blogger (Google) would want to distance itself from anyone who would advocate killing a king or other head of state (I don't advocate this form of killing)....but it's odd that they didn't prohibit the use of the subdomain "tyrannicide.blogger.com", since this is arguably more applicable to the USA (Google's home country) than the idea of regicide.

Whatever.

The ethical bright line

The hardest part of Washington is knowing where you ethical line, your bright line is. Because it’s not so bright when you cross it. When you get up close to it, it looks rather gray.

This thought from Raynard Kington comes to us by way of joshuah, a young up-and-comer among the Washington technocrats. While Kington emphasizes the problem of identifying the line once you are close to it, Joshuah ponders the problem of identifying the line from a distance. Joshuah also comforts himself with his self-perception that:

I feel I am secure enough in my sense of self, and not particularly motivated by money or power, so I am at a pretty low risk for getting caught up in ethically questionable doings.

Let's take for granted that Joshuah's perception of himself is accurate, and he doesn't have any need for self-aggrandizement (a rare breed!), nor does he see himself as part of an aristocratic class that needs to keep the riffraff in their place. I think that there is still a real risk of corruption that faces even the most well-intentioned and well-adjusted individuals--it is the dynamic that I called "competing power" in a previous post on how power corrupts.

I can present this either in terms of modern American politics, or in terms of Nazi Germany...let's do the Nazi's first. The following quotes come from Milton Mayer's They Thought They Were Free, an excellent and enthralling case study of Nazism in Kronenberg, where this form of corruption was called the temptation of effectiveness.

"Yes," said (the professor), shaking his head, "the 'excesses' and the 'radicals.' We all opposed them, very quietly. So your two 'little men' thought that they must join, as good men, good Germans, even as good Christians, and when enough of them did they would be able to change the Party. They would 'bore from within.' 'Big men' told themselves that, too, in the usual sincerity that required them only to abandon one little principle after another, to throw away, little by little, all that was good. I was one of those men."

Another professor (a chemical engineer) confessed:

You see, refusal (to take an oath of fidelity in 1935) would have meant the loss of my job, of course, not prison or anything like that... But losing my job would have meant that I could not get another.... Nobody would hire a 'Bolshevik.'

I tried not to think of myself or my family. We might have got out of the country, in any case, and I could have got a job in industry or education somewhere else.

What I tried to think of was the people to whom I might be of some help later on, if things got worse.... If I took the oath and held my job, I might be of help, somehow, as things went on. If I refused to take the oath, I would certainly be useless to my friends, even if I remained in the country. I myself would be in their situation.

This man used his apartment as a hideout for fugitives until he was caught in 1943. But he still believed that he should not have ever taken the oath...

(T)here is the problem of the lesser evil. Taking the oath was not so evil as being unable to help my friends later on would have been. But the evil of the oath was certain and immediate, and the helping of my friends was in the future and therefore uncertain. I had to commit a positive evil, there and then, in the hope of a possible good later on. The good outweighed the evil; but the good was only a hope, the evil a fact.

In explaining why he regretted the decision to take the oath, this professor emphasized his privileged and influential position in society, and his view that the failure of people like him to resist the Nazis in 1935 guaranteed that the Nazis would come to power. He didn't even delve into the fact that even as he was hiding refugees in his apartment, he was also going to work (as a productive member of German society) and paying his taxes--providing the Nazis with the resources they would use to commit the very crimes that he was risking his life to mitigate.

To illustrate the same issue in contemporary American politics, consider two Senators running for President, with sincere differences of opinion on a number of "big" issues. Each of them believes that his own election will result in a substantial increase in the welfare of the people, yet he needs to convince the voters of this fact. Should he use his current power to direct taxpayer money to a particular company, with the expectations that this will increase campaign contributions from that company and help his election? The politician believes that the harm of this little kickback scheme is trivial next to the benefit arising from the campaign contribution (likewise, the voters believe that the harm of this kickback scheme is nothing compared to the harm caused by "the other guy" winning the election and setting policy on the "big issues").

Tragically, if both politicians follow this strategy, then they will resort to bigger and bigger kickback schemes, with the only limit being that they can't be substantially worse than their opponent. This is the basic problem of retaliation and escalation. I think the whole point of morality/ethics is to make sure that we don't go down that path...but it's so easy.

Fascists among us

Cross posted to Daily Kos and Freedom Democrats (a week ago)

The Philadelphia Daily News has published a disturbing commentary that comes close to being a piece of fascist propaganda: Stu Bykofsky's "To save America, we need another 9/11". Before laying into Bykofsky, I'll acknowledge that he later wrote "I WAS WRONG ABOUT ANOTHER 9/11", in which he claims that the headline exaggerated his thesis a little bit. However, the same can be said for the headline of his "apology" because he doesn't admit to having been wrong; instead, he claims that he was misunderstood.

Despite his clarifications, I still think that he expressed fascist sentiments in "To save America...". The basic thesis is that the September 11th attacks generated a sense of unity among Americans, which has since fallen apart even though we still need it in order to fight Islamist terrorism. The main problem in his argument is its circular logic: We need to be attacked, so that we will be united, so that we can fight the enemy, so that we won't be attacked. It apparently doesn't dawn on him that if we aren't attacked again, then we won't have any need for this unity. In other words, he's seeking national unity for it's own sake -- which is the core of fascism.

Another fascist element in "To save America..." is the implicit message that Americans should rally behind the President. He may not even realize that his call for unity implies subordination to the President. Of course, one way to maintain unity would be for the President to give some consideration to others, but that isn't going to happen with this President. Furthermore, the President has the political advantage; being the executive, he gets to initiate things, and no "disunity" is apparent until opposition develops. Consequently, an ideology of unity gives the Presidency a major political advantage.

Finally, Bykofsky's assumption that Americans would unite after another attack is quite debatable. Sure, we united after the 2001 attacks, but back then we felt a shared sense of confidence in a number of institutions, including the Federal government. Since 2001, many Americans have lost that sense of confidence in the Federal government, so we may not turn to it to protect us in the wake of another attack. Indeed, given the large number of neo-cons/Republicans who have been pining for another terrorist attack, there's a good chance that many Americans will succumb to "Bush did it" conspiracy theories. More skeptical Americans may still decide that the Federal government is a hindrance in fighting terrorism, rather than an asset.

Finally, I have to acknowledge a few writers who have inspired this analysis. First, there is Milton Mayer's "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-1945", which has made me sensitive to the types of appeals that persuade "little folk" to support fascism (thanks to mstein for recommending this excellent book). Also, there are three stories at DKos addressing "To save America...", but I didn't notice the above analysis in any of them, so I wrote my own analysis.

Damn the draft

A political consultant over at Open Left is advising progressives to keep quiet about the threat posed by a military draft, largely in the hope that fear will produce favorable political conditions. It's been a long time since I've read an essay that was wrong on so many levels; it's insulting, threatening, and idiotic.

1) Insulting: All of this talk about the morality of a draft (whether for military or civilian projects) effectively glorifies a subset of human activities, while diminishing all others. Why is a soldier morally superior to me? Do all socially beneficial activities require the threat of sudden death? What about engineers and scientists who forgo most leisure time to improve our lives (including military technology)? How about the doctors who are on call constantly? How about those who spend all of their leisure time working on a project that they think is REALLY beneficial to society (whether it is art, an invention, or developing open source software)? How about those who take care of sick relatives and neighbors. Apparently none of these things matter, and all of these activities can be cut short if the draft board decides that "society" would be better off if the person picked up trash along a highway. And we are considered selfish if we prefer to rely on freedom of choice to guide our lives, and professional service to guide our economy.

