The "War on Terror" and the "Reign of Terror"

A stray comment at Swords Crossed has driven me to read up on the French Reign of Terror. Upon reading quotes by Maximilien Robespierre, I recalled a conversation from earlier today with an Indian friend regarding the terrorist attacks on Mumbai. He asserted that the Indian government had made a mistake in repealing some laws relating to terrorism (apparently,the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act of 1987, which allows prolonged detention without trial and expired in 1995 following accusations that it was being abused; alternatively he may have been referring to the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance passed in 2001, updated in 2002, and repealed in 2004 after assertions of abuse).

Anyway, his basic attitude was "terrorists don't deserve procedural rights"--of course, assuming that the government is rigorous and honest in its identification of "terrorists". I've seen this same attitude in Americans who say that they wouldn't care if the government methodically tapped our phones to gather information about terrorism. Today, I saw the same basic attitude reflected in quotes from Robespierre, the architect of la Terreur. For instance:

The revolutionary government has to summon extraordinary activity to its aid precisely because it is at war. It is subjected to less binding and less uniform regulations, because the circumstances in which it finds itself are tempestuous and shifting, above all because it is compelled to deploy, swiftly and incessantly, new resources to meet new and pressing dangers.

The principle concern  of constitutional government is civil liberty; that of revolutionary government, public liberty. Under a constitutional government little more is required than to protect the individual against abuses by the state, whereas revolutionary government is obliged to defend the state itself against the factions that assail it from every quarter.

To good citizens revolutionary government owes the full protection of the state; to the enemies of the people it owes only death.

These ideas are in themselves sufficient to explain the origin and the nature of the laws that we term revolutionary. Those who call them arbitrary or tyrannical are foolish or perverse sophists who seek to reconcile white with black and black with white: they prescribe the same system for peace and war, for health and sickness; or rather their only object is to resurrect tyranny and destroy the fatherland.

 On Revolutionary Government (1793) in The Human Rights Reader

He goes on with the accusations of treason, and concludes by  calling for the reorganization of a special court, the Revolutionary Tribunal. Replace "revolutionary government" with "wartime government" and I wouldn't be able to distinguish this terrorist's rhetoric from George W. Bush's -- though in modern America there is no such thing as peace (In the 63 years since the end of WWII, we've had only 11 years in which we were not involved in either the Cold War or the War on Terror--and during all but two of those years we were at war with Iraq.)

From Wikiquote:

Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs. 

and...

We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with it; now in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror. 

I like to think that Americans are less susceptible to these rationalizations of power than the 18th-century French were, but given how far we've gone when faced with a threat that is totally insignificant relative to what they faced (or even what the US faced at that time), I may lose some of that faith.

McCain's ACORN conspiracy theory

McCain: We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.

McCain made this serious accusation during the third presidential debate. It has also been propagated by television advertisements, and extensive editorializing by Obama's opponents. However, if we look into the specific accusations against ACORN (let alone the actual evidence), they do not add up into the grand conspiracy theory that McCain is promoting.

Others have addressed the vapidness of trying to link Obama to ACORN's alleged grand conspiracy, and also some of the facts behind the allegations. I'm going to limit myself to a critique of how the grand-conspiracy claim cannot be built up from the specific allegations, and how the alleged voter-registration fraud would not be a reasonable act of someone involved in this grand conspiracy.

Before I get into the details, I want to point out that the ACORN conspiracy theory (or scapegoating, perhaps) is even broader than these baseless accusations of voter fraud. McCain is even trying to blame ACORN for the fact that Wall-Street bankers failed to manage their risk properly (see the TV commercial)--as if this relatively tiny organization could pressure the banking industry into destroying its own foundations at a time that it was raking in hundreds of billions of dollars in profits each year (FWIW, Greenspan places much/most of the blame on investor demand for mortgage backed securities).

