The Lefty Libertarian

2004-06-01T15:02:00.000-07:00

Just like to to point any people interested in further (if not exclusive) discussion of libertarian topics to my blog. I feel wierd posting stuff on here... where did LL go?

Fifty bucks says he joined the Army and is in Fallujah right now.... HAHAHA

That should smoke 'im out.

2002-11-13T09:20:00.000-08:00

So.... I stopped blogging a while back. I discovered I just didn't have anything to say.

I'm talking again, though: bin Laden appears to be alive. What this means? The "War on Terrorism" is a failure, and the raids of Afghanistan were:

1> Too late
2> Inept

You don't think that bin Laden knew we were coming for him as soon as he heard the planes had hit the WTC? How long do you think it realy takes a person living that life to vanish? So... game on: let's see if we can't actually get the mofo this time.

2002-10-20T14:41:00.000-07:00

From the "What the hell were they thinking?" department

The efforts are in violation of a 1994 agreement under which the North pledged to abandon its nuclear program in return for U.S.-led aid in the construction of two light-water reactors.

That's right folks. The USA helped the north Koreans build nuclear reactors, and now they may have weapons. Somebody should go to the wall for this.

2002-10-20T08:47:00.000-07:00

Somebody in an email asked me where I stood with respect to the globalization protesters and their stance. This is what I said:
-----------------------------
I'm not one of them, but we have much common cause.

The difference is that I'd like to see a lot more stuff like this: The Super Money Maker Irrigation Pump.

And most of them simply want to leave the poor buggers alone to rot.

So... the basic "ANTI" stance is this:

1> The IMF/World Bank's main purpose is to produce massive dollar-debt in third world economies to draw them into the role of raw materials providers for us in the first world. Compare to the balance-of-trade effect of the Opium Wars.

2> Corporations end-run around the labor and health and environmental practices forced upon them by first world nations, then sell the goods to us in the west. This is *slaughtering* people down south. And god-forbid you're a labor organizer in Laos, you know? They can't modernize by the struggles we had between the people and the owners in the labor disputes of England and America, because there are massive foreign powers backing up the owners. Imagine 1800's English labor practices **FOREVER**.

That's something to riot about.

3> The long term structuring of the trade-and-tariff system is intended to cement this state of affairs in place permanently by preventing capital flight to the second and third world.

Here's how it works:
Tax on bringing a ton of oranges into the USA: $1.
Tax on that same ton as juice: $5

So, you have to juice them here, keeping the capital cost of the plant, and all of it's secondary and tertiary economic benefits in the good ol' US of A.

And the entire fucking racket is set up that way: to try and prevent the second and third world nations either:

1> Ceasing to trade on a large scale with the west and trading among themselves, where there is less absolute advantage.

2> Modernizing and following us into prosperity.
--------------------------------------
I don't have much time to put into the blog at the moment, but I'll keep it up with snippets when I can.

LL.

2002-10-18T08:13:00.000-07:00

Morning, all. First link 'o the day: Dark Horse 2000's Guide to Political Parties. There's some amazingly funny stuff here. There's also some incredibly disturbing stuff. Did you know there was an "American Nazi Party" (I'm not linking to it)?

Jesus, you'd think after all this time.....

... we might have stamped those motherfuckers out.

2002-10-17T10:02:00.000-07:00

25,000 killed in terrorist attacks all over the world

Seems different that saying 20,000 people died of hunger today, doesn't it. The money we spent in the war on Afghanistan could have saved a hundred million lives. War is wasteful and often unnecessary.

2002-10-17T09:23:00.000-07:00

Hey to y'all Pundit readers...

Good stuff you might want to see

So that ought to give you a good idea of what it's all about. Enjoy!

2002-10-17T08:49:00.000-07:00

YAY! INSTAPUNDIT ON DEMOCIDE AND GUNS.

Just go read it. A quote

It seems to me that the human rights community has things exactly backward. Given that the efforts of the international community to prevent and punish genocide over the past several decades have been, to put it politely, a dismal failure, perhaps it is time to try a new approach. International human rights law is supposed to be a "living" body of law that changes with the needs of the times in order to secure important goals -- chief among which is the prevention of genocide. Given that the traditional approaches of conventions and tribunals have failed miserably, the human rights community should be prepared to endorse a new international human right: the right of law-abiding citizens to be armed.

Update: whoah... a link... ;-) I'm famous... I'd just like to thank the Academy......

2002-10-17T08:41:00.000-07:00

I'm an American sick of American lies. Woody Harrelson weighs in. Some of his figures are urban legends, but his heart is in the right place.

2002-10-13T21:14:00.000-07:00

The Australians are beginning to understand the shock of having your people killed in a terror attack. It's a blog, with a discussion which is largely made up of people wishing the Aussies well and offering condolences. And then there's me, being an over-political loudmouth.

Some kid (I assume) was trying to turn the whole thing into a "So now you're with us, right? Let's go kick some ass!" . I just snapped at him. Not even at what he said: I re-read his original post, he doesn't even mention Iraq. But the tone...

The young man ready to kill and die for his people. And wrong.

I'm almost certainly stereotyping a perfectly reasonable human being and putting words in his mouth. But there's so much of it around. I just wish I'd picked a better venue and better words.

Anyway, I wanted to repost what I said there, because... this is how I really feel. For the first time I've really dug down to some clarity about this whole issue, and this is it:

James L: I just re-read what you wrote. Knock it off, man. If you're baying for blood, remember:

* 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi
* The Saudis donated over $1.5 million dollars a month to support Al Quada before the attacks

I think you'll find *zero* of the hijackers were Iraqi, and we've yet to see numbers for Hussain's financial support for the terrorists.

You know? I'm still waiting for a convincing case for war on Iraq. The *CIA* are saying "we think the case for war is overstated". The freaking CIA. "Even if Hussain has weapons, he won't use them unless provoked".

Please, if you're going to call for war, for battle:

1> Enlist. Really. Put your life where your mouth is. Want war? Go fight it yourself.
2> Figure out exactly what you're asking us to kill for: Iraq? Oil? Terrorism?

Then figure out if WAR is the answer to the question you have posed.

Historically, terrorists have only been defeated when they lost popular support. When nobody would hide them, feed them, arm them, fund them, they dry up and go away.

Nobody have ever bombed, shot, stabbed or killed terrorism away. The Israelis have been doing more-or-less a perfect job of trying to destroy terrorism by attacking terrorists, and they are still beset, right and left, by terrorism.

It just does not work.

You have to win hearts and minds; to sway the common people, to win against this kind of threat.

And bombing the shit out of Iraq isn't going to help that.

Now, that still leaves the questions about whether Iraq is a worthwhile military target. That's a legitimate question. But invading Iraq is not about terrorism.

You want to bust Al Quaeda's ass? Start follwing the money back into Saudi Arabia. Find out exactly where every single rotten stinking dollar which fueled those people came from and put the various Saudi princes, oil barrons and business men who were actually funding the attacks on trial.

That would be a war against terrorism I'd fight.

Anyway, sorry to be dumping this kind of crap in your thread. I know you Aussies are just coming to terms with what is going on and you don't want to hear us yanks bickering.

My appologies,
The Lefty Libertarian.

So that's what I said. And if you followed me here to find out what kind of a butthead would shoot his mouth off half way through people mourning, it was this kind of a butthead: me.

2002-10-13T19:13:00.000-07:00

Ok, anybody know anything about these folks?

This book is the culmination of a 25 year investigation into computer vote fraud. Journalists James and Kenneth Collier answer the question. “Why can't we vote the bastards out?” And the answer is, “Because we didn't even vote the bastards in!”

“Votescam” will fill in the blanks for anyone who senses their vote is worthless, but doesn't know why. It tracks down, confronts, and calls the names of Establishment thieves who elegantly steal the American vote for their own profit.

I got the link from the Fringe Folk's page on the Gore victory. I normally wouldn't give this kind of thing a second glance: I think the established facts are pretty clearly more than I know how to deal with. Can you really say that you've integrated the existence of Operation Northwoods into your daily viewpoint on the world? Or that we got into Vietnam on a presidential lie? I can't. I struggle to understand what it means more-or-less daily. Betrayal of the public trust on that scale.... it seems to make almost anything possible.

You know? I've got a lot of comments and feedback on my position on firearms and stuff like that, but nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the corner: we got into Vietnam and WWII via Presidents lying to us about what was going on in ways which ended up costing thousands and thousands of American lives....

Blows your mind when you think about it. It's like the bleedin' Matrix.

So, anyway, normally I ignore conspiracy theory. But this... I dunno, has a certain ring to it? It looks a little like the sorts of things which show up, eventually, as history.

What do you think? Is it legit, or bullshit? Is massive, systematic voter fraud a part of the way this country works, or isn't it? At this point, I know the Republicans out there are yelling: "Bush won, deal with it".

Well, you know what? Ask the 48,000+ black voters who were "mistakenly" identified as fellons and denied their votes what they think of Bush's "victory" And yes, it did happen, and yes, it's legit. The NAACP just settled the case. Once again, ugly truths covered over by the mainstream media: BUSH CAME TO POWER BY CHEATING BLACK PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE. And I mean that in the most literal sense: those votes, mostly democratic by the demographic, would have made Gore the President. This is how Bush came to power: by blatantly illegal racial gerrymandering.

There, stick that in your goddam republican pipes and smoke them!

Bastards. How dare they do that in our democracy? And where's the outcry? The massive campaigns in the street from both Black and White, protesting this kind of violation of the basic rights of the people to choose their leader? You tell me. I'm indoors writing a blog post about it, not out there protesting.

What are you doing?

2002-10-13T18:49:00.000-07:00

As detailed in Kwangju Diary (UCLA Asian Pacific, 1999), a text that I co-translated with Kap Su Seol and that was based on Jae-Eui Lee’s bestselling first-hand account, the city of Kwangju then began reorganizing its own economy and social life in the crucible of an armed uprising and general strike. Fuel and arms were rationed democratically, half-trained militias defended the city while townspeople prepared communal meals for hundreds in city parks, and nearby factories were plundered for vehicles and material to help spread the revolution.

Another little speck of forgotten history.

Makes me sad. You read these accounts every so often of democratic uprisings - people universally treat eachother well. For a while. And then they either get swept away, or normality resumes and the first movers get dug in and politicized and corrupt.

It does give me hope, though, that people are in essence decent. That when the chips are down, we take care of eachother by instinct. Not because of our philosophy or politics, but by intuition.

2002-10-13T10:29:00.000-07:00

Save Oil Now - this is a great link. Read and pass on!
NOPEC - Non-Oil Power Exporting Communities
Are we running out of oil? - controversial; the science is good, but there's a broad range of informed opinion on this one.
Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology

Environmentalists have been bitching about government sabotage of funding and research on renewable energies for decades. Little stuff like putting the agency for developing renewable energy under the agency responsible for developing nuclear energy, or mis-estimating the efficiency of wave power systems by a factor of four, then ruling them too inefficient to be worthy of further study.

