This is great legal advice (and surprisingly hard to follow when you're on the spot). It's also a key strategy for passively and non-violently resisting the occupation army in your neck of the woods. They require on-the-ground, tacit information of the community to operate. Don't volunteer to participate in the system.
The more I read about police and judicial misconduct, the more I'm convinced that the best strategy when dealing with the government is to operate as if you have no legal rights. The problem with the supposed "rights" we have as citizens is that we depend upon others to enforce them. This dependency is so deceptive because the same people who are supposed to uphold our rights are the ones who have an incentive to throw us in jail. So don't take anything for granted: hold your tongue and wait to talk to a lawyer. Comply only with force, or threats thereof.
Any interactions with law enforcement should be on your terms, at a time and place of your choosing, and for your purposes and not theirs. The government always tries to pressure, scare, or cow us into surrendering to and complying with their interests - interests that are necessarily counter to ours. Resist the urge to reason with an institution that has no conscience and can legally lie without consequence. Stay calm and silent.
If you have the time, also check out the cop who follows the speaker in the video. Very, very frank look into the mind of an officer and, by extension, the system.
Are ideas dangerous? I've been involved in online conversations lately with self-professed libertarians who have challenged even the consideration of certain concepts. Is there any sense in which merely talking and thinking about ideas poses a threat to oneself or others? What gives ideas their ability to do good or harm? Is there some psychic battlefield that people seek to control for its own sake?
It seems clear to me that there is no inherent danger in considering an idea. Are there any abstract ideas that, once thought of, cause damage? Some people may believe so, but only because they have a very strict and specific idea of mental hygiene (like Christians who talk about banning bad thoughts from one's mind).
But when people say an idea is dangerous, they mean that it causes people to act in a dangerous manner. Actions can, and often are, dangerous to life, limb, property, and social constructs, among other things. But an idea does not compel one to act. An abstract concept has no value other than a person's opinion of it. And that opinion will determine the action, not the idea itself.
Read more...
My shift from minarchism to anarchism was not completely, or even substantially, motivated by a distaste for government (I already had that). Rather, anarchism is a way of looking at the human condition that does not presuppose the power relationships we take for granted. I grew to view state politics as but one manifestation of these underlying relationships.
If the way in which we organize and think about ourselves precipitates certain outcomes, perhaps we can effect different, more desirable outcomes by choosing different organizing ethics. Such an examination leads one in an extremely open-ended - yet liberating - direction, where these ethics and their premises are finally considered on their own merits. To quote Einstein, "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." So how do we start to talk about that next level of thinking?
The existence of this uncharted territory, outside the pragmatic confines of our regimented, conservative society, is not directly explored in Butler Shaffer's Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival. Admirably, Shaffer wastes no time arguing for his - or any - particular solutions to mankind's many crises and problems. Instead, he takes the revolutionary step of removing the veil of indifference and deference to the primary units through which we realize our agendas: institutions. The book is a cataloging of the myths we tell ourselves and each other to keep things comfortable and stable at the expense of our freedom.
Read more...
I share b psycho's opinion of the gooey flaghumper sentimentality surrounding service to the state. Individualists typically cringe at the idea of "being part of something larger than yourself". B psycho points out how the state co-opts participation in society, with people making the typical "error of portraying any sense of civic mindedness as inherently meaning government involvement & allegiance" (in other words, there's more to a meaningful life than being part of just anything - one needs taste, standards, decency). Of course, I'm very interested in this form of institutional identity that we find so alluring.
But it occurs to me: you are already part of something larger than yourself. That "something larger" may be mysterious and not well understood. It may require you to look for it. It may not be coercively organized or neatly regimented somethings in which you participate. It may not be what you expect. But your very existence is an identity within a larger identity. The distinctions we make between my body and yours, my country and yours, this planet and the rest of the universe - are all arbitrary in the final analysis. Where my skin ends and the air surrounding me begins has no objective significance.
Collective action is natural because it recognizes that agency is informed by more than an individual's conscious ego. We are as much ourselves when we participate in society as when we have inner conversations with ourselves or dream. Social participation requires no organization or authority; it is natural to the psyche. The operating premises may change to suit the context, but who we are - our essential nature - does not.
Read more...