Let's look at the traits of this grand conspiracy theory being promoted by McCain and his campaign:

1. It is national: McCain implies this during his debate tirade, by focusing on a national organization (ACORN) and emphasizing the vast scale of the conspiracy. His TV advertisement explicitly refers to a "nationwide voter fraud".
2. It relies on ACORN's infrastructure.
3. It begins with fraudulent voter registration, and will be consummated with actual fraudulent votes being cast in swing states.

Consider how many people must be involved in this. First, there are the people who actually filled out the fraudulent forms, then there are their supervisors (up to the national level), and finally there are the individuals who will actually cast false ballots (with some sort of false identification).

I'm guessing this would involve hundreds of people, and law-enforcement agencies have apparently caught tens of people from that first group (registration fraud)--yet not a single person is alleged to belong to either of the other two groups (national coordination, and vote fraud).

Look at the propaganda I linked to above, and any other source you know of. Please let me know if any person has been charged/accused of participating in national coordination of registration fraud, or any sort of vote fraud.

Aside from the fact that we have no evidence of the most important components of this grand conspiracy, there is also the problem that this conspiracy would be the most asinine, bumbling conspiracy that I've ever heard of. Look at the allegations from the NRO editorial:

1. First, the foot-soldiers in this conspiracy are "lazy crackheads"--as if such people could be relied on to keep their mouths shut about a conspiracy.
2. ACORN illegally employed felons on work-release--no allegation that they were involved in any fraud, or that they would be reliable participants in a conspiracy.
   
3. They registered "the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys" and Mickey Mouse -- as if using celebrity names wouldn't obviously attract attention to their activities.
   
4. "21 separate voter-registration applications were filed for a single voter in Miami"-- again, a pretty obvious red-flag.
5. "attempted to register untold numbers of dead, underage, imprisoned, imaginary, or otherwise ineligible voters ...apparently pulled out of the phone book at random" -- this might actually be useful for voter fraud, but there'd be a major risk of getting caught when you actually try to impersonate someone who has already voted (or who should be in jail!).
   
6. "registrations...filed from nonexistent addresses"--another red flag; and how would the importers get their voter-registration cards?
   
7. "forged signatures"-- bad, but no indication of intention to commit registration fraud.
   
8. "In July of 2007, five ACORN activists pleaded guilty to fraud in Washington State for submitting nearly 2,000 phony voter applications"--and yet they did not provide any evidence of a conspiracy to commit electoral fraud.

I'm thinking about this from the perspective of how this conspiracy would play out in Pennsylvania. We have pretty lax ID laws, but we are pretty stringent on absentee ballots. If I were to submit a fraudulent registration, I would not know of its success until I received my voter registration card at home. Furthermore, to vote absentee, I would need to have the ballot mailed to my home. This makes it worthless for me to register at other people's addresses, and it would be pretty obvious if a large number of "voters" registered from my house.

Finally, why would an electoral-fraud conspiracy submit it's fraudulent applications in a big package (i.e. the ACORN submissions). Knowing that many of their fraudulent registrations would get caught, they would want to avoid any indication that their registrations were connected to each other. The obvious way for them to submit their application would be as if they were regular individuals just registering to vote as a regular order of business--not part of a transparently fraudulent voter registration drive.

The only reasonable strategy I can think of for voter-side electoral fraud would be to register a large, ineligible population with a strong preference for one party or another -- yet I haven't heard any allegations of the type.

So overall, there is no basis for McCain's claims about a grand conspiracy within ACORN, and it really only takes a little common sense to see through his BS.

Why is our government creating cartels?

In today's commentary on Marketplace, Robert Reich articulated some thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head since the government started bailing out financial firms: Maybe 'too big to fail' is just 'too big':

We seem to have forgotten that the original purpose of antitrust law was also to prevent companies from becoming too powerful. Too powerful in that so many other companies depended on them, so many jobs turned on them and so many consumers or investors or depositors needed them, that the economy as a whole would be endangered if they failed. Too powerful in that they could wield inordinate political influence of a sort that might gain them extra favors from Washington.

Maybe the biggest irony today is that Washington policymakers who are funneling taxpayer dollars to these too-big-to-fail companies are simultaneously pushing them to consolidate into even bigger companies.