There is a solution to our current problems in this direction. Let's pay it some attention: reducing our dependence on oil cuts our foreign policy liabilities dramatically. Use less oil. It's patriotic - and it's one in the eye for BushCo!

2002-10-13T10:02:00.000-07:00

America is one of Iraq's biggest oil customers. Let's stop sending Saddam our American dollars. We will spend billions fighting him. Billions protecting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We say "lets have an economic war". Let's drive the price of oil down to $8 /bbl and then drive IRAN, Saudi Arabia, IRAQ, and Kuwait to their knees. Let's include every other government that accepts our dollars and then seeks to hurt us.

We Americans, after suffering the brutality of terrorist attacks, are angry. We are outraged and looking for steps we can take to fight back. Let's get thousands of us together and start reducing our dependence on oil. Let's draw a line in the sand and send a clear message back to the people who teach their children to hate America and the freedom we stand for.

2002-10-13T09:41:00.000-07:00

So, on to a different tack.

Let's talk about how dreams inform reality. Let's talk about the Cuban missile crisis.

Think about this for a moment: USSR Vs. US. Cuba with nuclear weapons is the threat of the day. We were this close to nuclear war, which in those days would probably have been total and annihilated life on earth. We pulled through by genius and luck.

Everybody involved put the welfare of the people first, and this is why we survived. The US not over-escalating, the USSR backing down - it looks like force, but at some profound level it is and was cooperation. To value the lives of your countrymen, and the fellow citizens of the world, over some local goal.

Why is Bush so worried about Oil? It's simple: we need it to survive. Supplies will, one day, be scarce, and exactly when that day is nobody knows. Could be twenty years, could be fifty.

As long as you ignore the probability of oil being made obsolete by technologies like fuel cells, this looks like a sensible strategy if you put the welfare of American people before that of everybody else.

You could also argue that America is the world's best defence against Fascism and democidal regimes, and that for us to remain strong in some ways guarentees the welfare of the world. I can just about hear Chompsky spinning in his grave, but this is not an entirely flag-waving argument. Overall, we do pretty good.

Either way, it's possible to construe the actions of the government as being in the "good but misguided" category, rather than the "flat-out evil armaggedon monkeys".

Below, I've argued extensively for awareness of the potential for democide and oppression in our current political situation. Now I want to add a proviso: if nothing bad is happening, a heavilly armed population will make the Government more likely to slip into fascism. Not less, more. Our fear of them increases their fear of us increases their tendancy to cover their asses and you get into this kind of weird feedback loop.

The pictures of eachother we paint in our mind construct the fabric of our reality.

I don't know how to integrated my political and spiritual consciousnesses in these times.

What would it take for peace to break out, and BushCo to simply be made irrelevant?

Perhaps nothing. Perhaps it's already happened.

If you knew the future was going to be perfect how would you act in the present?

Consciousness matters: not to be blind to the bad, but not to be blind to the good either. Life on the planet appears to have been getting better for the average human being for most of recorded history. The curve is up, and I'm not convinced BushCo are anything other than a part of that process. Perhaps we just needed to be awakened to our reponsibility to rule our government and hem them in with our doubts. And everything I've said about democide exists in this context: we also got antibiotics and super-abundent food in the 20th century.

Fuel cells. Methanol engines. Solar panels. Those are tools of peace these days - throwing snow on the fires of war requires little more than energy efficiency.

So, buy a rifle and stop driving your car. Check out how cheap solar systems are these days. Envisage a reality where we are no longer dependent on oil, and start putting your dollars where your hopes are: on a future where people like Bush cannot exist because there is no scarcity for them to exploit and no division for them to pour salt into.

This is the long term answer: peace through fair prosperity.

We've poured a lot of money into developing fusion reactors. Turns out that they're incredibly expensive and difficult to operate if they are too small. The right size for a fusion reactor is 1,391,000km in diameter. All we need to do is pick up the radiated energy and use it.

Do you see what I'm saying? Fighting over scarce resources will always cause trouble, and all forms of sharing require politics to try and achive consensus or fairness. The long-term solution to war is to move our economy away from dependence on scarce resources on to dependence on plentiful ones: if we had viewed removing our dependence on oil as a national security priority and poured a hundred billion dollars into it over the past twenty years, do you really think we would be in this mess today?

But that requires breaking out of history, out of the patternen of fighting over scarcity.

Create abundence. In the long term it is the answer to war.

Update:
Energy Victory. Don't agree with everything they say, but they get it.
Energy payback time for photovoltaics is now between three and eight years.

2002-10-12T16:27:00.000-07:00

We stand at a pivot point in history.

In some ways, we all do, in every day of our lives. But these days are special. Our world hangs in the balance, as it always does, but now it's our turn to tip it one way or the other, by action or inaction.

A big part of this is belief, faith. We only have so many facts, and the grey zone between truth and lies is 90% of our world. Are the Iraqis trying to blow us up? Is President Bush a hopelessly corrupt tool? We don't, and can't know for sure. We do not have enough data.

How you fill the gaps between your datapoints: that's the key to all simulation, to all thought.

I've spent a lot of time in the darkness. I've been reading Rummel's stuff on democide, sketching in my own mind the outlines of what would happen here if those social forces arise.

I don't like it.

Now I feel a turning. Having looked into the darkness, I want to envisage a different future. One filled with hope, light and life.

Here's how it goes: Lessig wins Eldred Vs. Ashcroft and the entire cultural content of the 1960s enters into the public domain on the spot. All of the Beatles. All of the Doors. All of LOVE. All the movies, all the art. But especially all of the music.

And it changes us.

Suddenly being reconnected to the protest against the vietnam war - to this mysterious outpouring of love which threatened all established powers with turning the world into a garden - to the vision and hope of humanity freed - to a spirituality which manifested as community, sharing and love - to the presence of god in every child, Vietnamese, Iraqi or American.

The seventies was a hangover, the 80s a bad dream, and the 90s a slow reawakening.

This is the twenty first century. It is a time of light, life and hope. Don't believe anybody who tells you differently.

2002-10-12T16:17:00.000-07:00

Lessig's report of what happened before the supremes.

I'm so excited about this I can't say a word.

2002-10-12T16:10:00.000-07:00

Byrd again. He's a good man. I just wish he was twenty or thirty years younger.

“There is a point at which it becomes time to accept reality. It is clear that we have lost this battle in the Senate,” he said. “The next front is the White House.

“I urge all those people who are following the debate out there, who encouraged me in my efforts ... to turn their attention to the president of the United States. Call him, write him, e-mail him urging him to heed the Constitution.”

2002-10-12T10:38:00.000-07:00

Awww, shit.... Looks like we might have managed to destabilize Pakistan (yes, they do have nuclear weapons) in our efforts to round up Mullah Omar and bin Laden (the President hasn't said bin Laden's name in public in seven months. Perhaps that's because we failed to catch him after swearing we'd have his head on a plate).

But the main surprise in Thursday's poll was a stunning performance by a grouping of firebrand Islamic parties, which tapped anger over the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan to virtually sweep the board in two conservative western provinces.
...
"We will stop the ongoing pursuit of Taliban and al Qaeda when we form the government," he said. "Taliban and al Qaeda members are our brothers."

Now this? This sucks. Nuclear-powered muslim fundamentalism is the VERY LAST THING IN THE WORLD WE WANT and it looks like our inept administration is well on the way to producing it.

BushCo: lousy at peace, worse at war, just say no in November.

2002-10-12T10:24:00.000-07:00

WorldRun. Anybody remember that? Click on the link, you'll see a map of the world with current news events indicated with icons. Apparently it parses newsfeeds to prepare this thing in real time. Pure brilliance. Somebody get these guys som money to hire a graphic designer, and wire the back end to Google News!
[via Boing Boing's Guest Bloggers]

2002-10-12T09:42:00.000-07:00

Next topic: those manic monkeys in the White House.

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

The National Strategy For Homeland Security

Over the next few days I'm going to be reading these august documents and trying to make some sense of what's going on. I'd invite you to join me and post your thoughts on the subject. Let's try and encourage some democratic debate on the stated policies of our government.

Anybody want to join me?

Although not an official document, the ever-popular Rebuilding America's Defenses is fairly short and worth a look first, just so you can see where these guys are coming from.

It's a challenging task: these documents are long, wordy and written in Presidentialese, but I think we really owe it to ourselves to get informed enought to take part in this debate.

Let's read the official strategy of the Government together. It'll be fun. We'll learn something.

Probably a lot of things we'd rather not know, but then, that's the point of this isn't it. To be informed citizens of our Republic. Blog away.

2002-10-12T09:29:00.000-07:00

Ok, barring anything revolutionary happening in the blogosphere, I'm done with guns. I'll be glad to continue conversations and refine my position, but I'm bored with the topic. It's pretty easy, you know? You read the democide stories, you wonder if it could happen here, and the decision tree is pretty simple:

Do you believe that Government sometimes turns on The People and massacres them?
No: 2, Duh!: 3
Read Rummel and start over, or go home because you're an idiot.
Do you believe that there is a zero chance of that happening where you live, within your expected lifespan or that of your offspring?
Yes, we're safe here: 4, No, there's a tiny chance it could happen here: 5.
Ok, one name: Jose Padilla. Held indefinitely without trial on Presidential say-so, against our every consitutional principle. Do some reading and get back to me. While you're at it, cover the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods and Pearl Harbor. Let me know how safe you feel, OK?
Do you believe that having 10% of the populace armed with, say, a rifle each would make any difference in the event of a democidal scenario?
No, the Army or Brownshirts or Whoever would overwhelm us: 6, Yes, and what's more I'd rather die trying, 7.
Fair enough, you might even be right. But don't deprive others of their right to try.
So, welcome to the Folks Who Think The Second Amendment Means Something Club. Glad to have you aboard.

I mean, yes, this essentially self parody and oversimplification, but that's essentially it.

Given our history of democide in the last century, and the role that disarming the populace has played in those slaughters, I believe it is the right of all adults to arm themselves against this turn of affairs. Although the odds of it happening again are very, very small, nobody can say there is no chance whatsoever, and therefore the Second Amendment should be respected.

And that's it. That's all I had to say about guns.

2002-10-11T09:58:00.000-07:00

Rep. Pete Stark:

The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors.

Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total authority to the president, who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to act as the aggressor for the first time in our history. It sets a precedent for our nation -- or any nation -- to exercise brute force anywhere in the world without regard to international law or international consensus.

2002-10-11T09:08:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: If you're coming in from Instapundit, you might like this guided tour of the blog.

Tim Dunlop talks more about the Australian experience of Government and Guns. Tim lives in the DC area, so he's got a sniper wandering around in his area shooting at apparently random members of the public.

Props to Tim for being able to have a reasoned discussion about guns at a time like this

I want to bring two aspects of this discussion to the surface. Tim says:

Thus, for a whole bunch of historical reasons, we have a much more benign--I'd actually call it positive--attitude towards government. In fact, the state was often seen as a positive good, a bulwark against the uncertainty of isolation and, in the decade before federation (1890-1900), a source of order and stability in a country being damaged by a depression and the perceived threats inherent in frontier existence--attack from without and attack from within.