2) Threatening: Any draft system threatens to seriously disrupt the lives of millions, and will put many of them in harm's way. Any suggestion that we should just let that happen is a threat to me and everyone I care about. This threat can be mitigated by making dangerous service voluntary (either by giving alternatives or permitting domestic military service), but we're still talking about serious disruption to our lives and communities.

3) Idiotic: Much of this argument for a draft is based on the completely speculative theory that a draft will move society and politics in a progressive direction. It just as likely could trigger an outright rebellion (as people see the government as a threat to their lives), or conversely it could result in an authoritarian society where military discipline conditions everyone to just go along with the President's orders. The truth is that we have no idea of what to expect from social engineering schemes like this--and yet we are expected to disrupt millions of lives and squander billions of dollars in the hope that it will generate some sort of beneficial outcome.

While the above flaws in the argument appear to be independent, they are actually united by a common theme: arrogance. All of these flaws arise from the assumption that a bunch of professional politicians in Washington (and their delegates) can judge the lifestyles of millions of Americans and assign each of them to their most socially useful role.

In Iraq, what exactly constitutes "extremism"?

Over the past several weeks, many leftists have been criticizing the mainstream/corporate/commercial/lazy/brain-dead news outlets for just parroting the administration's lines regarding the war in Iraq. All American operations are against "Al-Qaeda", all enemies are "terrorists" or "extremists".

Here's one example I noticed yesterday in Forbes: "Extremists unleashed a barrage of more than a dozen mortars or rockets into the Green Zone..."

First, do they really have any idea of who shot the mortars? Is the fact that these people shot mortars into the Green Zone sufficient to label them as extremists? What exactly does it mean to be an extremist in Iraq?

I think that "extremism" must be judged with respect to the political center-of-gravity for that society, or alternatively, to the political traditions of that society. From that perspective, Baathists are conservatives. And proponents of national independence are fairly moderate (as they are world-wide). In Iraq, I think that Iraqi liberals (i.e. "republicans" or "democrats") are fairly extreme, since they have never held power in Iraq and there is substantial evidence that most Iraqis are not "unity liberals". The major political parties seem to be either socialist or Islamist. On top of that, there are a few influential separatist movements. Any of these groups--which deserve the title "moderate" or "centrist" could be in opposition to the American-installed Iraqi government.

I think Forbes just fed us a bunch of bullshit.

The Second American Revolution

Cross posted at Freedom Democrats

Every so often, I come across an activist claiming to be part of a "Second American Revolution". I generally find these assertions to reflect the ignorance of the person making the assertion -- after all, haven't we already had more than one revolution in this country?

Looking around the web, it seems that the term Second American Revolution is used to represent a few different historical conditions. First, there is the war of 1812, which might better identified as the "Second Revolutionary War": as John Adams wrote of the first revolutionary war, the revolution was not in the war itself (though others assert that the war was revolutionary), but was a change in the "principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people." With that perspective, I have to think that the revolution was not complete with our independence from Britain in 1783; instead, it only completed once our institutions had all been modified to recognize the fundamental equality of everyone in our society.

To some, this means that the American Revolution had two aspects, the first being anti-monarchism and independence, the second being a broader anti-elitism. This second aspect was never seen to conclusion, but was expressed in post-independence resistance to the new government such as Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

Another way to parse this interpretation of the American Revolution is to identify the first revolution as embodying the ideal of fundamental equality among members of a society--in this case, "society" was defined as white males. This "first" American Revolution only reached its conclusion in the period of Jacksonian democracy, around the mid-nineteenth century. This was immediately followed by a strong push for the "second" American Revolution, which sought to expand our definition of "society" to include every person involved--specifically blacks and women. This revolution was only completed with the social and political reforms of the 1960's, and its gains are still being consolidated.

This is my favorite interpretation, though I realize attempts to delimit social evolution are far from objective. Still, I think this paradigm provides some context for thinking about contemporary changes in American society. Has America stagnated, such that we will have no more revolutions? Is there a "top-down" revolution being forced upon us by the ruling elite? If there is to be another populist revolution, will it be a "reactionary revolution", such that we are just going to put the government back in it's proper place, as it supposedly was in some mythical past? Or have we entered into a new, progressive revolution that builds upon the accomplishments and experiences from the previous revolutions?

I suppose only time will tell, but your thoughts are appreciated.

Happy Rebellion Day

On Independence Day, you may be invited (and pressured) to participate in rituals demonstrating unconditional submission to the government, such as pledging allegiance. In these situations, remember the signers of the Declaration of Independence, who publicly renounced their allegiance to their former government. Remember that these rituals are in opposition to the spirit of this holiday, where we celebrate a document that declares the innate human right to "alter or abolish" one's own government when it becomes a threat to liberty.

Not only have authoritarians hijacked The Fourth for the celebration of the state, but they also use it to promote a cult of the soldier. They promote the absurd and insulting claim that our liberties were given* to us by soldiers; again, perverting the meaning of this holiday. The Americans who led the struggle for independence recognized that certain rights were essential to prevent the return of tyranny, and they made these rights sacrosanct by listing them in the constitutions for the new governments that they created (e.g. the Bill of Rights).

Only a tyrant would minimize the importance of these liberties (among them are speech, assembly, publication, and privacy). The misled soldier is the enemy of freedom, not its defender; it is the reporter who assures that soldiers point their guns in the right direction. Only an idiot would deny that there is often risk in the exercise of these essential liberties--that many people (including Americans) have made great sacrifices to bring information to the public or to organize non-violent opposition to tyranny. As important as the role of soldiers is, many others play a role that is no less essential.

When we criticize the American government, we may be told to "love it or leave it". On Independence Day, we are reminded that the government is not America--America is the people. Each of us is part of America, just as each of us is a part of humanity, and we strive to reform the government so that we will not have to fight it in the future. We must resist every step towards slavery. If we permit our enslavement, resistance will be impossible--our lives will be in the hands of our masters. This existential truth is enshrined in a Revolutionary era motto: "Live free or Die."

Cross-posted to Daily Kos and Freedom Democrats

* Footnote: Soldiers protect our rights, they don't give them to us. Just as soldiers protect our rights, the threat to our rights comes from other soldiers. What makes our soldiers different from enemy soldiers? It is the very institutions (academia, journalism, civil society) that are dismissed by the cult of the soldier.

Libby's commutation in context

Cross posted at Freedom Democrats

Scooter Libby obstructed justice in order to defend his political masters. He was convicted, but was let off the hook by those very masters. This is especially interesting in light of the numerous investigations of the executive branch that are coming to a head. Bush has just sent a clear signal to his underlings that perjury is just fine, when it protects the President's interests.

This administration has been obsessed with secrecy (and avoiding accountability) since day one. Even as Bush undermines the fact-finding ability of the criminal justice system, we need to keep in mind that the main tool of the general public -- the Freedom of Information Act -- is likewise constantly obstructed by the government.