These companies aren't quite monopolies, but the fact that they are "too big to fail" seems to imply that they are involved in a form of market manipulation, whether intentional or not.

The prospect of corporate mergers leads me to ask "what is a corporation": it is a legally binding agreement among producers to regulate the production, pricing, and marketing of a good. This is the definition of a cartel, except that a corporation is treated as a single legal entity rather than a collection of entities. The fact that the maintenance of the corporation is legally enforced (shareholders cannot withdraw their capital) is important, because cartels are unstable in the absence of legal enforcement.

The very existence of a corporation (a creation of the state) implies the need for rules regulating how large a corporation can be. We've become very lax in this regard, and I think we're getting screwed for it.

Books: The Black Swan; The Impact of the Highly Improbable

The Black Swan, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb is an engaging book about an important topic. However, if a reader who is familiar with the topic(s) will not find any new ideas.

This book is about risk management; specifically, how to deal with the risks arising from unpredictable events. To examine this issue, Taleb crafts a narrative that surveys a number of intellectual fields, including probability theory, complexity theory, epistemology (empiricism and philosophy of science), cognitive psychology, and social psychology. For a systematic summary, see Wikipedia.

The most striking thing about this book was Taleb's prescience with regard to the recent financial crisis. This book was published in April 2007, but Taleb (who made his "f*** you money" during the stock market crash of 1987) asserted that modern financial risk-assessment is total bullshit, and that when some unpredictable disruption occurs, the structure of the financial system will cause cataclysmic failure. Oh boy, was he right!

This book is supposed to be practical, so it's worth mentioning the advice provided. It can basically be summed up with two points:

1. Know the limits of prediction (specifically, that some very important phenomena are fundamentally unpredictable). Don't fool yourself into thinking that you what the probabilities of events are (as if you were playing a game with well-defined rules)
   
2. When you make predictions for unpredictable phenomena, ask yourself what are the consequences of being wrong. Don't estimate probabilities of being wrong--just avoid situations where being wrong will be fatal.

This book also has a few messages for how we think about social issues. One is that many "experts" are frauds, in that they pretend to be able to predict phenomena that are fundamentally unpredictable. The other is the randomness plays a major role in personal success, especially when we are looking at people who are extremely successful.

Taleb also warns us about putting much faith in predictions about what the world will be like in a few decades. He specifically dismissed predictions that the American Social Security system will be bankrupt in 40 years, implying that the funding of SS in 2048 is a concern for the people living in 2048, not for those of us living in 2008. By extension, we may also downplay predictions of radical climate change over the next few decades. However, both types of predictions do have value in that they provide us with a sense of the range of possible scenarios that we should be prepared for. [added after initial publication]

One more merit for this book is that it provides a good description of the life a scientist, including the methodological, psychological, and social aspects. I recommend this book for anyone interested in pursuing a career in science.

The main drawback of this book is that the author comes off as being quite arrogant. He is dismissive of many scientists, claiming that they make unjustifiable assumptions about the probability distribution of events. He even claimed that psychologists were "lucky" that they frequently used binary (Yes/No) measurements for which probability distributions ARE predictable. In fact, this is no accident. A careful scientist will design experiments in a way that the data conforms to certain assumptions, thereby allowing hypotheses to be tested. If you look in a book like Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures, you will find extensive discussions about when it is appropriate to use various probability distributions.

Taleb also engaging in a form of name-dropping, describing how his arguments have gotten under the skin of a number of prominent intellectuals. This is the down-side of his narrative style of writing. However, the narrative of his life is what keeps this book interesting even if you are thinking "I know this already".

Liberty, security, and luxury

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Benjamin Franklin

Over the past decade we have been constantly exhorted to trade our liberties for safety--both economic and physical. Sometimes, the liberties in question have been essential. As I tried to illustrate with a tribute to Frederic Douglass, we should not view our liberty as a luxury to be sacrificed in the name of security; indeed, liberty is the basis of our security. We cannot rely on others (e.g. the Feds) to protect us from a dangerous world, if that requires that we relinquish some of our ability to navigate the threats and challenges in the world on our own.