This is really interesting to me. I can imagine that in a vast, sparsely populated nation, strongly modeled after Britain, a lof of the American experience must look totally foreign and rediculous. It's really good to see it from the outside!

I think the Australian government really is, at this point in time, considerably more benign than the American government. Your faith and trust in it may not be foolish.

We have an enormous army, huge intelligence services, a history of things like COINTELPRO (organized suppression of political debate using the intelligence services) and, as I've mentioned below, various and sundry presidential lies, schemes and evasions to drag us into wars. We have ample historical and current reasons to distrust and fear our state.

The Framers were really trying to create a country in which the individual would be free, and as they said again and again and again in different ways, they were always haunted by the spectre of the government turning against the people and did all they could to prevent it.

Yet we still ended up in a situation where people have been pulled off the street on the President's say-so and jailed indefinitely (Jose Padilla, lest we forget). Note that we may never see the evidence against Padilla and he could remain in jail for the rest of his life. Without trial.

I can certainly see your point of view, Tim: Americans are pathalogically distrustful of their government. Alas, we're finding that even this level of distrust has not been enough to keep the beast in constitutional chains.

I really want to come back to the case against Jose Padilla. We do not know what this man has or has not done. There has been no examination of evidence, no trial, nothing. He could be innocent - there may have been a mistake, a mix-up, and there is no due process of appeal to correct it. We have every reason to distrust a government that acts in this way.

Perhaps things are just better in Australia! Different government, different appropriate response.

The second point I want to address is the democide figures: 160 million people killed by their governments in the 20th century, four times more than were killed by war - giving roughly a 1% chance of any human who lived in that century would be murdered by their government [go see the figures].Now, please read the story of what happened in Turkey (just under 2 million murdered):

The government then turned to Armenians in the civilian population. First, to make their victims defenseless, the government denied Armenian citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Soldiers and police were assigned the task of confiscating weapons. Homes were ransacked, and many Armenians suspected of having weapons were tortured. In fear, some Armenians acquired weapons, just so they could have something to turn in to the authorities, thus avoiding torture.

Second, the Turk government rounded up the leaders of the Armenian community in Constantinople- those most likely to speak out and be heard. These people were deported into the nation's interior, where they died similarly to the Armenian soldiers.

With most of the Armenian men out of the way, the populace stripped of their weapons, and their leaders exiled or dead, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were defenseless. The government then moved in to kill. Moving from village to village, police and soldier's gathered together the Armenian males, marched them out to some secluded spot, and slaughtered them.

Although this kind of history is not commonly talked about in the gun rights community (most people don't have the historical breadth to talk about anything other than Constitutional Intent and perhaps the Holocaust), Rudy Rummel puts the whole thing in a new light: 160 million dead, killed by their governments, all over the world.

How do you respond to those historical factors, Tim? Are they relevant to how much trust we put in Government? Are they relevant to the gun rights discussion?

Rummel also says that democracies don't do this. In America, our question these days is "do we actually live in a (functioning) democracy?" - remember that our current President lost the popular vote, and won Florida, the state ruled by his brother and the pivot of the whole election, on a dodgy mix of ballot miscounting and striking fifty thousand black voters from the rolls.

When you live with these kinds of questions, and know the history of states slaughtering their populations, it's very hard to trust government at all.

Question for you, Tim: do you see why I'm less trustful of Government? If so, can you think of anything people should do beyond:

Trying to keep the democratic process healthy.
Preparing for the worst if it becomes diseased.

I'd really like to hear your thoughts,

LL.

2002-10-11T08:23:00.000-07:00

In all of Bush's 30 minutes of anti-Iraq war talk yesterday – pleasantly leavened with just two minutes of how "I hope this will not require military action" – there wasn't a single reference to the fact that Iraq may hold oil reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia, that American oil companies stand to gain billions of dollars in the event of a US invasion, that, once out of power, Bush and his friends could become multi-billionaires on the spoils of this war. We must ignore all this before we go to war. We must forget.

2002-10-11T08:15:00.000-07:00

The bottom-line question that will not go away, and which was left unanswered in Cincinnati, is what is driving Mr Bush down this path? Is it a desire to draw attention away from his poor to chronic domestic policy record? Is it an attempted diversion from the stock market collapse, America's rising unemployment and its corporate malfeasance scandals? Is it all about oil? Or the mid-term elections? Or his own re-election bid in 2004? Or is it a personal, Bush family vendetta against Saddam?

Any one of these explanations makes more sense than far-fetched claims that Saddam is planning attacks on the most powerful nation in the history of the world, attacks that would certainly be traced back to him and would result in his utter annihilation.

2002-10-11T08:12:00.000-07:00

US Plans to Occupy Iraq. OIL OIL OIL OIL FNORD.

Yawn. Rebuilding America's Defences. The National Defense Review. The American Empire. Blah blah blah. Congress and the Senate say "Sure, Mr. Bush. We've read all about your plans for an American Empire, and we approve!".

Hell, they even bought off Jimmy Carter with the peace prize.

For the humor impaired, that's a joke. Just like our Government.

2002-10-10T11:50:00.000-07:00

Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth.

Nobody can be trusted with unlimited power. The more power a regime has, the more likely people will be killed. This is a major reason for promoting freedom.

2002-10-10T11:48:00.000-07:00

Among Rummel's more startling findings is that the death toll from government mass murder is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying some 8,193 reports of government killing, Rummel estimates that there have been 169,198,000 victims of democide in the last century, as against some 38,000,000 killed in war. Four times as many people have been murdered in cold blood by people working for governments than have died in battle.

Rudolph Rummel is the guy who coined the term Democide.

I'm only slowly integrating what I've learned from reading about his work.

2002-10-10T11:36:00.000-07:00

Democide in the Soviet Union: 62 million people killed

The Soviet Union exemplifies the dictum that government is a mechanism by which depraved people legitimize their depravity. As an all-powerful state, the Soviet government attracted the most depraved people who then unleashed the worst depravity. Stalin is unique only in surpassing all others in this regard.

The Soviet death toll- those murdered in cold blood by people working for the Soviet government- exceeds, nearly doubles, the combined total of people killed in all of the 20th century's wars.

Millions were sent to the Gulags, Soviet concentration camps, where perhaps 20% of all prisoners died. Countless others suffered the drug-torture of the so-called "psychiatric hospitals," where resistance was legal proof of the need for more "treatment."
In 1919, hundreds of thousands of Don Cossacks were slaughtered in wholesale murder.
In the 1930s, the Soviet secret police issued death quotas to its regional departments. The quotas were filled with indiscriminate killing. Mothers who came to police headquarters to inquire about their arrested sons could be taken outside and shot to help fill the quotas. Children were murdered for the crimes of their parents.
From 1932-1933, five million Ukrainian peasants died in forced starvation. The Soviet government stationed troops to actively prevent anyone from escaping the famine. Doctors and relief supplies were kept out by force. The famine was a long, deliberate plan to make people dead by creating and maintaining conditions in which they could not obtain food.
From 1930-1937, Soviets carried out the systematic murder of 6,500,000 "kulaks," lower middle class peasants.
From 1937-1938, perhaps a million Communists were murdered by Stalin in the Great Terror.
In 1949, deportation and genocide of some 50,000-60,000 Estonians.

Go read the rest

Anybody got any good ideas? I'm pretty fucking depressed.

You know? Right-to-bear-arms == right-to-die-fighting. If this shit really is in our nature.......

I don't know. I just don't know. Reall, I mean... go, read. The turks. The germans. The poles. The chinese. The japanese. The cambodians. It really is fucking endless. Anybody got a brilliant idea? We could sure use one.

LL.

2002-10-10T09:55:00.000-07:00

More on arms and liberty.

I'm pretty close to calling this topic done. If you're just joining the thread now, here's the basics:

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et. al. killed something like one hundred million of their own citizens, not counting those expended fighting foreign wars.

Presidents Roosevelt was warned that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen so that the USA would join World War II.

President Johnson knew that the so-called Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened, but still used it as an excuse to start the Vietnam War.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff asked the President allow them to murder Americans in terrorist attacks and pin the blame on Cuba to justify an invasion.

Our Official National Security Strategy is, more or less, Total World Domination - to be the only remaining military power of consequence, and to do as we like.

All of this is simple historical fact. I've seen some push-back on my stance about guns in relation to these facts, but so far nobody has queried the facts themselves.

I've also argued that a population armed with rifles could make a significant difference to the progress of any democidal (democide: Government killing it's population) regime. I've also argued that the right to bear arms is part of our system of checks and balances, just like an independent judiciary, and should be viewed as similarly sacred.

Now, I want to briefly outline how I think the presence of an armed population might affect the rise of fascism in America: or in any other country.

An armed populace requires an Army to put down.
If the army is not willing to do the job, then the Dictator is unable to get their orders carried out and has lost control. Likely the Army will get rid of the dictator themselves.
Conversely, a disarmed populace requires only Police to be controlled.
If the populace can be controlled without loss of life on either side, because you can simply point a gun at them and tell them what to do, they are vulnerable to much smaller, much less fanatical groups taking control of their lives.
An armed resistance means no member of the Fascists is safe.
An armed populace can spread even the resources of an Army too thin to be effective
In the USA, the standing army is what, two million people? Less than 1% of the population. Rifle for rifle, if we had 10% firearms ownership, they would be outnumbered ten-to-one. Even if the population could not defeat them, the ability to fight a war both domestic and foreign is beyond our current means. NOTE: I'm not suggesting this could ever happen. But I am trying to say that domestic firearms ownership is constitutionally vital - that it removes certain powers from the grasp of government permanently.
If you are certain to die, you can die fighting, with dignity and meaning if you are armed.
Even if every Jew, Gypsy, Homosexual or Freemason killed in the Holocaust had killed only one tenth of a German each, Hitler would have been deprived of 1.3 million soldiers. How much more quickly would he have been defeated if no part of Germany was safe for Nazis because of partisans?
An armed populace can choose to die fighting or to submit. A disarmed populace has no such choice: regardless of their treatment, submission at gunpoint is the only course of action. [yeah, plus/minus Ghandi]
An armed populace is a deterrent against a Totalitarian, Democidal State, in the same way that a pistol is a deterrent to a mugger

This is, in essence, why I think the right to bear arms is politically significant.

I could not give two hoots about rights to self defense against criminals and the like. I think the evidence one way or the other is marginal and offset by tragedy of all kinds. I could be convinced to think differently pretty easilly, but to me it's small potatoes compared to the democide story. I view the effect of guns on crime, and the tragedies of armed psychos and accidental shootings to be small beer compared to the hundred plus million dead.

You may say that it could never come here - just remember this: Jewish veterans of World War One lived in Germany and thought they were safe because they were decorated war heros, integral parts of an integrated society. They died in the camps like everybody else.

President Bush has LEGALLY locked away American citizens without charges, without trials and without legal consultation, flouting ever constitutional principle we have. Are you so very, very certain that it could never come here?