It seems that government outrages are coming to light faster than I can keep track of them (definitely faster than I can write about them), but before this one fades into the shadows of history, make sure you take a moment to look over the "top ten items among the CAI's "Family Jewels" --released 15 years after the National Security Archives at GWU filed a suit under the FIOA.

Daily Kos: Domestic Violence 2: Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones...

I don't have much to say, but this is a good overview and collection of resources on the totalitarian household: Daily Kos: Domestic Violence 2: Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones...

Singing the gasoline blues

Cross-posted to Daily Kos and Freedom Democrats

Gasoline prices rise every summer, but this year they are even higher than last year. As if the high prices weren't annoying enough, we can look forward to massive displays of ignorant indignation from many of our countrymen. These theatrics typically come from those who can't be bothered to even read an economics blog, yet still prescribe decisive economic intervention on every issue imaginable.

I am pleased to find some reasonable pundits who appreciate of how markets work even more than corporate apologists do. It's even better when these pundits promote productive conversation about important issues. This stands in stark contrast to the knee-jerk legislation that just passed the House, attempting to start a massive diplomatic and economic dispute with OPEC.

Unfortunately, it's times like this that people call for a decrease in the gasoline tax, even though gasoline taxes may be the best tool that we have to manage our relationship with OPEC. Opponents of the gas-tax also seem to ignore the fact that there soon will be no money to build new highways (which may actually be a good thing), not to mention the gas tax's role in recovering pollution costs. Furthermore, a short-term reduction in the gas tax would transfer a good chunk of those lost tax revenues into oil-company pockets: prices may stay high if suppliers are unable to produce additional gasoline on short notice, and they wouldn't fall the full amount if decreases in prices discourage conservation by consumers.

If any SUV-driving suburbanite whines about the cost of gasoline and tries to make it into a political issue, I have two pieces of advice:

1. Ride a bike(again, good discussion)
2. If you don't like the market, leave it!
   

There is no reason (at the moment) to believe that anything unfair is going on, except in the collection of economic rent (from oil deposits or grandfathered pollution rights at oil refineries)

In related news: Iranian motorists start paying 25 percent more for fuel.

The Siege of Iraq

I am sick.

I am sick of the righteous indignation of the right-wing militarists, proudly on display in last night's Republican debates. "America is innocent!", they cry ("Israel is innocent!" is the companion cry). They should study a little bit of Christian theology--none are innocent. We are all sinners. They claim that "America is the victim"; that there is no good reason for anyone to dislike us; that there is nothing that we could have done to reduce anyone's desire to harm us.

They are full of shit, and it's making me nauseous. Sean Hannity dismisses the suffering of the Iraqi people during the 1990s by invoking our "moral obligation" to drive the Iraqi army from Kuwait and then lay siege to Iraq. Hannity implies that we have a moral obligation to use violence: we never have a moral obligation to use violence. We sometimes have the right to use violence, but even that is questionable if our violence will engulf non-aggressors.

If there is any chance that you are buying into the (American) militarist myth that we only fight wars against "evil despots" and never against the subjugated people, then you need to refresh your memory about the Siege of Iraq. From 1991 to 2003, the USA blockaded and bombed Iraq. By the time we were done, the society had collapsed. It's hard to say that the people themselves were simply collateral damage in this strategy--just like strategic bombing in WWII (culminating the the atomic bombing of Japan), this strategy is designed to destroy the society's ability (or will) to field a military by destroying the entire economy of that society. The people are the target, just as much as they were on September 11, 2001.

The threat of partisan paramilitary forces

Cross posted to Daily Kos and Freedom Democrats.

Naiomi Wolf's Fascist America, in 10 easy steps provides an interesting evaluation of America's situation with respect to the experience of societies that have succumbed to totalitarian ideologies (i.e. fascism). I thought that the most interesting "step" was the third--Develop a thug caste--both because it is the weakest link in her argument that America is on the brink of totalitarianism, and because if such a caste really exists, it is the single most telling sign that we are on the brink.



Wolf seems to be concerned about "groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers" who caused a ruckus during the Florida vote recount of 2000. While I'm not too concerned about those guys, I am a bit worried about the other group that she identified: the "security contractors" (a.k.a. mercenaries)who are providing firepower in Iraq without the accountability that real soldiers have.



While these organizations have their own command structure that seems to be aligned with the current government, and they have been called upon for domestic duty during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, I hope that most of the employees would think of America as the place where they relax and have a life, and be unwilling to take up arms for combat within the United Sates. However, if we ever have riots, mass demonstrations, or a general strike in the USA while the National Guard is deployed overseas, I wouldn't be surprized if state and federal governments call upon these organizations to bust a few heads. I'm afraid that these guys would have even less restraint than the National Guard -- remember Kent State?



The striking thing about the two groups that Wolf listed is that they don't fit the mold of the prototypical thug castes: the Nazi Stormtroopers and Fascist Blackshirts. While those organizations were largely composed of proletariat street-fighters, Wolf's prospective thug castes seem to be made of middle-class political activists and professional soldiers.



However, there's a third prospective thug caste, which Wolf didn't mention, but fits the mold better than the other two. This prospective thug caste is best represented by the Gathering of Eagles, a supposedly impromptu organization dedicated to staging "counter demonstrations" against anti-war protesters.



They've been promoted by the likes of Michelle Malkin, and are clearly cut from the cloth of American right-wing militarism. They claim to be a defensive group, but have a very broad idea of what "defense" means:

What the Eagles will not stand for, however, are “violence, vandalism, physical or verbal assaults on our veterans, and the destruction or desecration of our memorials. By defending and honoring these sacred places, we defend and honor those whose blood gave all of us the right to speak as freely as our minds think.”

This raises the question: What constitutes verbal assault or desecration of a memorial, and what are they going to do about it? By some accounts, they interpret those words rather liberally, such that they will resort to physical intimidation and property destruction in order to silence the political opposition.



Disgruntled veterans made up a substantial portion of the the Fascists and Nazi thug castes, and that seems to be the same for the Gathering of Eagles. These "disgruntled veterans" are people who believe that their country lost a war primarily because their countrymen failed to provide the necessary support...if only we had fought a little bit longer and a little bit harder, we would have won. This is one of the most frightening side effects of waging foolish wars--our society generates large numbers of men with military experience who feel that they have been jerked around and abused. This is the path to tyranny.

Movie: The Corporation

The Corporation is complete crap! I was looking forward to a thoughtful analysis of the legal and social framework of modern corporations, but all it had was a bunch of hype. I think the director wanted to make a music video, but was stuck making a "documentary". It's just a bunch of metaphors and disjointed facts.

I've heard that Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is a much better movie. I'll check that one out.

The Struggle to See What Is Right In Front of Your Nose

Here is a link to a great little essay, with a great quote from George Orwell at the beginning.

Balkinization: The Struggle to See What Is Right In Front of Your Nose

I don't have much to say about it, except this little note for anyone who has read Orwell's ideas about the use of language in a totalitarian society (exemplified by Newspeak in 1984): Remember the "homicide bombers"!
------------------






Technorati Tags: thinking, liberty, totalitarian, Bush

Community Voice Mail

Welcome to Community Voice Mail: "Community Voice Mail provides free, 24-hour nationwide voice mail to people in crisis - connecting them to jobs, housing and hope"

This represents one of those things that most of us take for granted, but which many people do not have access to -- the means of receiving private communications. According to the CVM website, it seems that many of their clients are focused on trying to find housing or a job, but I assume that this would also be helpful for persons stuck in an tyrannical household where they would be afraid to have messages left on their home answering machine or sent to them by mail.