The sad thing is that even as we have been asked to delegate our personal rights to a government that seems determined to avoid oversight, we have undermined our own security with our thoughtless pursuit of luxury (eloquently described by One Drop at Too Sense). Our financial system is freezing up because everyone, from bankers down to homeowners, was blinded by the easy money that fell into their hands so that they refused to consider the risks that they were taking. Now people are failing to make mortgage payments, banks are failing on their obligations, and we are facing the prospect of a depression--mass business closure, mass unemployment, and mass homelessness.

This is not the recipe for security. Without a functioning economy we will not have the ability to fight terrorists, or any other military threat that may arise. Anyway, an economic depression will damage our health and community much more than any terrorist could.

This financial problem didn't come out of the blue--the signs have been there for years, most prominently in our trade deficit and the total absence of personal savings. To see how deep we're in the hole, consider the magnitude of our total debt (government and private)--it stands at 350% of GDP after growing for a few decades from a baseline of 150% of GDP from the 50's thru the 70's.

After the terrorist attacks of September 2001, you might have thought that Americans would get serious and dedicate our immense resources to the task of creating security at home and in the world. Instead, our President told us to shop and let him take care of our security. We dutifully continued with a binge of self-indulgence unparalleled in human history (perhaps comforted by faith in the paradox of thrift). Not only did we fail to reshape the world, but we couldn't even run our own country in a sustainable manner. Now that our credit has been cut off, what are we to do?

We've had a scare, and we may have tough times ahead of us. We can recover, and I believe that we can go on to transform the world for the better if we recognize that there are still plenty of problems in the world (even in America) and that we are not entitled to anything. We need to face our problems head-on.

Narratives of civil conflict

Posted at Swords Crossed

Much of our political discourse refers to narratives of civil conflict, either using them to frame issues (e.g. Lou Dobbs' War on the Middle Class) or accusing others of promoting these narratives of conflict (e.g. class war, racism) rather than narratives of unity. Below is a haphazard analysis of narratives of civil conflict. I'd love to hear your thoughts, as well as any recommended readings on the topic.

People have disputes for a number reasons; often disputes are tied to specific situations or events, but they can also be viewed as part of a general conflict between two parties. In the later case, the participants in the dispute view the problem as arising from some intrinsic quality of the other participant. These are the situations that I will be discussing as conflicts: their resolution requires a fundamental change in the relationship between the participants, rather than just reaching an agreement about some specific issue that is viewed as being external to the participants.

Civil conflicts exist between groups in a society, and revolve around access to power within that society. Power is often embodied in control of the dominant public institutions of that society (e.g. states, schools, churches, media, businesses, etc). In some societies, such as explicitly multi-ethnic states, the different groups may be relatively equal in power, even as each strives to gain more power. However, in the USA, narratives of conflict seem to be framed in terms of dominant and subordinate groups, so I'll be focusing on conflicts with that structure. The people who control public institutions I'll call "the elite", whereas the rest of society will be "the commoners".

In a stratified society like this, there is a narrative of unity, which is how the elite/commoners are supposed to cooperate harmoniously. Primarily, the narrative of unity requires that the elite acts in the interests of the entire society. The narrative of unity can also require that the elite allow some institutions (e.g. the family) to remain under the jurisdiction of the commoners, that the elite share the culture of the commoners, that the elite have respect for the commoners, and that membership in the elite is based on personal merit. A narrative of conflict describes how the narrative of unity fails.

The simplest narrative of civil conflict proposes that conflict arises directly from the nature of the dominant institutions in society and the separation of the society into the elite and the commoners. This class conflict narrative suggests that the elite form a coherent group, where control of major institutions is mixed or exchangeable, and status is inherited--resulting in a distinct social and cultural group that runs society with the primary interest of assuring its own status. This narrative isn't particularly common in America, and political opponents are often attacked by suggesting that they are promoting this narrative.