I'm not sure I have anything else to say on the topic. You either see the history, say "yes, it is possible that within the span of my life, or the life of my children, or their children, that we could see a US Fascism and have to fight for our lives against it!" or you say "no, everything is fine, even if the Presidents lie to us, the Army wanted to bomb us and blame Cuba and the Black Budget is the size of Mt. Fuji. We'll always be safe, and the Government will protect us".

Do some background reading. Verify the stories of government betrayal, and learn more about what happened all over the world in the last century.

Then decide: do I want the right to be armed, or do I want to be defenseless?

Peace,

LL

2002-10-09T23:59:00.000-07:00

The Guardian on Bush distorting information to justify the war on Iraq

Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports which back the administration's line, the Guardian has learned. In response, some are complying, some are resisting and some are choosing to remain silent.

"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence.
...
Mr Albright said sceptics at the energy department's Lawrence Livermore national laboratory in California had been ordered to keep their doubts to themselves. He quoted a colleague at the laboratory as saying: "The administration can say what it wants and we are expected to remain silent."

Let's be clear here, shall we?

The Administration is pulling a Gulf of Tonkin here: fabricating the evidence to justify a war.

I don't know what to do about this other than to speak out; to try and inform my few-dozen readers that, "Hey, this is going on. It's happened, with President Johnson and President Roosevelt for Vietnam and WW2. I don't know how we stop it, but the first part of any action is informing people that we have a problem".

We have a problem: the President is lying to us to try and start a war. Pass it on.

2002-10-09T23:04:00.000-07:00

Libertarian Party press release on the dangers of war propaganda

"As Bush continues to build the case for invading Iraq, it's important to remember that politicians itching for war often have been less than candid with the public," Getz said.

One example is the notorious babies-being-pulled-from-incubators hoax that was perpetrated in 1990 by a Washington public relations firm, with a little help from Bush's father, President George Bush.
...
The explosive allegation that Iraqi troops had invaded a Kuwaiti hospital in 1990, pulled babies from incubators and left them on the floor to die - a charge made on national TV by Bush's father - later turned out to be patently false government propaganda.
...
"There's only problem with the story," Getz continued: "It wasn't true. It had been fabricated by Hill & Knowlton, a PR firm that had been paid $10.7 million by the government of Kuwait to sway U.S. public opinion in favor of the war.

You know, at times like this, I really like the Party.

2002-10-09T22:52:00.000-07:00

Nathan Lott on reparations [via the Armed Liberal]

Some libertarian or other (can't find who on a cursory search) suggested that we pay reparations to black people who got a second rate education during the period that government funded schools were segragated.

This makes (some) sense to me - if we're to have reparations, let's start here. This instance has some great advantages over other forms of reparations:

A clearly identifiably responsible party which still exists: the Federal Government
Living people affected by the maltreatment: those who got a second rate education.
A wrong for which a financial value can be estimated with some hope for fairness: a lousy education.

This makes sense to me. I do not think it would be at all morally questionable to compensate these people for getting a shitty education when white kids were getting a better one.

Is it a priority? I don't know. But I think that the reparations movement should start here, and deal with more complex cases later, if at all. It avoids the near-metaphysical questions about corporate responsibility and the debt to the descendents of slaves - all of which is likely to become so bogged down as to help nobody, or to open such a can of worms as to feed all the lawyers America can train for two or three generations.

Question: does anybody know who had this idea? Browne? I can't find a reference, but if you know, please email me at the address on the top left. Thanks!

2002-10-09T11:38:00.000-07:00

The Nazis killed hundreds as punishment for the assassination of SS chief Reinhard "the Hangman" Heydrich, whom Hitler replaced with an equally evil overlord.

Yet to the oppressed, the death of the hated Heydrich, who lingered in exquisite agony for days while his wounds turned gangrenous, was a morale-pumping moment of dark, primal pleasure.

"Fifty years later, yes, it's easy to say it wasn't worth it because of the number of people killed," says former Czech freedom fighter Vera Laska, an Auschwitz survivor and now a historian at Regis College in Weston. "But then, there was such a moral joy among the people with the killing of this bastard."

2002-10-09T11:07:00.000-07:00

Scott Wickstein is taking me to task about guns. grin.

This is one of the more ludicrous things I have ever read to be perfectly honest. The notion that armed civillions can adequately resist a tyrannical government is one of the more precious myths of the gun loving types (To be fair, The Lefty Libertarian favours gun ownership for ideological reasons, not because he's a gun hugger).

But really, think about it, chaps. A state that is insistant on oppressing it's citizens isn't going to be deterred by a few riflemen. For the record, the only instance of a armed citizen's revolt in US history is the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion, which was put down swiftly enough.* And the American government in the 1860's was democratic enough, but when challenged by the Confederacy, it was quite willing to devastate half it's own country to keep it together. What chance do you think a sturdy band of armed burghers face against the modern US Army? To my mind, the notion that an armed citizenry can defy a tryannical government determined to impose itself is as likely as the US Government repealing the second amendment.

Ok. This is, on the surface, a pretty good argument.

As long as you don't know very much about war.

I'm not a military historian. I'm not an expert. But let's take a quick look at a few recent conflicts and see how a poorly armed population did against a large, well prepared army:

Russia Vs. Afghanistan
USA Vs. Vietnam
Germany Vs. The Warsaw Ghetto
United Kingdom Vs. IRA

Now, all morality aside, I think we can agree that a vastly inferior force can make life very, very, very uncomfortable for a much larger one. There's a lot of history. It usually agrees. Intereting just how much of our history is about way. Anyway!

Guerrilla tactics work, but you need the basic materials. Do you think that if every Jew and Homosexual and Gypsy and Freemason in Germany had owned a rifle, the Holocaust would have been possible? No. As I said below, enough people armed with rifles make it simply impossible: rather than an oppressed populace, you get a populist uprising or a civil war. I don't think you've even begun to answer that point.

Think about it this way: assume a force of 1000 troops. How large a city can that number of men control if the populace is disarmed.

I'm going to suggest the number is upwards of 50,000. Two soliders at every intersection, and a couple of hundred in reserve to handle any uprising.

Now rethink that: arm one citizen in ten. That city of 50,000 people out-guns the soldiers by five-to-one. Occupation is impossible. What part of this is hard to understand?

An armed populace means that oppression is difficult and expensive, both in men and materials and morale. A disarmed populace makes oppression easy: you point your guns at people, and tell them to go.

Yes, an outright war may still be lost: if a government is willing to bomb it's people from the air, or gas them, or use tanks, small arms make much less of a difference. On the other hand, Armys in the field require huge civilian support to keep them supplied with ammunition and food. If those civilians require armed guards to make them work, and those guards keep getting picked off by partisans??? I'm sure you get the general idea.

Additionally, the force of will required to mount a full scale war against the people is much, much harder to find that that required to circumscribe their liberties to the point where they are obedient servants of the government, and nothing else.

Bottom line: do you believe that Hitler, Stalin or Mao could have existed, could have done what they did to their nations, if a goodly percentage of the people had been armed?

2002-10-09T10:38:00.000-07:00

Bertelsmann totally supported the Nazis. A lot of my Jewish friends won't buy products from corporations which had strong Nazi ties. I can't remember the entire list, but it's pretty large and rather scary. Guess this adds another one to the list. [via Metafilter]

2002-10-09T10:23:00.000-07:00

"And what we are dealing with right now in this country is whether we are having a kind of bloodless, silent coup or not," McDermott said at a town-hall meeting at the Jefferson Park Community Center on Beacon Hill. The event was sponsored by local Democrats and other groups in his congressional district.
...
At the heart of the debate, McDermott said, is whether Congress or the president has the power to declare war.

"This president is trying to bring to himself all the power to become an emperor — to create Empire America," he said.

And he warned his supporters, "If you go along like sheep that is what will happen."

I kiss you, Rep. McDermott!

2002-10-08T20:18:00.000-07:00

Tenet (of the CIA) says "hrm, Hussain may do nothing unless we corner and provoke him". Seems like common sense.

2002-10-08T20:07:00.000-07:00

The Armed Liberal talks about his position on self-defense firearms. Good post. I'm with it qualitatively, but quantitively, in terms of absolute conservation of life, I'm still unconvinced about self defense firearms. Of course, absolute conservation of life is a LOUSY way of making decisions.

But that, as they say, is a post for another day.

2002-10-08T17:28:00.000-07:00

One open question in my mind is: are gun arguments about self-defense relevant? I, personally, am very ambivalent about the self defense arguement. I'm sure about the anti-tyranny properties, but when we start talking about self defense alone, I'm not sure that the balance of life swings towards the gun lobby: I think readilly available handguns probably kill more than they save, all in all.

Britain really is safer than the USA. Tim Dunlop explains the Australian experience, which I haven't extensively researched, but from his data looks pretty clear cut - cutting gun availability reduced all kinds of undesireable effects.

From a pragmatic, rather than a constitutional view, I could support a ruling that people can own any kind of firearm, but they may not be used except at ranges or on private property. Things like concealed carry are for self defense, not for defense against tyranny, and I'd be very willing to trade that in for the restoration of the gun rights of the populations of New York and Chicago, who are currently, blatantly illegally, disarmed.

I think that Israel and Switzerland are both worth bringing up in this context, particularly Switzerland, where army reservists (most of the population!) have rifles. I need to do some reading on the subject, so that's a topic for another day.

In the meantime, all constitutional factors aside (hey, it works for the Government!) - I think that from a pragmatic viewpoint, I'd be happy enough banning handguns and only allowing rifles. It's not constitutionally kosher, but I'd be willing to settle for that. Either approach could cut gun violence massively, without leaving the populace defenseless against state oppression.

I'm willing to compromise right up to the point where people cannot defend themselves against tyranny. But no further. I'm scared that in the aftermath of the sniper incident, the facts I've outlined belowabout Presidential and Military betrayals of the American people will be forgotten, brushed aside - and we'll continue the rampant dismantling of our constitutional democracy.

2002-10-08T14:53:00.000-07:00

Looks like there's a general karass forming up here to debate the middle ground on guns and liberties: William Burton (and more), Tim Dunlop, and the Armed Liberal.

We all seem to be, broadly speaking, reasonable chaps. I'm probably the least reasonable of the bunch.

This is really becoming a critical issue for us in our society. We've fudged around the Second Amendment for years, never really deciding what it means, tied up in argument over which definition of Militia is relevant and so on.

I think the time has come for us, as a culture, to really take another look at this: the times have changed - military, rather than criminal, violence on American soil is now a reality, and we don't know which way to turn. Let's re-examine this from a position of principle, rather than grasping at loose straws.

I'd like to ask everybody involved in this debate to try, as we hash this out, to make the principles from which their suggestions emerge explicit. Try expecially to flesh out your chain of thought, and to highlight questionable assumptions. Not just in an "ass covering" way, but to really try and speed up and improve the quality of the discourse here.

I'm going to try and follow my own advice here, and in the next couple of days, write up my "chapter and verse" on the subject. Hope I get to read some more great arguments before then.