CVM also seems to have a very reasonable strategy--they provide the technical service and "subcontract" to established organizations (Goodwill, YMCA, etc) who actually have contact with the people who need this service.

Secure, reliable communication systems are essential for freedom. Good for them!

Anarchism Without Hyphens

I just found a good broadside (Anarchism Without Hyphens) that describes an essential aspect of anarchism that I am just beginning to understand.

(A)narchism is not an ideological movement. It is an ideological statement. It says that all people have a capacity for liberty. It says that all anarchists want liberty. And then it is silent. After the pause of that silence, anarchists then mount the stages of their own communities and history and proclaim their, not anarchism's, ideologies-they say how they, how they as anarchists, will make arrangements, describe events, celebrate life, work.

Would-be tyrant: Cully Stimson

A recent Washington Post editorial (Unveiled Threats) brought my attention to a new "would-be tyrant" in our governement: Cully Stimson.

It seems that this guy is trying to intimidate lawyers from defending people who are accused by the government of participating in terrorism. This sounds like one more brick in the prison-wall, to produce a society where the government can remove anyone from society by simply accusing him of "terrorism".

Books: "Bakunin" by Mark Leier

Bakunin: The Creative Passion by Mark Leier

---

A few weeks ago, while browsing the "new non-fiction" section of my local library, I was pleasantly surprized by the sight of the name "Bakunin" written in big letters on the side of the book. Picking up the book, a blurb from Simon Sebag Montefiore (author of Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar) assured me that I had found what I was looking for:

Bakunin not only reassesses this fascinating and important character, but also provides the biography of the forgotten ideology of anarchism itself

After many disappointing searches for books about anarchism in these libraries, I eagerly checked out this book and began to read it. I found Montefior's evaluation of the book to be spot on.

I was instantly absorbed in Leier's colorful and amusing style of writing. He provided a delightful description of the condition of Russian nobility into which Mikael Bakunin was born at the beginning of the 19th century. This included the many determinants of family status, the landscape of the Bakunin estate, the relationship with between lord and serf, the influence of radical ideas from Western Europe, and the ever-changing relationship between the tsar and the nobility, which greatly depended upon the personality of each tsar.

The description of Hegelian philosophy is detailed enough to understand Bakunin's contributions to that school, yet brief enough to not bore readers who are just interested in Bakunin's story. Leier also conveys Bakunin's excitement about the "revolutions of 48", along with the despondence arising from a stint as a political prisoner, followed by exile to Siberia, and escape via Japan and the Panama Canal only to return to the European radical community and find that it has, itself, been radically changed during his imprisonment.

Leier account of Bakunin's relationship with the new generation of radicals probably contains lessons for every aging activist. Leier also recounts Bakunin's relationship with various radicals of the time, including Marx and Proudhon, in which we can see the beginning of the ideological and cultural splits among radical activists that continue to this day.

Unfortunately, I didn't manage to finish the book before other concerns grabbed my attention. However, I can whole-heartedly endores this book for anyone interested in the history and theory of anarchism, socialism, or any form of political and intellectual radicalism from the 19th century. I've recently taken an interest in the history of Russia and its sphere of influence, which this book only stoked.

Leier's writing is engaging. He adds humor and relevance with many tangential comments, often connecting the dynamics of 19th century society with those of 21st century society. Unfortunately, these tangents are sometimes annoying, as they gratuitously expose an ax to grind, or they suggest that he is ignorant of some topic that he has strong opinions about (such as how capitalists increase their profit).

It becomes apparent early on that if Leier is not an anarchist, he at least sympathizes with anarchism. His treatment of Bakunin often comes off as defensive--going out of his way to refute and even mock previous authors who have defamed Bakunin.

As for Bakunin himself, while Leier is clearly attempting to rehabilitate Bakunin's reputation, he admits some of Bakunin's shortcomings, if only to make him seem more human. Leier repeatedly notes Bakunin's inability to manage money, along with his tendency to constantly borrow money from friends and family without much of an idea of how he would repay them.

I find this aspect of Bakunin's personality to be rather distasteful, earning him the title of "wanker". It seems that Bakunin was capable of crafting fine theories about the economic condition of man, but was unable manage basic economic affairs. To Bakunin's credit, Leier suggests that he was aware of his own shortcomings, and eager to learn from socialists who had little formal education, but had developed socialist ideals as the result of their own experience as laborers, thereby fulfilling the socialist mantra of "uniting theory with practise".

Leier also depicts Bakunin as being humble in that most anarchist of manners--he refused to dictate the details of how a good society should operate or come into being, insisting that any society should arise form the decisions of the individuals in it, rather than from any doctrine proposed by a historical figure. This was a matter of distinction within radical communities where many theorists were willing to describe a "perfect society" in precise, dogmatic detail.

In summary: I liked it. It seems that others have generally liked it. The best review I saw was by this history professor.

Two Phrases That Destroyed American Culture

Check out this great rant: Two Phrases That Destroyed American Culture.

This rant calls on us to stand up to the snobby bullies who harass service workers everywhere. The story about the bagel shop sounds eerily familiar (except for the intervention)--either the author lives right around the corner from me, or this sort of shit happens everywhere.

For a theoretical treatment if this issue, you may appreciate Breaking Ranks.

The Rise of the Network Age

Recently, I Stumbled-upon a review of the new cultural awareness of networks, called Post-Modernism is Dead: distributed culture and the rise of the network age by Samuel R. Smith (CV-pdf). This is the first time that I've seen a formal review of how network-thinking is changing our social awareness. I was happy to find this essay, as I've been thinking about this topic a lot, mainly arising from my readings on the scientific studies of networks (see below for a bibliography).

I expect that network-thinking may permeate our culture over the next couple of generations, leading to great advances in science and society. I expect that we will be more likely to think of ourselves as an active part in the vast network that is the world with more or less influence over the smaller or larger (respectively) structures within those networks. We will no longer be satisfied to be cogs in someone else's machine; we will realize that we have influence outside of "the system" (ideologically defined social structures, such as "the law") and use that influence to direct our own lives.

This network awareness is reflected in institutional statements such as the Unitarian Universalist Covenant, which calls on us to affirm and promote "respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part".

Below are a few books that I've read (at least in part), that provide a glimpse into the how network-thinking is influencing science.

1. Six-degrees : the science of the connected age (my review) by Duncan J. Watts.
   
2. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity by Stuart Kauffman. This book introduced me to neato concepts such as "auto-catalytic set" and "expanding into the the adjacent possible".
   
3. Handbook of Graphs and Networks: From the Genome to the Internet, edited by Stefan Bornholdt and Heinz Georg Schuster.

Update:
Additional resources for looking into networks:

1. Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science". This has cool descriptions of non-linear dynamics (which include network dynamics), just don't buy into his self-aggrandizement.
2. Nature Publishing Group's new journal: Molecular Systems Biology
   

"None of the above"

A nice feature of the new touch-screen voting machines--it's easier to write in a vote. Why would I want to write in a vote? ...just to record my dissatisfaction with the candidates on the ballot.