Today is the fourth anniversary of the Social Memory Complex blog. Four years ago, before I had embraced anarchism, I made an initial post laying out my purpose:
I'm still not sure why I'm embarking on blogging. All in all, it just seems like a way for malcontents to rant and rave. It seems to do more sometimes to marginalize discussion on the internet than to promote it, and from some of the conversations I've been in over the net, I can understand why that would be desirable. I'd like to believe that dialogue on the internet can lead to creative and thoughtful discourse ... but experience has shown that the internet tends to draw out the worst in people.
However, holding with my idea that the internet represents a major step forward in the conversion of humanity to a more integrated, interdependent sense of identity - indeed, a Social Memory Complex - I want to at least put my views out there and let the chips fall where they may. I think recent events are catalyzing change at both an individual and collective level, whether or not people realize it. My bet is that there is value to be gained by talking about this. We shall see.
Four years later, I'm still interested in this conversation - and I think I've made progress in facilitating it. In fact, one day I'd like Social Memory Complex to be something like the Distributed Republic where high-quality content can be generated by the act of social discourse. Thanks for reading and commenting - it's so gratifying knowing people are out there who want to talk about these things.
When I first joined the Libertarian Party, I heard a lot of talk about "the Libertarian brand". The concept encapsulated the frustration of LP members who had to not only run longshot, underfunded campaigns, but also had to educate the public at large about what their party actually stood for. Until we could get "brand recognition", an LP candidate couldn't really use the "libertarian" label without causing more confusion (indeed, I and many other LP activists were often confused for LaRouche supporters!). I recall many candidates shying away from the descriptor; it was often a stumbling block rather than a shortcut.
In the meantime, other uses and connotations for the term grew in popularity. "Civil libertarian" is now a common expression for a defender of individual rights without the economic or foreign policy baggage. Cato and Reason have advanced a low-tax, small government, Republican-lite version of libertarianism that is all but accepted as canonical in mainstream politics. As the term gained popularity, its definition changed from a label for a radical ideology with premises from which one can reason into a qualifying adjective for a mainstream politician or movement.
With Barr and Root's nomination by the LP, it is now clear that libertarianism is a word that is still struggling with its own confusing definition. However, there is good reason for the public to know and misidentify the beliefs surrounding libertarianism, given the common use of the term now for decidedly non-libertarian agendas and politicians. It seems the word "libertarian" may eventually, if not already, be lost to the radicals.
Read more...
So at long last, the truth is undeniable: the Libertarian Party has sacrificed libertarianism for dreams of legitimacy, political success, establishment mediocrity, and party power. Finally, the radicals and consistent libertarians are getting a consistent message about the LP: it is no longer their party (if it ever was). So what should these true libertarians do?
That's where we come in. The Alliance needs to act to take advantage of these refugees from the party. No doubt they are disgusted with political parties in general and worthless, image-heavy, substance-light campaigns and slogans. We need to give them a true alternative so that, if the word libertarian really is lost to Barr and Root, at least the ideas have a place to go and an organizational culture that won't hold people back.
I propose that left libertarians go out and form ALL chapters in their local communities. Here are a few pointers to remember:
- Form a blog for your organization, and start posting to it immediately. If you need help with this, contact me.
- Use the internet. Find people blogging about local matters of left libertarian interest, and comment on their blogs using your ALL identity (whatever name you've chosen for the organization). Use upcoming.org, Facebook, MySpace, etc. to network with people nearby to start building a contact list. Find local aggregators and make sure your blog is included. Post on local forums and perhaps start your own.
- Go to your local LP meetings and talk about ALL and left libertarianism, stressing the libertarian side of the equation.
- Find the lefty activists near you (Food Not Bombs, for example) and tell them about what you're trying to do, stressing the leftist side of the equation.
- Assemble a body of materials. Have signs ready for participating in local protests establishing your left libertarian identity. Get flyers ready, make them powerful, attention grabbing, and hard hitting (see Charles Johnson's work in this area with the Southern Nevada ALL chapter). Take advantage of the Market Anarchy series, Agorist pamphlets, and other monographs - this literature can really sway the more bookish, more passionate types who will be true assets to the cause. My friend Brady has had as much success distributing Kevin Carson's Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand to Ron Paul types as to lefty commie anarchist types
- Schedule a meeting. This means using internet media and print media to get the word out, setting a date and time appropriate for your likely attendees. Have and follow an agenda, but allow time for those essential, free-wheeling conversations that promote camaraderie. Talk about ALL and propose affiliation.
- Participate in local radical actions. Go to protests as a group. Launch protests of your own, and invite sympathetic non-members to join in. Use your blog to document and communicate with the community. Consider doing a print zine or newspaper to distribute - you can leverage content from the blog and the wider ALL community.