2002-10-07T08:35:00.000-07:00

Ok. It looks like this is going to heat up a little, so I'm pulling this from the body of my post to the top:

Roosevelt let Americans be killed to get us into World War II.
The Army planned a huge domestic terrorism campaign to start war with Cuba.
Johnson lied to us to start the Vietnam War.

I'm suggesting that, given these historical facts, gun ownership is an important. I'm not blind to the problems gun ownership causes, and I'm not going to suggest anybody is wrong to hate and fear firearms.

I am suggesting that they are very important parts of our system of checks and balances, and the right to bear them should be viewed with the same respect as the existence of an independent judiciary. I know that's not going to be a popular opinion but it's important to speak out on the why of firearms ownership.

In my mind, the only thing which justifies the cost of the right to keep and bear arms is defense against tyranny. You won't hear the NRA talking about that much, but it's the fundamental argument: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed..

Anyway, I wrote what follows in a pretty agitated state. I've had a chance to think it over and I still think the same way. But I wanted to summarize, make it easier to see the soul of my position. Here's the original post.

I was going to write something about the shootings in Maryland, but Tim Dunlop really has it all covered. It's really good analysis. It's a long series, and the first post is here.

There are three things I'd like to add.

Firstly, rifles kill with awful certainty and effectiveness.

This is not a detour. I've exhastively discussed, governments turn on their citizens from time to time, often causing wholesale slaughter. I keep bringing up the examples (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc) simply to remind people. People often have a pet theory of why this happens, and why America is different, but I've yet to see any convining hypothesis which applies to all known cases of democide. There is no convincing theory, so you'll get no reassurance from me.

As the MD sniper has illustrated, a hunting rifle is an awful, fearsome weapon when turned against a human being.

At this point you can interpret that two ways. Either you can say "and so, we must take firearms from the populace and make sure that only the Police and Army have them", or you say "and so we must ensure that the right of the people to bear arms must never be infringed, to protect us from tyranny of every sort".

I'm of the second stripe. A few dozen men (or women, for that matter) with rifles can make any form of oppression of the populace in an area difficult and deadly. Enough people armed with rifles make it simply impossible: rather than an oppressed populace, you get a populist uprising or a civil war. All ugly things, but much less ugly that being killed by the secret police, starved or gassed. Remember: we lost a hundred million people to this kind of stuff in the last century. That's a sizeable percentage of the human population at the time. I don't understand why people don't take it more seriously, to be honest.

Were a dictatorship to arise in Britain, the people could be herded up like cattle. Were a dictatorship to arise in America, they would have to fight for every inch of territory they wanted absolute control over.

If you believe it could never happen here, please continue with your day. If you wonder, perhaps, if the civilized, western Germans, the ancient culture of the Chinese - if these could turn to this sort of horror - could we too? If you wonder that? Buy a rifle and learn to shoot it well. A decent rifle can be had for less than you would think, and if fascism comes (remember that we already have citizens indefinitely detained without trial: Jose Padilla and others) at least you'll get a chance to die on your feet.

I'm not a whacky conspiracy theorist. We have incontrovertible historical evidence that President Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen. We have incontrovertible evidence that the Joint Chiefs of Staff - the highest military body we have - asked the President for permission to kill American citizens to forment war with Cuba. We have incontrovertible evidence that President Johnson knew that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened.

Please, see this. Look at the awful truth: we cannot trust our Government and they will lie to us and expend our lives to start wars which we do not want. They lie to us, allow us to be killed, expend us as resources in war. This has to change: we need to find a better way. I don't know what that way is, but we cannot go on like this. We must not go on like this. Somehow we must change our relationship to power so that the power we aggregate in the form of the government is never, ever able to destroy us.

Ai. I've become some sort of dreadful one trick pony. Sorry about that. I just think that this is the most important truth of the moment, and people will not see or refute it. If you know better, why this is wrong please, please let me know. It scares the hell out of me.

So, anyway, back to this bastard with the rifle in Maryland.

Second thing is this: if he stops now, we're never going to catch him. Simple. Never-going-to-catch-him.

It's a pretty horrible thought. That somebody could do this and get away with it. In the past, things like this have always been done by mentally deranged people; folks who intended to die in the process. This guy is trying, very hard, not to get caught or killed.

Finally, if and when they catch him, it's going to be a matter of luck. Somebody will see the van, or they'll have a flat tire, or a police sniper will be looking the right way at the right time.

I'm pretty sure there's going to turn out to be a political dimention to all of this. I don't know what, but nothing about this patteren of activity fits what we've seen from psychos with rifles before. This looks much more military in general style.

And that's very, very disturbing. I don't know what else to say, really.

2002-10-04T16:04:00.000-07:00

Reason on trade barriers (stealing from the poor and giving to the rich) [via the instapundid. you know where he lives]

2002-10-04T11:58:00.000-07:00

This should be interesting: six more citizens arrested on terrorism charges. Given that Jose Padilla is still being locked away without consultation or trial (that's unconstitutional folks!) it'll be interesting to see if justice is done by these folks, or if they also vanish without a trace.

Remember: we've tried men who shot presidents. Let us try these people too.

2002-10-04T10:33:00.000-07:00

Great use of flash - for displaying various bits of the official bin Laden story.

2002-10-04T10:25:00.000-07:00

Sixteen years ago this week, an agent of the Israeli secret police, Mossad, enticed the Israeli nuclear technician, Mordechai Vanunu, to Rome. The holiday ended abruptly when Mordechai was kidnapped and taken to Israel, where he was charged with espionage and treason and given a prison sentence of 18 years. His crime? In 1986 he had blown the whistle on Israel's nuclear weapons.

Israel makes me sick.

Seriously. Back in '48, the dream was of a peaceful existence: a secure homeland for the Jews, to make them safe from future persecutions. Instead it's become a militaristic hell run by ogers, armed to the teeth with nukes and the like, with a secret service which is among the bloodiest in the world. They spy on the USA on a regular basis (of course, I'm sure we spy on them too!) and flout just about every international body which asks them to moderate their behavior.

Nobody wants this: many Israeli citizens are disgusted by their government, and so am I.

2002-10-03T20:00:00.000-07:00

Eventually all ideologies loop around and meet on the other side, sort of like a belief-system Mobius strip. Enter southpaw libertarianism.

Yes, yes, but do you believe?. Are you with me or against me? Show me a sign!

2002-10-03T19:56:00.000-07:00

Tim Dunlop has this to say:

Rather than see the individual as being in opposition to something called "society" or "community" or even "the state", perhaps we can suggest that it is precisely the way we organise ourselves collectively--as communities, societies or states--that allows us to enjoy the sort of individual freedom we want. I think this opens up possibilities for political and economic organisation that are swamped in the usual liberal, rationalist emphasis on "the individual" and its concommitant denigration of nearly all forms of collective organisation.

Frankly, I wish I'd been able to articulate this feeling as well as Tim has. Hey man, wanna write a manifesto?

First, though, we've got to talk about this

This means that governments have a role, not just in facilitating a healthy business environment, but in providing institutions that allow our individuality to flourish outside the purely economic. This means letting market forces reign when they will do some good, but reining them in when they won't. Governments can get out of airlines, say, but it is important that they retain social control over vital infrastructure such as power and perhaps even telecommunications. They will have a role in regulating market practices. And they need to be able to provide universal health cover and education and other services that tend to equalise both opportunity and outcome, without which the concept of "individuality" or "individual freedom" is meaningless.

Nope. As I've talked about endlessly in the various posts about democide on this blog, the real reason for trying to eliminate big government is that, when the government makes war on the people as seems to happen every so often (tally: over a hundred million killed in government persecution in the 20th century, not counting wars between countries), a big state gives the bastards a massive head start.

No. Small government, strong people. If you give the government the right to regulate, own and control vital infrastructure simply because it is vital, you may as well declare yourself a socialist. Anything can be added to the list called "vital" at any time, and whatever freedoms we have managed to secure go straight down the toilet as soon as the government goes bad.

It's harsh, but we really have to face this head on: our institutions always become corrupt and turn against us. We have to stop praying for success and start designing for failure.

Fail-safe government: when the government goes bad, the people should be able to survive it's passing. No other stance I am aware of has integrated the lessons of our recent history about the murderousness of the unlimited state. All forms of traditional Leftism - socialist, green and communist alike - somehow assume that the people are going to be able to keep control of their institutions for ever. This is clearly a waking-eyed dream - history does not support it and, indeed, makes this stance look criminally negligent. Being in charge of a vote and not understanding your responsibility, as it were.

I'm really serious about this: institutions inevitably become corrupt. If we accept this truth, how would we build our society? Balance of powers is a good start: redundancy is a simple way of making a system more reliable.

But the failure, even of a multiply redundant system, always comes eventually. If the failure of the system results in the death of millions, a mistake has been made: life has been lost because of poor design.

Government should be designed that, when it fails, the people are not slaughtered, nor enslaved, nor deprived of their right to start over. The Founding Fathers clearly held this point of view, and they were very clear that the liberty of the people was their own to defend against tyrrany of all kinds. We've lost a lot of their clear sight over the years, and I pray it will return soon.

2002-10-03T19:47:00.000-07:00

My sort-of-manifesto contained the following:

"So, in essence, if I thought that socialism could work, I'd be a socialist. I don't believe it can because of the problems implicit in the way power is handled inside the socialist construct. Anarchism, to my eye, has no effective defense against capitalism -free people will choose to trade and can accumulate wealth, state or no state. So we may as well accept that capitalism will arise inside of an anarchist system, which basically leaves Libertarianism - anarchism plus some government and a common law framework."

A few people, Scott (see below) among them, have thought that I'm against profit, free trade, mom and apple pie.

Nothing could be further from the truth: I love mom and apple pie. I'm all in favor of free trade too.

More to the point, I believe that free people will trade, will profit, and will therefore accumulate capital. You have to try really, really hard to stop them, and all that results is corruption. Trying to ban capitalism is like trying to ban drinking - people route around the foolishness and get on with their lives. It's an attempt to prohibit human nature. That doesn't work!

If you try to ban markets, then all markets will be black markets. That serves nobody.

To me, this argument damns classical Anarchism as surely as the "democide" argument slays socialism of all forms.

If anarchism is not an evolutionarily stable strategy with respect to anarchocapitalism, we may as well bury Anarchism in the graveyard of unrealistic ideas. Let us say an anarchy exists. Some people start trading with eachother using pre-revolutionary Budweiser cans as currency. Soon enough, a capitalist enclave exists within the Anarchy. Anarchocapitalism can exist within Anarchy and it cannot be prevented from arising: at that point the notion of Anarchy Without Capitalism becomes a joke: if it can arise, it probably will, so we might as well stop pretending that somehow, if Anarchy comes, capitalism is going away.

I don't necessarily believe in pure anarchocapitalism as a possibility either, but the differences between it and a more general libertarian stance are a long, long way from mattering in any current real-world political situation. At the moment, as far as I can see, all stripes of Libertarian and anarcho-capitalist have common cause, and as I said earlier, that's good enough for me.