I've started to write "none" as write-in votes when I'm unhappy with the candidates. I prefer this over simply not voting for two reasons

1. It's clear that I am paying attention, and I bothered to turn out to vote, and am explicitly rejecting the candidates on the ballot.
2. It is actually counted in the vote total, thereby decreasing the portion of the votes captured by the winning candidate.

Happy election.

Conspiracy theories -- Terror Storm

I've been working my way thru the film Terror Storm, and have already learned a couple of things from it. For example, it inspired the previous post: I learned something new today....

Terror Storm presents a "War on Terror conspiracy theory"--basically, it suggests that Western governments have been complicit in the terrorist attacks of the past few years. I haven't really gotten into the details of these accusations yet, and I expect that there will be no conclusive evidence one way or another.

However, the film opens by making the argument that Western governments are capable of doing such monstrous things, and at this level, there does seem to be conclusive evidence. Operation Ajax was one example of C.I.A. sponsored, "false flag" terrorism.

So far, the film has been informative, so I'm noting it here. However, I have not confirmed its accusations (beyond the Operation Ajax stuff), so do not take this as a general endorsement of the ideas found in the film.

I learned something new today...

Just when I thought that it couldn't get any worse, my opinion of the state has reached a new low. Today, I learned the details of Operation Ajax.

I had known that the CIA was involved in a coup in Iran back in the 50's (the state department website admits as much), but I wasn't aware of how much this coup involved manipulation of the general population, even staging terrorist attacks in order to whip up anti-government feelings.

Furthermore, the story of Operation Ajax illustrates the "open secret" of the American Ruling Class. Note that certain families (Roosevelt, Schwarzkopf) are always running this country, and apparently they have no qualms with decieving and threatening everyone else.

For more info, see the following:
New York Times Special Report: The C.I.A. in Iran

Update: I removed the Google-video link to Terror Strom. See the next post for an explanation.

This government must be punished

For the past six years the Republican Party has had complete control over the Federal government, and has proceeded to undermine the foundations of our security, our liberty, and our prosperity. Much of this is due to their ignorance and arrogance, but they have even succumbed to pure greed and power-lust, corruptly lining their own pockets and the pockets of their supporters.

They must be punished. They must be punished as individual incumbants, and they must be punished as a party (which is the only way to hit their leadership). They have provided a perfect illustration of the old adage "Power corrupts".

There is way too much power concentrated in the hands of the Republican party. For the sake of liberty and democracy, we need to return one or both houses of Congress to the opposition party (the Democrats) in order to produce a divided government--which is the only way in our system to have government by consensus, and the only way to restrain government intervetion in society.

To aid in that goal, I am publishing the following information, which publicizes the misdeeds of Republicans running for election this year:

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth

--CA-04: John Doolittle

--CA-11: Richard Pombo

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell

--CT-04: Christopher Shays

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan

--FL-16: Joe Negron

--FL-22: Clay Shaw

--ID-01: Bill Sali

--IL-06: Peter Roskam

--IL-10: Mark Kirk

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert

--IN-02: Chris Chocola

--IN-08: John Hostettler

--IA-01: Mike Whalen

--KS-02: Jim Ryun

--KY-03: Anne Northup

--KY-04: Geoff Davis

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns

--NV-03: Jon Porter

--NH-02: Charlie Bass

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson

--NM-01: Heather Wilson

--NY-03: Peter King

--NY-20: John Sweeney

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl

--NC-08: Robin Hayes

--NC-11: Charles Taylor

--OH-01: Steve Chabot

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce

--OH-18: Joy Padgett

--PA-04: Melissa Hart

--PA-07: Curt Weldon

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick

--PA-10: Don Sherwood

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker

--VA-Sen: George Allen

--VA-10: Frank Wolf

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick

--WA-08: Dave Reichert

Attitudes towards poverty

The following is a long comment I made at the Freedom Democrats website in response to a previous comment bemoaning the patronizing attitude of many Democrats towards the poor:

Interpretations of poverty seem to fall between two extremes--individualized and socialized. At one extreme, poverty is viewed as a trait of individuals, and the solution to poverty is for those individuals to get out of poverty. At the other extreme, poverty is viewed as a by-product of social factors, and the solution is to eliminate those social factors that impoverish individuals.

In America, the strict individualized interpretation is associated with Republicans. They believe that people are poor because they are lazy and/or stupid, and the solution to poverty is for impoverished people to adopt the values of prosperous individuals.

Democrats generally seem to hold a hybrid view (exemplified in the "micromanagement" approach above), wherein a person is poor because he lacks some sort of development, be it education, savings, or social networks. They may view this poverty as the consequence of historical wrongs (such as slavery), or arising from a disconnect between modern society and man's natural development (requiring formal education). In the end, the responsibility to end poverty rests with the society in general, but it ultimately depends on the development of the individuals.

Both of these individualized views take poverty as the "original state" of mankind, and so implicitly, a poor person is a backwards savage who needs to become civilized.

The socialized view is that poverty is an inevitable byproduct of social conditions. Society is structured in a hierarchy, and for every person who moves up the hierarchy, someone else must move down, and poverty cannot be eliminated without eliminating that hierarchy. I think that this is the view that we emphasize here -- we emphasize how poverty is created by "rankism"--the tendency of the powerful to exploit the less powerful.

There's value in both the individual and social approaches to poverty reduction, however, I believe that the individual approach will be ineffective as long as the major social causes of poverty remain--the underclass will tend to grow and its members will resist appeals to reform their own lives.

We could also make an argument that individual approaches complement the social approaches: for example, literate individuals are more effective at resisting exploitation.

The importance of popular support for war (i.e. Bush is a terrible leader)

I've been engaged in a discussion at Reason: Hit and Run regarding some polls showing increased public opposition to the Iraq war and the Republican regime.

There's a line of thought that is especially common among Bush supporters that claims that a policy is right or wrong independent of public support for the policy. I disagree with this opinion for a number of reasons, but in the case of wars, it is complete BS.

Basically, if a policy can only achieve its goals with sustained support from the public, then it can only be a good policy if there is reason to believe that the public will support it until those goals are achieved. Bush's Iraq policy was one of these policies, and he initiated the policy when it should have been clear that he did not have sufficient support to achieve the goals of the policy.

I laid out the argument in a comment on the Reason blog, and figured that I'd republish it here:

First, on the eve of the war, polls showed that support/opposition to the war was something like 60%/20%. Sure, it's a majority, but I don't think that it was enough to support a medium-size war. It probably would have been enough for an invasion of Grenada, but not an invasion of Iraq. For something like Iraq, I'd want to see a 5/1 ratio of support/opposition...especially considering that many of the supporters had weak reasons to support the war, and couldn't be counted on to sustain their support.

I say that support was weak because I don't think that many Americans would have said that they supported an invasion if the President hadn't already made it clear that he was planning to invade. Many Americans were simply giving the president the benefit of the doubt. Many Americans were also swayed by pro-war assertions that were blatently false to any informed person; as time goes on, we can expect the people to learn the truth and support for the war will erode to the extent that support was based on false beliefs. Two assertions in particular were problematic: Iraq supported Al Qaeda, and the transformation of Iraqi society would be easy.