A more traditional narrative in America is that of ethnic conflict. The most extreme case involves the legacy of racism in America. For much of American history, the dominant institutions defined a "black" race that was explicitly excluded from power and exploited. Coming out of that period, many members of the resulting ethnic group distrust the dominant institutions in America and has been the source of "black resentment" and "black separatist" movements. From this perspective, affirmative action programs seem to be an attempt to create a narrative of unity between African-Americans (blacks) and the dominant (white) institutions of America, not an attempt to provide individualistic opportunities.

I was inspired to write this as part of an effort to understand another narrative of conflict, which seems to on the rise in recent years. It seems to be embodied in terms like "angry white men", and preached by talk radio hosts and the Fox News network. It is particularly complicated because it blurs the distinction between the elite and commoners, yet still plays on those concepts. It often attacks the elite on the basis that they hate the institutions that they control. Even as the narrators revel in their outsider/commoner status, they celebrate the power of their institutions and culture. There seem to be several aspects to this narrative.

One part seems to be nationalistic, with the idea that the national elite has abandoned its national base in favor of building an internationalist/post-nationalist community. When the nation in question is powerful and prosperous (like white America), this gets confusing because almost all members are relatively privileged, yet many members see themselves being passed over by individuals from groups that had previously been subordinate (as with Affirmative Action).

Aside from this "betrayal of nationality" narrative, this conservative movement also builds on a narrative of "creeping socialism"--or the expansion of public (elite) institutions into private realms, such as child-rearing, that have traditionally been the jurisdiction of the commoners.

This conservative narrative of conflict also seems to include complaints about the shifting balance of power among public institutions, for example, the expanding influence of schools and decreasing influence of churches.

Finally, I've noticed that conservative pundits like to attack professionals (e.g the media and academics) as "the elite" even as they celebrate the political and economic elite. I find this particularly strange since the professional elite is much more meritocratic than the political/economic elite. Furthermore, the professional elite have very little power over the lives of commoners, yet the political/economic elite can turn their lives upside down on a whim.

So, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this issue, particularly any thoughts on how conservatives can favor expansion of police powers and the freedom of corporations even as they rant about "the elite".

Proportional Punishment

I, for one, was heartened by the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the limit that states may only apply the death penalty in response to crimes that result in death. As an Obama supporter, I am disappointed that Obama disagrees:

"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime," he said, adding that if a state determines the death penalty should apply in such cases, they should be allowed to impose it.

Apparently, his disagreement arises from the view that killing is a form of self-expression:

he supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

In contrast, I think that the act of destroying a life should be taken a little more seriously (or perhaps, I think that temper tantrums should be taken less seriously). When I remember Newt Gingrich's call to make drug dealing a capital offense, or the attempt of the Illinois legislature to make gang activity a capital crime, I'm glad that there is a Constitutional prohibition on expanding the use of the death penalty.

Virginia Sloan of the Constitution Project says it well:

That the rape of a child is a horrific crime that deserves a firm and swift punishment is not in doubt. But expanding the list of crimes eligible for the death penalty to include non-homicide crimes would have undermined the long-standing principle of civilized societies that reserves the ultimate penalty for those who commit the most heinous murders. Anything less than categorical exclusion of non-homicide crimes would have provided too great an opportunity for the unconstitutionally overbroad, random, arbitrary, and capricious application of the death penalty.

We are not the property of the state (or "the community"), and there must be a limit on what methods the government can use to coerce us for its ends.

Live Free or Die: a tribute to Frederick Douglass

Frederick Douglass' autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, is one of the best books that I've read and deserves to be read once, if not repeatedly. It provides a well-written perspective on how slavery impacted Americans, and displays the perspective of one of America's heroes. Furthermore the Narrative itself is of historical interest because of the role it played in the abolitionist movement.

While pondering Douglass' words, I realized that this book illustrates two sides of the revolutionary-era maxim "Live Free or Die".

First, we often associate the phrase Live Free or Die with the macho boasts of Revolutionary war heroes. The New Hampshire state motto originates with a toast written by General George Stark:

Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.