So, I hope that clears the point up, and I appologise for any confusion I caused! LL.

2002-10-03T19:12:00.000-07:00

I'm locked and loaded. ;-)

I'd sort-of been waiting for classical or crypto-republican libertarians to start firing back, and here's a prize one:
Scott Wickstein has his say.

The problem I have with this statement is that you have to define terms. "Human Welfare" is a relative concept. It involves making decisions. And remember what I said before- People are Stupid! Therefore you have stupid people making decisions about the welfare of the community.

There's a lot more of that sort of stuff. You know the basic tune, right?

Scott seems to be arguing that, because I'm libertarian for altruistic reasons (I think everybody will be happier and safer with a libertarian situation), I'm not a libertarian. This is conflating libertarianism with selfishness. The whole point of this blog is to try and flesh out a new ideological foundation for Libertarianism. A libertarianism based on altruism: the desire for everybody to be happy.

Now, stop and think about that: an individualist philosophy adopted for collectivist aims. I believe that WE will ALL be happier if we choose to live as freely as we can. To encourage people as a whole, as a collective which sets the ground rules for conduct within a nation, to change those groundrules to maximise individual freedom of choice. Not because it's some sort of "natural right" but because it is better for us all to be free than to be eachother's chattel.

All government is about collective decision making. The notion that selfishness is a good enough foundation for freedom, and that "enlightened self interest" is going to motivate people, is pure stupidity. All successful political movements wave the flag of "Better For Everybody! Freedom, Peace and Happiness For ALL". People clearly have within them an urge to identify with groups and try and attain the welfare of groups they identify with. Libertarian thinking usually ignores this impulse and that is one reason the Party languishes: they're still essentially taking the same old selfish line forward. Be a Libertarian because it's The Best Thing For YOU!.

This is pure crypto-republicanism. It's not radical politics, it's the same old hypercapitalist, limited-liability bullshit. Nothing visionary or uplifting about it at all. And without a visionary and uplifting element, without an appeal to the welfare of the whole human race, almost all political philosopies are as appealing as turd pie. Bob Black in The Libertarian as Conservative is required reading here.

David Brin, in Essences, Orcs and Civilization: The Case for a Cheerful Libertarianism is thinking along the same lines: these quirks in the way that we pitch Libertarianism make a great philosophy of life look like a bunch of selfish, arrogant assholes trying to ditch the weak and the unfortunate. It's an excellent essay.

I think that Brin has really articulated the case for pitching the Libertarian conclusion - indeed, arriving at the libertarian conclusion, from different axioms. One sign of a good political philosophy is when different kinds of people can agree that it is a good idea, even if they start from different situations, different axioms and different ways of life. Political biodiversity is a sign of health, and it's one of the reasons we ought to ditch Ayn Rand and her followers as the High Priesthood of Libertarian Thought. Their insistance that all other axioms are faulty, and that all other modes of thought are the result of stupidity, is totalizing nonsense. It's intellectually lazy, cultish and unworthy.

2002-10-02T11:45:00.000-07:00

Game on: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq .

2002-10-01T21:23:00.000-07:00

David Brin - Essences, Orcs and Civilization: The Case for a Cheerful Libertarianism. Still thinking about this, I'll have some thoughts on it tomorrow.

2002-10-01T14:45:00.000-07:00

Freedom of Information Act reports close the book on Pearl Harbor. The government knew, at the very least. Case closed. Fifty years from now we may discover that Bush knew too. Maybe, maybe not. But it's not a stupid position any more, at least in my book.

2002-10-01T09:25:00.000-07:00

Peaceniks go camping in Iraq. Now, these people are going to catch hell in the blogosphere..... just catch hell. But I'll say this: they have the courage of their convictions, unlike the gajillions of right-wing bloggers howling for war.

You want war? Go enlist and fight it yourself.

2002-10-01T08:30:00.000-07:00

Europeans concerned that BushCo has publicly stated they'd like to be the only military power and run the world. Surprising! Imagine that!

2002-09-30T12:17:00.000-07:00

Businessweek on Eldred Vs. Ashcroft

2002-09-30T12:13:00.000-07:00

More on the American Empire.

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

2002-09-30T11:08:00.000-07:00

Now that's a protest I can really get down with

2002-09-30T10:36:00.000-07:00

Democracy at work from the Republicans

"For him to be in Baghdad, the center of one of the most dangerous dictators in the world, with all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, to be questioning the veracity of our own American president, is the height of irresponsible," said Lott, R-Mississippi. "He needs to come home and keep his mouth shut."

2002-09-29T13:10:00.000-07:00

Great Nation article on wandering Russian nukes.

2002-09-29T13:09:00.000-07:00

Another great "Bush Wants Total World Domination" article, with more depth and history

2002-09-29T13:07:00.000-07:00

Black Panther Coloring Book. Priceless images, great story. Those whacky government agents!

2002-09-29T12:50:00.000-07:00

Global warming could change fundamental weather patterns within the decade and fuck the climate on a massive, massive scale.

When I say “dramatic,” I mean: Average winter temperatures could drop by 5 degrees Fahrenheit over much of the United States, and by 10 degrees in the northeastern United States and in Europe. That’s enough to send mountain glaciers advancing down from the Alps. To freeze rivers and harbors and bind North Atlantic shipping lanes in ice. To disrupt the operation of ground and air transportation. To cause energy needs to soar exponentially. To force wholesale changes in agricultural practices and fisheries. To change the way we feed our populations. In short, the world, and the world economy, would be drastically different.

Ouch.

2002-09-29T12:45:00.000-07:00

Smuggled uranium is grams, not kilograms. I'm guessing they weight the stuff in it's lead container. Better still, the two men caught with the goods were released and have vanished. WHAT THE FUCK? How the hell do you explain that?

2002-09-29T12:42:00.000-07:00

Kuro5hin on the tragedy of the commons. Some good links and references in the comments.

2002-09-29T12:34:00.000-07:00

International Atomic Energy Authority says BushCo are making up stories about Iraq's nuclear capability. In essence, Bush has been quoting reports which do not exist to justify claims that Iraq is close to the bomb.

2002-09-29T01:40:00.000-07:00

By the way, if we do end up fighting a full scale war with Iraq, don't be surprised if we get hit really fucking hard.

Not necessarily by the Iraqis, you understand: in the light of the openly declared "Total World Domination" plans of the new defence reviews, anybody who thinks different could mount attacks and blame the Iraqis. It could be the Chinese, the remains of Eastern Europe, any of the other Arab nations, hell even the Israelis. Anybody who wants to take us down or blow the entire situation to hell and back could attack the US covertly under cover of the War With Iraq. They've all got plenty-good weapons programs, or can buy what they would need on the black market (Soviet biowar labs are pretty poorly guarded these days, right?). They have motives, of one sort or another. It could happen. Hand a couple of Arab extremeists a vial of something nasty or a suitcase nuke or have your own people plant something nasty and leave a Koran where the CIA will find it after the balloon goes up. People really do things like that.

Hell, even the Iraqis could have something nasty hidden away: imagine that! We declare war on them, and they fuck us up. Okay then, that's a novel idea.

Back to the point. I'm not a survivalist. I took Y2K seriously enough to have filled the bathtubs with water and worried about food. But if you live in the USA, now might be a good time to do some survival shopping. In most of the scenarios in which there is a strike on US soil, it's going to be nuclear, biological or chemical. Chemical is unlikely to affect you: unless you're unlucky enough to be where the event/s are, you're fine.

Nuclear likewise. Of course, the horrific shock of the US losing an entire city in a momentary flash of light and heat isn't very real to us at this point (just ask the Japanese how it affected them.... then watch Akira for the real answer) but if it happens expect martial law, supply chain problems, the whole nine yards. Also electromagnetic damage to things like telephone networks. But the big one is psychological shock; we'd go down and not get up again for at least six weeks.

Biological is the biggie. I've talked extensively about smallpox elsewhere in the blog, but it's not the only person-to-person transmissible agent. By which I mean this: a biological agent which is not spread person-to-person is essentially the same as a chemical weapon. If you're there, you're dead, and if you're not, you're going to be fine.

Person-to-person transmissable pathogens - plague agents, if you will - are a much bigger concern. We're talking about end-of-life-as-we-know-it scenarios at least until calm is restored.

In any case, we're headed for times in which it might not hurt to be able to stay indoors for a couple of weeks and not have to worry so much about what's happening outside.

The Lefty Libertarian's Guide To Disaster Preparedness In A Nutshell.
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, but I'm intelligent, worried, and I've trawled the internet endlessly. You have been warned, and if my advice gets you killed, tough shit. This isn't a guide to "survival done right" - rather, this is the plan you could carry out in a long weekend and get mostly right, if you got very worried about stability of supply lines.

Most important: pre-order any medications you need.
Have an advanced supply of at least two weeks, and preferably two months. I don't need to explain how hard it is to come by insulin when somebody just detonated a nuclear bomb in Chicago or smallpox is raging in LA.
Get food and water.
There are endless survival food guides online. They're all great if you live in a bunker. The Lefty Libertarian Survival Shopping Guide? Go to Sam's Club or an equivalent bulk foods place. Buy $200 dollars worth of food in cans plus fifteen pounds of Pasta. Get the fun stuff - party food, instant coffee, cheeze whiz. A simple propane stove and ten 1lb tanks of propane is another $35 - Wal Mart is your friend here. Without this you will not be able to heat your food. Owie.

Especially pay attention to the #10 cans of things like refried beans for like $3. You may say "why would I ever want something like that?" and the answer is simple: they make excellent spacers for bookshelves. If you ever need to eat them, hell has probably come to earth. But they're there, just in case. Buy some water: ten gallons in those two gallon plastic tubs they have at the store is about enough for a week. Unless you live by a river, multiply by how paranoid you are for the amount to buy.

This is not a well-planned approach, you understand. This is realistic behavior in times of panic ;-). You could do more but, at the very least, consider doing this. The shopping list is simple: $200 of non-perishable foods and a propane stove plus fuel for two months, plus water.
Urban Camping Supplies
You have stout boots, a waterproof jacket, a tent and sleeping bag and all of that stuff, right? Good. If it's cold, pitching your tent indoors and sleeping in your bag will help a lot. Water filters: if there's biological warfare afoot, drinking water could be contaminated: iodine is your friend here. May also help with fallout.

Yes, we could get hit. Let me repeat that: yes, we could get hit. If we do get hit, these things could save your life. You could die in this war. Can I make that real to you? We could die in this war: these "weapons of mass destruction" take out cities. We live in cities. What if one reaches us?

Given the inefficiencies of the FBI and the CIA, who were warned again and again about hijackers, who had been tracking many of the 19 people who scarred new york last year and started this whole mess, do you feel safe? Do you trust them to protect you, given how badly they failed before???

Think batteries: LED flashlights run for weeks off three AAA cells. Buy one. Spare batteries, perhaps a cheap chinese solar powered battery charger. Possibly a couple of cheap FRS or GRMS radios. Make sure you know how to use them. Think first aid kit: bandages, antibiotics, know-how. Think "do I know what to do if I get food poisoning, and the emergency room is filled with burn victims and I'm on my own?". Speculate on treatments for radiation poisoning.