Any reasonable person knew that Iraqi society would not be transformed overnight, and as time went on, the supporters of the war would realize that they'd been duped by the hawks, and support would evaporate. When support evaporates, it is impossible to complete the mission (whatever it was) and the whole thing falls apart.

That is the mark of a terrible leader, and that is what these new polls are reflecting.

Subsidies for centralization

I've been reading much of Kevin Carson's work on how government policies provide subsidies for economic centralization (highways, for example). Now that I've become aware of this tendency, I can see examples everywhere.

For example, I recently bought a used car in PA and now I have to pay sales tax. It's stupid enough that I have to pay sales tax on a used car (the original owner already paid the tax for the car), but the situation is made worse in that the seller faces several hundred dollars in extra taxes because he decided to sell the car to me rather than trade it in to the dealership where he bought his next car.

According to PA-DMV FactSheet on "BUYING OR SELLING YOUR
CAR IN PENNSYLVANIA"

SALES TAX
Pennsylvania sales tax is 6% (7% City of Philadelphia and Allegheny County residents) of the purchase price or the current
market value of the vehicle.

If a motor vehicle is taken by the seller as a trade in, the tax is imposed upon the difference between the purchase price of the
motor vehicle purchased and the value of the motor vehicle taken as a trade in by the seller.

To be explicit, let's use some numbers. Let's assume that the used car is worth $10,000 and there's a 6% tax on sales. The ultimate buyer of the used car has to pay $600 in tax regardless of whether he buys it from the previous owner, or buys it from a dealer after trade-in.

The difference (i.e. distortion) affects the previous owner, who has to pay an extra $600 in taxes on her new car if she sells the old car for cash to another individual rather than trading it in to the dealership. That's a considerable incentive to funnel business thru the dealers--i.e. whoever has gathered enough capital that they can keep cars in stock and trade them for each other, rather than using cash.

I'm not suggesting that this law was designed with the intent of aiding dealers. While that is plausible, it is also plausible that this unfairness arises from some technicality in how taxes are assessed (though I can't imagine why that would be--there are various ways to estimate the value of the trade-in). However, we can be sure that if the unfairness ran the other way (favoring the small guy over the big guy), then the car dealership trade-group would be applying a lot of pressure on government officials to "fix" the problem.

Just break down the fence

I like this parable that is attributed to Tolstoy:

I see mankind as a herd of cattle inside a fenced enclosure. Outside the fence are green pastures ans plenty for the cattle to eat, while inside the fence there is not quite grass enough for the cattle. Consequently, the cattle are tramping underfoot what little grass there is and goring each other to death in their struggle for existence.

I saw the owner of the herd come to them, and when he saw their pitiful condition he was filled with compassion for them and thought of all he could do to improve their condition.

So he called his friends together and asked them to assist him in cutting grass from outside the fence and throwing it over the fence to the cattle. And that they called Charity.

Then, because the the calves were dying off and not growing up into serviceable cattle, he arranged that they should each have a pint of milk every morning for breakfast.

Because they were dying off in the cold nights, he put up beautiful well-drained and well-ventilated cowsheds for the cattle.

Because they were goring each other in the struggle for existence, he put corks on the horns of the cattle, so that the wounds they gave each other might not be so serious. Then he reserved a part of the enclosure for the old bulls and the old cows over 70 years of age.

In fact, he did everything he could think of to improve the condition of the cattle, and when I asked him why he did not do the one obvious thing, break down the fence, and let the cattle out, he answered: "If I let the cattle out, I should no longer be able to milk them".

This dynamic was apparent during the days of the American slavery, and I think that it underlies much of the current American welfare state.

Strike the Root: Decentralism vs. Rational Markets

I found a good article by Carlton Hobbs at Strike the Root called Decentralism vs. Rational Markets, which addresses the nature of markets and formalizes some ideas I expressed earlier when I said "If you don't like the market, leave it!

If you get around Hobbs' academic references to libertarian moral and economic theory, you'll find some good criticisms of market fetishism. Among them are...

...a free market advocate should not just put faith in the free market and just float unthinkingly down the river of the spontaneously ordered market.Entrepreneurs do not “just put faith in the market.” They actively seek out real imperfections in the current market. Notice that it is a bit contradictory to praise the entrepreneur and then attack someone just for claiming to see a market failure. To quote Warren Buffett, “I'd be a bum on the street with a tin cup if the markets were always efficient.”

and...

Libertarian judicial theory is mainly concerned with the voluntaryness of an exchange, but it is not the end of human action. Individuals can make foolish market decisions. When millions of people all make foolish decisions on the market, it doesn’t make the total less foolish.

Hobbs also explains how and why we may consciously structure our market interactions, the idea of which seems anathema to the "free-market fetish" crowd, who take for granted that whatever happens in the market is inherently good.

Lenin wrote that capitalists would sell him the rope to hang them with, and he was too often right.... Market advocates have failed to account for the long term disvalue of treating friendly customers equally to customers who are hostile to the market.

He examines how our market decisions put us at risk for exploitation:

All else equal, a free market society should seek to minimize extended supply chains, especially to those dependent on markets controlled by hostile entities. If one system of production is more centralized or extended, it is more vulnerable to risk exploitation. Decentralism enhances security and decreases risk. Risk is a component that governments have massive power to manipulate both from inside (through buying and selling agents) and outside the market.

Finally, he suggests that small producers and co-ops are natrual allies of libertarians, whereas large heirarchical coporations are natural enemies. There's more to the article, but I can't do it justice here.

(tip to Kevin Carson)

The Movement of the Libertarian Left

I have decided to affiliate this blog with the Movement of the Libertarian Left. I hesitated to do this, because I didn't want to appear partisan. However, I get the impression that the majority of my readers come via other MLL websites (especially Freedom Democrats and The Mutualist Blog), so I might as well join the club.

Someday, I hope to describe how I came to identify with this movement, and also describe some of the better writings in this movement. But for now, you can take a look at the webring controls to the right, and browse the webring.

Lies in Print

I recently wrote this letter to the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. When you realize how pathetic and destructive political discourse is in our society, you'll understand why I am compelled to write on the Internet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editors,

After reading last Sunday's opinion section cover-to-cover, I was bothered by what appeared to be two blatantly false statements made by two columnists in an attempt to damage the reputation of their political opponents.

First, was Jonah Goldberg's assertion that "...the ACLU... finds powers not created by the Constitution every day and periodically declares such inanities as the idea that the Constitution forbids teachers from reading "The Chronicles of Narnia" in class lest the tykes' young minds be corrupted by hidden messages about Christianity".

This sounded odd, and unlike the ACLU. I did a rather thorough web-search on the topic, and could not find a single mention of the ACLU objecting to the reading of "The Chronicles of Narnia"--and I even searched "StopTheACLU.com". I only found one case where a group had objected to the use of "The Chronicles of Narnia" in public schools, and that objection came from "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State". Furthermore, even if Goldberg had confused the AUSCS with the ACLU, his representation of the situation was distorted to the point of being deceptive.

The second misrepresentation came from Ann Coulter, who wrote that "(Democrats) oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami, Chicago and London weren't a real threat...". I doubt that any Democratic office-holder or party-official "opposed" the bust of any group planning to commit violence. In fact, while roaming the Democratic blogosphere, I have never noticed any opposition to these busts, even though any nut can post to a blog. As I understand the debate, the relevant information is that most Democrats claim that Bush and his policies did not contribute to these successful busts. So to make it clear, Democrats were CELEBRATING these busts, while denying that Bush had anything to do with them.