This sentiment mirrors the more famous quote of Patrick Henry:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

When Frederick Douglass was in bondage, he probably was unaware of these quotes, but when Douglass later described his travails, he also expressed this sentiment in his own words. While his demands were more modest, his depiction was much more concrete:

My long-crushed spirit rose, cowardice departed, bold defiance took its place; and I now resolved that, however long I might remain a slave in form, the day had passed forever when I could be a slave in fact. I did not hesitate to let it be known of me, that the white man who expected to succeed in whipping, must also succeed in killing me.

Douglass also provided a visceral depiction of why a person would be driven to such extremes:

I often found myself regretting my own existence, and wishing myself dead; and but for the hope of being free, I have no doubt but that I should have killed myself, or done something for which I should have been killed.

He is not merely stating that he is willing to risk death to gain freedom, but that slavery is no better than death, and is only made bearable by the prospect of future freedom. With that mindset, but with almost no social support, Douglass went about creating the conditions that would allow him to escape.

The second interpretation of "Live Free or Die" is not a macho boast, or a judgment of risks vs. reward, but a simple fact of life: the slave has no security. This is the fundamental basis of slavery, and a key point that may drive a slave to despair. Douglass also provided a good illustration of this notion, as he was made to fear for his life more than once. He also witnessed how whites could kill a slave on a whim and summarized the situation thusly:

It was a common saying, even among little white boys, that it was worth a half-cent to kill a [slave] and a half-cent to bury one.

-----------------------------------------
That's all that I can say about Frederick Douglass today, but I hope it provides you with the motivation to read (or re-read) his book. I assure you that it is short and well-written. You can probably get it for $6 at your local books store (B&N reprints many historical works like this). You can also read it online.

As long as we're on this subject, let's not forget that the battle against slavery has not ended: 10 Shocking Facts About Global Slavery in 2008

CA district court shuts down Wikileaks

A district court in California has ordered Wikileaks.org to be shut down, at the request of the Cayman Island's Bank Julius Baer, apparently because Wikileaks published internal company documents related to money laundering.

I'm not happy. I'll be watching this.

Hat Tip to OpenLeft and the Draft Lessig movement.

My left-libertarian pedigree

Via the Freedom Democrats blog (and Brad Spangler), I have been tagged with the "left libertarian pedigree meme":

“What motivated you to start looking into Anarchist/Libertarian thought?”

Well, it all started as I was approaching adulthood and deciding what to do with my life. I had developed the general attitude that life is easy and that I could make a great life for myself if others would only get out of my way. I felt that others were constraining me both with their lifestyle laws, and by demanding tribute for access to natural resources. At this point, my vision of "the good life" was most influenced by Thoreau's Walden and Huxley's Island*.

Based on these attitudes, my political outlook developed into a very ideological form of geolibertarianism, though I had never heard of "geolibertarianism", nor had I read core works such as Agrarian Justice or anything from Henry George, or even heard of "wage slavery". At university, I discussed these ideas with friends and received two responses that helped define my political path:

1. A friend involved with the local LP told me that my ideas sounded like Dan Sullivan's.
2. Another (non-libertarian) friend called me an anarchist.

Following these exchanges, I started to study anarchism and geolibertarianism. I rejected anarchism at the time, and turned my attention to geolibertarianism in the Libertarian Party. I helped out with Harold Kyriazi's campaign for state senate, in which we were trounced.

That electoral defeat marked the beginning of the end of my activities with the LP and serious electoral activism. I developed a renewed interest in electoral reform, with a special focus on proportional representation and strategic voting. This interest had originally been seeded in high school by Lani Guinier's The Tyranny of the Majority. This shift in attention marked a more general shift from an ideological (top-down, wholistic, megalomaniacal) view of politics to a more organic (bottom-up, individualistic, practical) view of politics, in which I focused on the nature of power in society.

This realignment of viewpoint coincided well with my increased involvement with the Unitarian Universalist movement. Their emphasis on freedom of conscience always attracted me, but now I was also attracted by their grass-roots organizing and their "peer-to-peer" approach to solving social problems. I was excited when I found out that the UU movement had a history of involvement with Henry George's movement, but I was turned off when the congregation would take positions that called for increased state activism in society.