This is what war is like. Do we really want to unleash this on anybody? What if they manage to unleash it on us?

Maps: of your city, and of your immeidate locality, in as much detail as you can manage. A good backpack, in case you have to leave on foot, as could happen if your area was evacuated.

Make sure you have all the things you would need to go "camping", but in exactly the place where you live. Strip off the constant influx of goods and services and energy which we have around us at all times in town, and suddenly you're in the wilderness right where you are.
Talk to your similarly paranoid friends.
Encourage them to prepare also. If you're lucky, one or more of them will be hardened Y2K nuts who've just been dying to show off their gear and psychowisdom after looking like such idiots only a couple of years ago.

Friends are important because imperfect planning is greatly improved by redundancy. You bought fifty pounds of Tuna, and they've got sixteen crates of Mayonaise. You've got a flashlight, and they've got batteries.

Nobody can do it all and we all make mistakes. Community will keep you alive better than any other single asset.

Understand that in a war, your friends are all you have. Sometimes they die.

I hope I'm being sufficiently alarmist here. Between Bush suspending important bits of the constitution on one hand, the Israelis vaccinating first responders against smallpox on the other, and the 33 pounds of Uranium on the other hand again, I'm beginning to think it'll be a bloody miracle if we don't see troubles on this scale before the year's end. If we do, we'll be drawing on the same kinds of experience and wisdom which helped keep the Europeans alive during WWII. Boiling your shoes and eating them, for instance.

We haven't had a war fought on American soil in many, many generations. We've forgotten what it might be like.

It might be like this: you could starve to death in your home in the middle of winter with the lights out for as far as the eye can see and armed soldiers preventing egress from your town. That's what war is like. No war in Iraq.

If you were an Iraqi, how would you feel right now, knowing that the Americans, who have been systematically denying your nation the ability to purchase basic medical equipment, food and god knows what else on the world market, are planning to invade your nation? How would you feel if rather than a small chance of attack from terrorists, you faced the entire might of the US military, plus the dictator of your own nation, whom you secretly loathe and fear?

Be prepared. We could get hurt. Have compassion. They certainly will get hurt, and many tens of thousands will die.

This is war. This is what it really looks like. Ask a Vietnam veteran how it was for them to really understand it. Don't let our evil idiot Resident drag us into this.

2002-09-29T01:23:00.000-07:00

Let's Declare War!. Well, yeah, if we're going to blow up Iraq, it'd be polite to do this.

2002-09-28T23:31:00.000-07:00

WELCOME TO THE POLICE STATE. Not that this is really any more dramatic than half a dozen other things, but it's really, really clear: NYPD want more freedom to monitor domestic dissidents.

I was arguing with a bunch of right wing, pro-war types on another blog about Jose Padilla, whom the ACLU want tried openly. I tried to explain to these goons that, as far as the current law is concerned, George Bush could declare Al Gore an enemy combatant, lock him up on the spot, and never allow him to talk to another human being again. No appeal, no questioning of evidence, nothing. He'd be gone, for ever, and it would all be completely "legal", constitution void where prohibited by law. Where, in this instance, Al Gore is "everyman" and anybody.

These bozos did not know enough to be afraid of a government which claims that sort of power over it's citizens and that makes me afraid. With that kind of blind trust in government and in Resident Bush, we're half way to disaster already.

2002-09-28T21:14:00.000-07:00

Al Jazeera says one of thier reporters is being held at Guantanamo bay. Let's assume this is true for a moment. This poor guy is being held indefinitely, and there have been strong hints from the administration that prisoners being held there are never going to see the light of day again.

Sucks to be that reporter.

Ah well, it's only civil liberties, right?

2002-09-28T20:52:00.000-07:00

PAYBACKS: How the Bush Administration is Giving Away Our Environment to Corporate Contributors. A completly amazing, completely damming document.

“The biggest challenge is going to be how to best utilize taxpayer dollars to the benefit of industry…”— Mike Smith, Bush administration Assistant Secretary for Fossil Fuels at the U.S. Department of Energy

2002-09-28T20:35:00.000-07:00

Universal Basic Income offers an interesting approach to free market socialism. Tax everybody and share the loot equally - no government programs, just give people money and let them figure out how to spend it.

Interestingly, I think that this approach gives almost all of the practical benefits of Libertarianism (i.e. reduce the state to something manageable) with almost none of the theoretical baggage or BS about absolute (nay, infinite) property rights.

The $30,000 Solution gives a practical approach: redistribution of unearned income to give everybody a basic income - of $30,000. Seriously: all of the interest etc. just gets redistributed, but your earnings you can keep.

Geonomists get to the same conclusion, but by a different mechanism: that everybody has equal rights to the bounty of the land which we share as a nation.

Who's against the welfare state? - very interesting read about political movements against the welfare state in Canada.

Social welfare is a hard problem. Redistributory taxation may be a necessity of a stable, well run society: without it, there may simply be too many social problems for society as a whole to function smoothly - problems which charity may not address. That's too long and complicated to go into this evening, but I really think that Universal Basic Income may have the right balance of Left Idealism and Libertarian Realism.

Or perhaps the other way round.

2002-09-28T20:28:00.000-07:00

Creationist Anarcho-socialism. Couldn't make this up. via ABuddhas Memes

2002-09-28T20:16:00.000-07:00

George Bush's Secret Society - The Skull and Bones (Atlantic Monthly). The author's book is quite a lot more controversial:

The society anoints the initiate with a new name, symbolizing his rebirth and rechristening as Knight X, a member of the Order. It is during this initiation that the new members are introduced to the artifacts in the tomb, among them Nazi memorabilia--including a set of Hitler's silverware-dozens of skulls, and an assortment of decorative tchotchkes: coffins, skeletons, and innards.

via Dr Menlo, who also explains the Bush Family Nazi Connection.

2002-09-27T22:22:00.000-07:00

I don't know whether to love this guy or hate him, but he's a great writer and funny as hell. Kim du Toit is well worth a read.

2002-09-27T12:46:00.000-07:00

Zinn on the war. Same old, same old.

2002-09-27T11:55:00.000-07:00

Ashcroft’s Baghdad Connection - Why the attorney general and others in Washington have backed a terror group with ties to Iraq

2002-09-27T11:49:00.000-07:00

Scott Ritter - What turned the hawkish Iraq weapons inspector into a dove? By Michael Crowley. Worth a look, raises intelligent questions about Ritter's change of position on Iraq.

2002-09-27T11:46:00.000-07:00

Bush: how I'll rule the world - Sidney Morning Herald. A good read.

2002-09-27T09:51:00.000-07:00

I posted a while back about the notion that a good analysis of a political system is identifying the very most childish impuse which can give rise to it. Turns out there might be more to that idea than I though!.

LIBERTARIAN: leave me alone! I'm playing!
COMMUNIST:we should all share equally! That's fair!
AUTHORITARIAN: I'm your father! Do as you're told!
BUSHIST: I want it all! It's mine, mine, mine! Jonny, they don't like me! Put them all in jail for me, won't you!

As you can see, it's a really fast way of getting to the essence of the thing ;-) ;-) ;-)

2002-09-27T09:45:00.000-07:00

Israel is dependent on America for financial and military support. That means that having the US public decide that they don't like Israel's policies on, for example, Palestine/ians, could be very, very dangerous. This is why we see things like this report on Campus Watch, an organization which tries to brand everybody who wants the situation in Israel changed as an anti-semite.

There is not enough debate on Israel. I, personally, think that comparisons between Israel and South Africa are quite charitable. I am not, in any way, shape, or form an anti-semite; more than half of my closest friends are Jewish, and a lot of them aren't any too comfortable about the shenanigans of the Israeli government and to a lesser extent the Israeli people. But the Israeli situation is out of hand, and if we really want peace, we should be pressuing the Israelis and the Palestinians into a two-state solution.

2002-09-27T09:37:00.000-07:00

'Even if Iraq managed to hide these weapons, what they are now hiding is harmless goo'. Scott Ritter in the Guardian. Pretty much chapter and verse on is position and credientials (basically, he was a weapons inspector and he says the Iraqis got nothin'). Not everybody agrees that he's a worthy source, but he seems like somebody who should be refuted with evidence, not with assertions. If we know that Iraq is a danger, we should be shown the goods, not blustered upon as we were by Blair's Iraq Report.

2002-09-27T08:49:00.000-07:00

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate on Ashcroft and the Second Amendment. I'm all in favor of gun ownership, but I do agree with her point..... he just pulled this one out of his ass. God knows what else he has up there!

2002-09-27T08:46:00.000-07:00

Stepford Citizen Syndrome: Top 10 Signs Your Neighbor is Brainwashed. Is funny.

2002-09-26T13:14:00.000-07:00

This is the full text of an open letter from the edfitors of The Nation. This is important enough to quote whole. Sorry for the length. Good discussions here at Metafilter. Now, this is a stupid link, but read it The White Rose. Germans who protested Hitler. Here's what I'm saying: listen to the tone of voice in the first couple of White Rose pamphlets. Now read the open letter. Listen to the tone of voice.

These editors of The Nation are smart, informed, and very, very afraid. They think we have lost control of the government, and they are right. This affects you and me personally. Figure out what you can do if Bush becomes another Hitler. Remember that technology is much advanced from Hitler's time and that the resources of the American government are nearly infinite. Decide, if it comes to it, will you submit or resist?

This is not a joke. Fascism is real and it happens to the best of nations. Do you think Russians were somehow subhuman when Stalin came to power, or the Germans when Hitler rose? No: people like you and me backed people like Hitler and Stalin, either by action or inaction. There is no American magic to protect us - even our lauded Constution is valueless if unenforced.

This is not an idle speculation: we may be in our own 1933, or perhaps our own 1937, or god forbid our own 1939. Who knows who will be the slaughtered this time: perhaps Arabs, or Muslims, or all Foreigners and non-Citizens. Given the Christian Right leanings of the President, perhaps the Jews and the Gays again.

Perhaps you, perhaps me. Perhaps they'll just stick RFID tags in all of our arms and take our genetic fingerprints for security purposes.

We'll never know if Hitler could have been defeated had the German people resisted the rise of Hitler by every Constitutional and just means. We do know that had the 11 million Hitler exterminated been armed, it would have been a civil war rather than a simple massacre. Awaken to the crisis of your times, America. Read this and understand: they are talking about your country here, not somewhere else. This is us: we are the Empire they speak of below.

The editors of The Nation present "An Open Letter to Congress"

Soon, you will be asked to vote on a resolution authorizing the United States to overthrow the government of Iraq by military force. Its passage, we read on all sides, is a foregone conclusion, as if what the country now faces is not a decision but the disclosure of a fate. The nation marches as if in a trance to war. In the House, twenty of your number, led by Dennis Kucinich, have announced their opposition to the war. In the Senate, Robert Byrd has mounted a campaign against the version of the resolution already proposed by the Bush Administration. He has said that the resolution's unconstitutionality will prevent him from voting for it. "But I am finding," he adds, "that the Constitution is irrelevant to people of this Administration." The Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to the Washington Post, oppose the war. Telephone calls and the mail to your offices run strongly against it. Polls and news stories reveal a divided and uncertain public. Yet debate in your chambers is restricted to peripheral questions, such as the timing of the vote, or the resolution's precise scope. You are a deliberative body, but you do not deliberate. You are representatives, but you do not represent.