I assume that both of these authors were paid for their columns, and it is disappointing to find that they got away with such shoddy research. I can find better commentary on blogs.

Sincerely,
Adam Ricketson

I like music, and I like Defiance, Ohio.

This post was inspired by two things:

1. The cover of the new Wired magazine (on newsstand, but not online)
2. A band I recently discovered and want to talk about (Defiance, Ohio)
   

The Wired coverstory is about "the new age of music" or something like that...basically applying The Long Tail to music. They proclaim that the radio stations and record companies are history, and now the music industry will be driven by artists and fans. If I know Wired, then they are basically celebrating the end of the commercial system of culture monopoly, defined by superstars and enabled by the state: with legal monopolies (copyrights) and mass distribution systems (such as stadiums). (This system is just a state-sponsored transfer of wealth from regular folk to a bunch of millionaires, embodied in domestic law and foreign trade restrictions such as NAFTA and CAFTA, but that's another story.)

Anyway, the end of the monopoly system relies on the voluntary abandonment of copyright protections (see the Wired CD, IndyTV, and Defiance, Ohio's recording collection), and small scale distribution (i.e., the Internet, and Internet "radio stations" such as Indy.Tv and Pandora.com)

Now let's talk about Defiance, Ohio (and please forgive any inaccuracies or misuse of terminology):

This is a folk-punk band from Ohio with six members, making music with drums, strings, and vocals. I particularly like their most recent album The Great Depression, which includes a range of songs: fun songs, angry songs, uplifting songs, introspective songs, and mellow songs--in both punk and folky styles.

They first caught my attention with Petty Problems, which really struck a chord with me. The opening verse is "In Columbus they were shopping on the first day, the first official day of war", which summoned a discomfort that I have had with how Americans have responded to the wars of the past few years. This introduced me to their lyrical style, which is both clever and meaningful.

Petty Problems also introduced me to their instrumental style, which contrasts the staccato of drums and plucked strings with the legato of bowed string instruments. I've been able to pick out three vocalists in their songs (two male, one female), who sometimes sing solo and sometimes in harmony. One male sings in a harsh "punk" manner, the other sings with a standard singing voice, and the female excels at singing in a folky style.

All three of these voices are on display in Oh, Susquehanna!, the second song that really caught my attention. I also really like two other songs lead by the folky female vocals: The New World Order and Lambs at the Slaughter.

So, check out Defiance, Ohio (their music is free). Also, take note that they are planning to play in Pittsburgh on September 12. I hope to make it to that show, but they haven't lined up a venue yet and I expect my schedule to be rather busy at that time.

RSI of the wrists

I'm developing RSI in my wrists, so I need to cut back on my computer use. Unfortunately, this blog (and related activities) will have to go until I work out something.

The nature of the state

"[T]he State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation -- that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class -- that is, for a criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient."

Quote by: Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945)

Source: The Criminality of the State, America Mercury Magazine, March, 1939

Addition (July 8): Perhaps this post deserves some explanation. I've been thinking about the nature of the state, and I came across this statement from Nock that reflected my thoughts. It seems that everyone uncritically accepts the feel-good description of the state that we've been fed in childhood: "the state exists to maintain public order" or "to serve the public good" or whatever. However, if we just look at the history of the state and its current structure, there is nothing to justify those views. Those are just explanations dreamed up by apologists after the fact to justify the state. The purpose of the state is rather clear: the state exists to concentrate power into the hand of a privileged elite. That elite will do what they want with that power, and there's no reason to believe that they will be any more benevolent than the average person would be, if power were allowed to be rather diffuse. In fact, there's good reason to believe that the elite will tend to be selfish, megalomaniacal, and generally destructive.

The institution of elections helps to reign in the elite, but does not change the fundamental nature of the state. In the end, elections just serve to confuse every issue. Rather than being you and I sitting down and figuring out how to manage our conflicts of interests in a mutually acceptable way, we are driven to manage our conflict through this incredibly complex institution that neither of us really understand, and neither of have any meaningful control over. In the end, every conflict turns into a power-play: one of us wins, and the other loses (and often, we both lose).

Different kinds of elites (and different kinds of elitism) | quixotic1.com

Interesting post at an interesting blog:

Different kinds of elites (and different kinds of elitism) | quixotic1.com

It seems important to me to keep these different types of elites in mind as we think about the intersections of technology and social change. One way of achieving change is by appealing to the state's powerholders — traditional power, that is. But throughout history, coalitions of people without this power have banded together to effect change. It may be that among the three other types of elites, a social movement can emerge that represents true democratic change.

New York decriminalizes the female body: This is what it looks like

Originally published at the Freedom Democrats site, please comment there.

I just stumbled upon a collection of photos by Jordan Matter of all types of women going topless in NYC.

It took me a few minutes to get used to the images of topless women on the street, but eventually it started to look natural. Two pictures really emphasized how natural it is: one of a woman breast-feeding in the park, and another showing an older couple running up the steps from Penn Station with their shirts off.

There's also a video on the front page of Jordan Matter's website, which includes the photographer reading (bare-chested) from a court decision striking down laws that prohibit women from going bare chested just like men.

The USA has eliminated a lot of sexism from its laws, but we're not quite finished yet.

Voting guide: support the opposition

I've been meaning to write up a little "Guide for the common voter", to express my ideas on how regular folk should approach elections.

Basically, elections are a big waste of time and effort; no regular person has any hope of influencing the outcome of an election.

But regular folk should still vote. We should just get in, pull the lever, get out, and get back to doing the real work of the world (because we know that the politicians and lobbyists aren't doing anything useful).

However, an miscast vote is no better, and possibly worse, than no vote at all. Is there any way that we can quickly come to a decision on who to vote for, but still be confident that we will generally vote for the "right person"?

In this article, I propose two strategies for quick and efficient voting: vote for gridlock, and vote for change. They are both based on the observation that "power corrupts".

Vote for gridlock: When one party controls all branches of government, the government goes to shit. The opposition party is powerless to force accountability on the dominant party. Basically, the dominant party just uses its power to steal everything it can get its hands, and divides the spoils among its politicians, its campaign donors, and its voting constituencies. When power is split between the parties, each party will have the ability to hold the other accountable for any abuse of power, and legislation will only get established with near-consensus. So, if power is not evenly divided between the two major parties, vote for the candidate from the weaker of the two parties.

There's a nice piece on this from Reason: Vote for Gridlock: It's the patriotic thing to do

Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reasons.

Vote for change: If it isn't clear how to produce greater gridlock, then just vote against the incumbent. Incumbency provides too of a re-election advantage, and too much power in Washington. A constant turnover among politicians assures that they don't forget what its like to have a real job, and also provides the people with a constant supply of ex-politicians who can openly debrief us on what they saw in the halls of power.

Before we end, I'd like to address one common objection to these strategies: both of these strategies decrease the power of the elected representative from the voter's district, but a voter should want his representatives to have more power to advance the interests of his district. Poppycock. This is a simple choice between advancing parochial interests or advancing the general interest. Voters are free to use their votes to support the interests of a narrow group in society, and many (if not most) voters do just that. However, a narrow approach to politics undermines the entire purpose of having a political union. If voters are acting out of selfish aims, we should just dissolve the government, and end this farce.