As much as I hate superfluous organization, building this group identity will make it that much more comfortable for people coming from the LP to participate. We need to act quickly to make sure that radical libertarianism doesn't just dissipate, but that it is finally fully unleashed to wreck havoc on the establishment.
Read more...
After a long hiatus, I'm pleased to announce that the Richmond Left Libertarian Alliance is back! See the announcement on the relaunched site. Special thanks to Brady for not letting me drop this ball forever. Also thanks to mod_rails, the new Apache module that makes deploying Rails apps easier than ever. I think the site will be a lot more stable now than it ever was before.
It is roughly ten years now since I was first exposed to, and started intellectually pursuing, the philosophy of libertarianism. I look back on the college freshman Jeremy in Political Science 102, aspiring to join the foreign service, and marvel. This body of thought has taken me places and discovered within me passions and truths that I did not know existed. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that, whatever else I accomplish in life, advocating for greater freedom and responsibility for the human individual will always be a deep calling for me.
While I still identify as libertarian after all this time, the evolution of thought that brought this initial shift about has not slowed or moderated. Learning about and growing within the libertarian tradition has not rendered my mind settled nor my concerns and dilemmas totally addressed. I have gone through many phases and made (what I consider now to be) many errors.
I started out as a pretty milquetoast libertarian, forming clubs in college and debating my fellow students. As I started to learn more about the depth of the tradition and philosophy, I went full circle to become, of all things, a leftist, a socialist, and even an anarchist. While liberty and peace are my goals, what changed was not my end but what ideas, attitudes, and approaches I thought coincided best with that end. My mind, through the honest study of history, ideas, and fellow humans, turned not towards perfecting our union as a society and its institutional mechanisms, but of finding some strategy to get all of that the hell out of the union's way.
Read more...
I would give my left nut to have a guitar. I don't play guitar; I just have three testicles.
Dan Mintz
Here's a great documentary on Monsanto. It highlights some of the major problems with this corporation. Also, check out the story of Percy Schmeiser, one of the cases of injustice that eventually convinced me that corporations are not consonant with a libertarian society.
Monsanto does not fully compete in the market, but rather uses privilege to gain unfair advantages against competitors. Monsanto is not a person; it is a corporation, a fictional entity that has existence only as a convenient legal abstraction. It was created by the government; in other words, certain people were given the privilege to use an abstraction of legal rules to do business in ways they were not willing to do as individuals.
Legally, Monsanto is actually a person, and that it has inherent rights and protections under the Constitution. Current American case law has resolved this matter as such (although the pedigree is dubious). Much of Monsanto's power derives from its use of its 1st Amendment right to free speech by contributing to campaigns (while simultaneously preventing free speech by its competitors) and 4th Amendment protections from unreasonable searches pursuant to health and safety regulations. But Monsanto is an "it", a collection of assets and contracts given entity status. If it is a person, it is a peculiar type: it has no conscience or will, no children or parents, the ability to spin off parts of itself or absorb other "persons", different laws applying to it than to us (corporate codes). Why are we compelled to treat this impersonal entity called Monsanto with any sort of deference, preference, or even justice?
Read more...
From Kevin Carson's review of Michael Shermer's The Mind of the Market:
The average person sees Wal-Mart, Microsoft, downsizings, oil company profits, offshoring, and all the other unsavory phenomena of the corporate global economy defended in "free market" language, and his response is "if that's the free market, then the free market be damned." It's essentially the same reaction as Huckleberry Finn's. Huck lacked the conceptual apparatus to make an effective critique of the legitimizing ideology of slavery, or to debunk the Widow Douglas's "property rights" in Jim. He took the slave system's ideological self-justification at face value--and then said "All right, then, I'll go to hell." The average American, likewise, looks at the inequalities and injustices of our corporatist economic system, made possible by massive state intervention on behalf of organized capital, and sees it defended as the "free market." And his response is the same: "If this is the free market, I'll go to hell."
[Police brutality] isn't irrelevant. It is the boiled-down essence of what is relevant in politics.
In a free society, people would not stand for police shamefully waiting around on the road for somebody to come along and break the law.
Based on these flags, would this not be the fitting flag for mutualists, given their sort of middle ground between the market anarchists (who do yellow) and the syndicalists / socialists (who do red)?
Meh, it was mostly just a chance to play around with Inkscape. As always, your thoughts are welcome. I'm big on the plain ol' black, myself.