My most recent political transformation occurred in 2002-2003. I was in the San Francisco Bay area while Bush was pushing for war with Iraq. I checked out one of the early anti-war rallies (Oct 2002, I think), but was turned off by the Marxist/Leninist organizers. The rallies grew and became more mainstream over the next few months. My congregation and many of my peers were involved in these massive protests, but by that time I had concluded that no protest would deter the invasion; the logic of the state had taken over.

During this crisis, a woman addressed my UU congregation. I don't remember much of what she said, but she identified herself as an anarchist. Her witness persuaded me to reconsider anarchism. I rejected the common Democratic idea that Bush's presidency (and the invasion of Iraq) were an avoidable mistake. I knew that the "lesser of evils" problem delivered political power to a self-interested elite and we'd get crappy Presidents on a regular basis. Even more troubling, I saw how the vast majority of Americans felt compelled to march to war without a good justification; some simply decided to give the President "the benefit of the doubt", but even those who strongly rejected the war would never consider withdrawing from the war machine. At this point, I recognized what libertarians meant by "the cult of the state".

Following this, I reconsidered the numerous arguments underlying the ideology of hierarchy (the mother of all ideologies), and realized how weak they were. I realized that the problem of cheaters and fools within society is nothing compared to the problem of a cheaters and fools ruling society, and I realized that we did not have an effective way to prevent cheaters and fools from taking the top spots in our hierarchy.

With this, I became an anarchist. I decided that my (casual) activism would focus on combating the cult of the state. Somehow, I found Kevin Carson's blog, which fed my growing awareness that the state exists specifically to allow the cheaters to rule society. Carson directed me to Benjamin Tucker's work, which has provided the most recent revelatory reading: State Socialism and Anarchy.

So here I am.

*Island presents an interesting vision of "the good life", but it's a poorly written book, probably because it was written specifically to present that vision.

Wikia search engine

It looks like Wikia is launching their search service. Wikia is a spin-off of Wikipedia, and since I like the design of Wikipedia and the attitude of Jimmy Wales, I'm gonna give Wikia a shot.

Right now, it's pretty primitive, so to remind myself to return to it in the future, I've installed its search engine into my web browser (Firefox). Here is the Wikia search engine add-on for Firefox.

Hyper-competition

Our economic opinions are often influenced by our perceptions of how our decisions will influence the competitive environment faced by ourselves and others as producers. The nature of the competition that we face not only influences our productivity, but also influences our personal lives and social structures.

I'd like to see greater consideration of the impact of competition on our lives, but that seems to be difficult in the absence of a formal description of the competitive environments that we may face. If you, dear reader, are familiar with any writings on these issues, please point me to where I may find them. Otherwise, please consider the following analysis and provide any feedback that you may have.

I think that our competitive environments can be described by a point along a spectrum, ranging from monopoly, to competition, to hyper-competition. These environments are described in detail below, but I am specifically interested in hyper-competition, since I have never seen a discussion of this environment*, despite it's widespread occurrence in our economy.

Monopoly (including self-sufficiency): The condition where an actor's welfare is not influenced by competition. Economically, this arises when demand is satisfied by a single producer. The simplest example is an individual producing a good for his own use. However, producers can increase demand for (and hence, the value of) their produce by engaging in markets with others. The standard definition of "monopoly" applies to this condition, where a market is supplied by a single producer, who typically sees very large returns on his productive labors.

Competition: The condition where an actor's welfare is primarily determined by his own actions, but the benefit is limited by others seeking to access to the same resource. Economically, this arises in markets where multiple producers are satisfying the cumulative demand of consumers. Consumers are free to choose among the producers, meaning that producers will be unable to sell their produce unless they compete effectively with the other producers. This is the competitive structure that is typically studied in introductory Economics courses, where market prices tend towards the cost of production.