Know your place

I recently stumbled upon a friend's copy of Jack Welch's recent management book: Winning.

Being familiar with Kevin Carson's analysis of the motivational propaganda put out by corporate management, I was wondering if this book espoused the same rankist ideology.

Looking at the Table of Contents, one chapter subtitle caught my eye: "That damn boss". So, what does the great Jack Welch have to say about disliking your boss?

I was pleasantly surprized that he quickly got to business by recognizing that "The world has jerks. Some of them get to be bosses."

However, for the most part, he goes on to advise the reader to just deal with it and hope for protection within the system. He phrases this in terms of "don't be a victim"--which on one hand is sensible and self-empowering: you don't give up on your life or your career just because you have a bad boss. On the other hand, among the "victim" behaviors he includes "bitching and moaning to your coworkers." I don't see anything wrong with expressing your opinions and concerns with people who might have some insights into the situation or might be able to help you overcome this crappy situation. Yes, it is painting yourself as a victim, but you may have actually be in an unjust situation. The solution to victimization is to find effective remedies for the injustice. By saying that we shouldn't even discuss any victimization we experience, Welch seems to suggest that there's nothing to be done about it, and we should just "deal with it."

He goes on to suggest that quiting is not a real option: He describes the outcome as being "out on the market, with no recommendations...". You might need to quit as a last resort, but you have to realize that your current boss not only controls your day-to-day worklife, he controls your future prospects as well. So much for free markets.

Next, he examines reasons why your boss might treat you like dung. One possible explanation is that you are a "boss hater", and your boss is just reflecting your own attitude on you (amplified tenfold, of course). You might be able to get away with this attitude if you are really talented, but most poor schmucks can't pull it off.

So basically, unless you are really sure of yourself, you should just give everything you've got to your boss and hope that he's a reasonable person and will reward you. If he isn't, you can really only hope that the corporate system will solve your problems: the higher-ups will eventually learn that you are a good worker and the boss is a bad boss, and will put you out of your misery by transferring you or firing him. You can cross your fingers and hope for this emancipation from above, but of course there is rarely a formal remedy built into the system, and talking to the boss' boss is generally counterproductive.

He finishes the meat of this chapter by saying that you need to decide whether to endure the bad boss or quit. Then you need to "come to grips with the fact that you are staying with a bad boss by choice. That means you've forfeited your right to complain." Of course, you owe your boss your unswerving loyalty. Know your place, slave.

I don't doubt that Welch is dispensing sincere advice, unlike the cynical crap put forward in Fish! and Who Moved My Cheese?, but the takehome message is still the same: you are not a free person. The (economic) world is not structured around the exchange of goods and services among equals; instead, it is a huge hierarchy and the only way you can move up (or get out from under the others) is to play the game and win the good graces of those who are already at the top.

Mises Economics Blog: Abolish the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

Mises Economics Blog: Abolish the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB)

From the TTB website:

Distillation of Ethanol - In recent days, we have seen several news items on people distilling ethanol at home to supplement their gasoline needs. Unfortunately, some of the reports do not inform the public that it is illegal to distill alcohol without first obtaining a Federal permit through the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). Failure to obtain a Federal permit prior to engaging in this activity is a criminal offence under the Internal Revenue Code.

Mises Economics Blog: Abolish the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

Mises Economics Blog: Abolish the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB)

From the TTB website:

Distillation of Ethanol - In recent days, we have seen several news items on people distilling ethanol at home to supplement their gasoline needs. Unfortunately, some of the reports do not inform the public that it is illegal to distill alcohol without first obtaining a Federal permit through the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). Failure to obtain a Federal permit prior to engaging in this activity is a criminal offence under the Internal Revenue Code.

Threats to equality on the internet

There are currently two bills before the US House of Representatives that could greatly impact the continuation of egalitarian communication on the internet.

The first is Michael Fitzpatrick's (R-PA) Deleting Online Predators Act, which would create a Federal mandate that schools and libraries "prohibit access by minors to commercial social networking websites", which are websites that "allow users to create web pages or profiles that provide information about themselves and are available to other users and offer a mechanism for communication with other users."

Basically, if this law worked perfectly, this would block minors from viewing any commercial website where a regular person can add content, and where users create accounts and user's pages. In reality, schools and libraries will probably be error on the side of caution, and end up interfering with web-use by adults, and also block sites that are non-commercial. This would impact almost every interactive part of the web, including Blogger, Wikipedia, and community sites like Daily Kos. A person who relies on a library or school computer for internet access would be limited to static websites that are created and maintained by those with immense financial resources, or the random junk that "regular folk" are able to post on the web somewhat independently.

This legislation is a major over-reaction to the problem of online predators for two reasons:

1. This can be handled directly by schools and libraries. Washington should only provide guidance and tools such as software.
2. This can be handled without blocking websites. A simple solution is to turn off "cookies" on the computers' web browsers, such that users are not able to log-on to their accounts, and consequently can't receive messages sent to them or add personal information.

For more info and discussion, see: Freedom Democrats

Update:

1. Fitzpatrick is being challenged by Patrick Murphy in November 2006
2. American Library Association opposes DOPA (from CountSwackula)

The second bill opposes the adoption of content discrimination by internet service providers. John Conyer's (D-MI ) Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act, would mandate "Net Neutrality"--that ISPs cannot discriminate among content providers. Without this provision, ISPs would probably provide preference to content providers who are able to shell out the big bucks for fast data transmission. I doubt consumers would even be aware of the reason why some sites are faster than others, and would just stop using the slow sites, assuming that it's a server problem.

I'm not thrilled about restrictions like this, but I think it would be a good idea to place a moratorium on any content discrimination, in order to allow consumers some time to figure out how to deal with this. If ISPs are going to discriminate among content-providers, they should be limited to doing it in situations where they are providing the consumer with a free connection, or they are explicitly telling the end-user that a particular connection is slow because the ISP chose to give that connection a lower priority.

For more info and discussion, see: Freedom Democrats

Update: A bunch of links for discussion on this issue:

1. ALA supports Net Neutrality (from CountSwackula)
2. A neutral panic (against Net Neutrality, via Kevin Carson)
   

a picture

There's no real content to this post. I just want to add a picture to my profile, and this is how Blogger says to do it.
I wish I looked as cool as Knappster

Ownlife

Kevin Carson has been harping of the motivational techniques used by management to get workers to do more work for less pay (i.e. "increase efficiency"), with a particular focus on books that are apparently assigned reading in some corporations. Part of this is a reflection on management's attitude that people should love their jobs, regardless of what their jobs are. He describes management's conundrum as follows:

"It takes a lot of effort to get people's minds right and stamp out those last vestiges of ownlife. And surprise, surprise, surprise: there's an entire Motivational Mafia out there focused on getting people to love Big Brother and think of their jobs as the center of their life. "

I was especially drawn to a new word that he used: "ownlife". As a kid, I read most of Fred Sabrahagen's Berserker series of stories, in which the genocidal (or "biocidal") machines refer to their human servants as "goodlife", while all other life is implicitly "badlife" due to its innate desire to survive. Using this style of terminology, "ownlife" would be lifeforms that insist on purusing their own ends; but what would be the opposite? Ownedlife? Worklife?