Hyper-competition: A competitive structure where an actor's welfare is solely determined by his performance relative to others. Hyper-competition is characterized by "winner-take-all" dynamics, and epitomized by sports and politics. Economically, this may take many forms, but it may arise from intense competition for access to monopoly benefits. A good example of this is our patent system, where "inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser's work will then be totally wasted."**

Many parts of economy seem to share this structure, to a lesser extent. I propose three ways that hyper-competition may arise:

1. From inflexible demand, such that productive innovations do not expand the market--they only displace other producers.
   
2. From formal bottle-necks in market-entry. One example would be an educational system where school admission is very competitive, but once accepted, students are almost guaranteed to succeed.
   
3. From informal bottle-necks in market entry, arising from bounded rationality (limited information processing ability). This may arise from a positive-feedback loop where successful exploitation of one opportunity produces a reputation that leads to greatly expanded opportunities.
   

Along this competitive spectrum, I expect to see a change in how much reward a person receives for each unit of good that he produces. Under monopolistic conditions, the law of diminishing returns dominates, and rewards decrease with each unit of production. In competitive conditions, market prices are independent of one's own produce, so the producer gains a constant reward for each unit produced. In hyper-competitive conditions, the producer's reward per unit increases as total production increases (this increase may be continuous, or involve thresholds).

Overall, hyper-competition might be expected to produce Pareto distributions in human achievement, where success is not directly proportional to skill, but instead increases as a power function of skill. Conversely, the reduction of hyper-competition would put greater emphasis on the "long-tail". It's interesting to note that a progressive income tax may counter-act the influence of hyper-competition on income.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Footnotes:
*A Google search for "hyper-competition" turned up two concepts. Most prominently, a business-school professor has been using the term to describe a gradual erosion of market imperfections, thereby eliminating many semi-monopolistic advantages held by assorted producers; this is not what I'm talking about. My concept is most closely reflected by the writings of some random blogger, who discusses "winner take all" market conditions, specifically with respect to high-tech entrepreneurship.

**This quote is from Ayn Rand's essay on Patents and Copyrights, which I remember as the epitome of what I dislike about Rand. Her rejection of this "objection to patent laws" is quite dismissive, even as it exhibits glaring circular logic.

Have a cynical new year!

Mike Huckabee tells us not to be cynical.
This from a man who is asking us to give him broad powers to kill, imprison, or take money from others, and who will apparently use these powers liberally. Huckabee's quest for power seems to be driven by a faith that humans will only do the right thing when subjected to constant surveillance, bribery, and intimidation--and he tells us not to be cynical.
This from a man exhibiting quite bizarre behavior: first capturing media attention for a day with the promise to unveil an attack ad against Mitt Romeny, then showing the ad to reporters with their cameras rolling before "deciding at the last minute" to cancel the ad. Huckabee manages to effectively smear Romney while claiming to keep his hands clean--and he tells us not to be cynical.
Thankfully, in contrast to disingenuous candidates, we have the Capitol Steps to provide us with a bit of satire and cynicism. Enjoy the 2007 year-end show! (real media format)

Movie recommendation: The Lives of Others

The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen) is a German drama exploring the impact of the East German socialist/surveillance state on its citizens. This film involves the artistic community (which was constantly under suspicion), the Stasi, and high government officials. It details the methods of both the dictatorship and subversives. The themes remind me that I still need to read "The Road to Serfdom". Throughout the movie, agents of the state constantly act above/outside of the law to manipulate others, both in the interests of the state and themselves. Almost everything is treated as a privilege to be doled out (or withheld) by government officials at their whim: drugs, travel, and careers. While romantic relationships are nominally not owned by the state, in practice they can be manipulated by the state's control of all material conditions of life, and the ability to arbitrarily detain individuals.

I was creeped out by the ways that our own society reflects the East German dictatorship. For starters, it's easy to suppress dissent when over half of the population has committed a crime. Furthermore, simply discussing unpopular ideas or past activities can have your visa denied.

The American state is only a shadow of the East German state, but the same tendencies are here, and we need to fight them every step of the way.

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.