The silence of those of you in the Democratic Party is especially troubling. You are the opposition party, but you do not oppose. Raising the subject of the war, your political advisers tell you, will distract from the domestic issues that favor the party's chances in the forthcoming Congressional election. In the face of the Administration's pre-emptive war, your leaders have resorted to pre-emptive surrender. For the sake of staying in power, you are told, you must not exercise the power you have in the matter of the war. What, then, is the purpose of your re-election? If you succeed, you will already have thrown away the power you supposedly have won. You will be members of Congress, but Congress will not be Congress. Even the fortunes of the domestic causes you favor will depend far more on the decision on the war than on the outcome of the election.

On April 4, 1967, as the war in Vietnam was reaching its full fury, Martin Luther King Jr. said, "A time comes when silence is betrayal." And he said, "Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak."

Now the time to speak has come again. We urge you to speak--and, when the time comes, to vote--against the war on Iraq.

The case against the war is simple, clear and strong. The Administration calls it a chapter in the war on terror, but Iraq has no demonstrated ties either to the September 11 attack on the United States or to the Al Qaeda network that launched it. The aim of the war is to deprive President Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, but the extent of his program for building these weapons, if it still exists, is murky. Still less clear is any intention on his part to use such weapons. To do so would be suicide, as he well knows. Democratic Representative Anna Eshoo of California has reported that in closed session Administration officials have been asked several times whether they have evidence of an imminent threat from Saddam against the United States and have answered no. She elaborated, "Not 'no, but' or 'maybe,' but 'no.'" On the other hand, if he does have them, and faces his overthrow and possible death at the hands of US forces, he might well use them--or, more likely, give them to terrorist groups to use after his fall. He may be doing so even now.

Some observers have likened the resolution under discussion to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964 authorizing President Johnson to use force in Vietnam. But that was passed only after a report was received of two attacks on US naval forces. (We now know that the first attack was provoked by a prior secret American attack and the second was nonexistent.) The new resolution, which alleges no attack, not even a fictional one, goes a step further. It is a Tonkin Gulf resolution without a Tonkin Gulf incident.

Even if Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction and wishes to use them, a policy of deterrence would appear perfectly adequate to stop him, just as it was adequate a half-century ago to stop a much more fearsome dictator, Joseph Stalin. It is not true that military force is the only means of preventing the proliferation of these weapons, whether to Iraq or other countries. An alternative path is clearly available. In the short run it passes through the United Nations and its system of inspections, now more promising than before because Iraq, responding to US pressure, has opened itself unconditionally to inspectors. At the very least, this path should be fully explored before military action--the traditional last resort--is even considered. Such a choice in favor of multilateralism, diplomacy and treaty agreements should be part of a much broader policy of nonproliferation and disarmament of the kind that has already enjoyed great success over the past several decades. Under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, for example, 182 nations have agreed to do without nuclear weapons. The larger issue is whether proliferation--not just to Iraq but to many other countries as well--is best addressed by military or political means.

But the decision to go to war has a significance that goes far beyond the war. The war is the product of a broader policy that has been spelled out in the clearest possible terms by the Bush Administration. Two other countries with nuclear programs--Iran and North Korea--have already been identified by the President as potential targets for military attack. The Administration's recently published "National Security Strategy of the United States" sets forth even larger ambitions. It declares a policy of military supremacy over the entire earth--an objective never before attained by any power. Military programs are meanwhile forbidden to other countries, all of whom are to be prevented from "surpassing or equaling" the United States. China is singled out for a warning that by "pursuing advanced military capabilities," it is following an "outdated path" that "threaten[s] its neighbors." The new policy reverses a long American tradition of contempt for unprovoked attacks. It gives the United States the unrestricted right to attack nations even when it has not been attacked by them and is not about to be attacked by them. It trades deterrence for pre-emption--in plain English, aggression. It accords the United States the right to overthrow any regime--like the one in Iraq--it decides should be overthrown. (The President would like international support and he would like Congressional support but asserts his right to wage war without either.) It declares that the defense of the United States and the world against nuclear proliferation is military force. It is an imperial policy--more ambitious than ancient Rome's, which, after all, extended only to the Mediterranean and European world. Nelson Mandela recently said of the Administration, "They think they're the only power in the world.... One country wants to bully the world."

A vote for the war in Iraq is a vote for this policy. The most important of the questions raised by the war, however, is larger still. It is what sort of country the United States wants to be in the twenty-first century. The genius of the American form of government was the creation of a system of institutions to check and balance government power and so render it accountable to the people. Today that system is threatened by a monster of unbalanced and unaccountable power--a new Leviathan--that is taking shape among us in the executive branch of the government. This Leviathan--concealed in an ever-deepening, self-created secrecy and fed by streams of money from corporations that, as scandal after scandal has shown, have themselves broken free of elementary accountability--menaces civil liberties even as it threatens endless, unprovoked war. As disrespectful of the Constitution as it is of the UN Charter, the Administration has turned away from law in all its manifestations and placed its reliance on overwhelming force to achieve its ends.

In pursuit of empire abroad, it endangers the Republic at home. The bully of the world threatens to become the bully of Americans, too. Already, the Justice Department claims the right to jail American citizens indefinitely on the sole ground that a bureaucrat in the Pentagon has labeled them something called an "enemy combatant." Even the domestic electoral system has been compromised by the debacle in Florida. Nor has the shadow cast on democracy by that election yet been lifted. Election reform has not occurred. Modest campaign reform designed to slow the flood of corporate cash into politics, even after passage in Congress, is being eviscerated by executive decisions. More important, this year's Congressional campaign, by shunning debate on the fundamental issue of war and peace, has signaled to the public that even in the most important matters facing the country neither it nor its representatives decide; only the executive does.

Members of Congress! Be faithful to your oaths of office and to the traditions of your branch of government. Think of the country, not of your re-election. Assert your power. Stand up for the prerogatives of Congress. Defend the Constitution. Reject the arrogance--and the ignorance--of power. Show respect for your constituents--they require your honest judgment, not capitulation to the executive. Say no to empire. Affirm the Republic. Preserve the peace. Vote against war in Iraq.

2002-09-26T12:27:00.000-07:00

Humberto Fontova on free trade and diversity. Well written and very funny. I don't agree, but he's got some beauties!

But forget those quacks. Let's take business advice from a guy who really raked it in, who piled up more than all these clowns combined, honestly, and with all the odds against him. I refer, of course, to Keith Richards, who revealed his business secret with perfect lucidity and economy while discussing the immensely profitable (tour receipts: $550,000,000) Budweiser endorsement of the Rolling Stones Steel Wheels Tour. "We were sure we'd shafted the Budweiser people," he drawled to Rolling Stone magazine in 1990.

"And they were convinced they'd rooked us . . . Yeah, the perfect business deal."

There you have it. A glittering gem. More wisdom in 15 words than a library of business book bosh.

2002-09-26T12:23:00.000-07:00

John Perry Barlow: from the Dead to the EFF, he's doing great work. Today's fair from Forbes: Barlow on our intelligence services, on the non-persuit of happiness and on the nature of the electronic experience. Smart man. I'd elect him, if he'd run.

2002-09-25T11:47:00.000-07:00

Us and the romans.. Sample of the goods:
Codchef: "closes his eyes and tries to picture the senate getting together and stabbing the president to death".

Those were different times......

2002-09-25T11:43:00.000-07:00

Assholes.

Focus on war was a key point in a talk that centered on the White House's desire to, quote, "maintain a positive issue environment." Around this time, Rove was criticized for telling a Republican group that the war and terror themes could play to the GOP's advantage in the November elections. Not long after, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was asked why the administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq. Card replied, From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.

Tom Daschle has some choice words on the topic. At last, the democrats find their voice. I was beginning to think that the cat had their tongue.

2002-09-24T20:55:00.000-07:00

Ok, time to bite the bullet. What the fuck is a lefty libertarian?

I've been pondering this for days, trying to figure out how to explain it, ever since I stepped out on the limb and named the blog. Now people are beginning to ask me.

Here's what it boils down to: the cult of selfishness which has invaded libertarian thought from Ayn Rand is complete bullshit. I stopped being a socialist when I was politely informed "socialism requires a central government with arbitrary powers": I just don't trust government that much. But I still believe that we, as a society, should choose to adopt governing rules which ensure the greatest good for the greatest number.

I believe that, because of the massive, horrible problems which every strong, centralized government eventually drives it's people into (war being the primary one, with corruption a close and allied second), the libertarian approach of "tiny government, strong people" is the way to go.

I also believe that the libertarian stance on property rights: that they are absolute - is bullshit. I haven't done enough thinking on this to be able to prove to my own satisifaction that I'm right about that, but the stink is unmistakable. I'll figure out why eventually and I hope the proof is short and cogent enough to get some attention.

The "real" left libertarians are the Libertarian Socialists, who're basically anarcho-syndicalists or some form of communists. Very big on workers collectives and stuff like that. No reason workers can't form collectives, but I wouldn't like to think of that as the basic institution of a new state. What the hell are these people thinking? Anyway, I'm not in favor of the basic attitude of the Libertarian Socialists - they are too prescritive for my taste. I want to prune away much of the government and return that power to the people, that they as a whole may be happier, rather than telling them to damn well act free.

The essence of the Lefty Libertarian credo is this: Libertarianism not because it's in some way closer to "natural rights", but because it is probably better for everybody. Libertarianism motivated by the desire for the people, as a whole, to be happy as, just as socialists or communists want the people as a whole to be happy, but wise to the problems which have often made socialism into an unholy nightmare when put into practice. Libertarianism via humanism, basically, rather than libertarianism via selfishness.

Does that make any sense to you? A libertarianism formed around a desire for human welfare rather than the cult of the individual? That is what I want.

So, in essence, if I thought that socialism could work, I'd be a socialist. I don't believe it can because of the problems implicit in the way power is handled inside the socialist construct. Anarchism, to my eye, has no effective defense against capitalism - free people will choose to trade and can accumulate wealth, state or no state. So we may as well accept that capitalism will arise inside of an anarchist system, which basically leaves Libertarianism - anarchism plus some government and a common law framework. [note: many people have misunderstood me to be against trade and profit! Far from it - I am simply arguing that they are inevitable in a free society.]

Is that unreasonable? I don't know. Defending common law really pokes anarcho-capitalists right in the eye, and I'm fine with that.

I'd really like your feedback here.

We're in times of dire political crisis. Our American government is rotten to the core and we need alternative political movements to suggest ways to heal our national disease: an unaccountable government persuing corporate goals for the profit of a few individuals, treating the workers and citizens of this country as a resource and the citizens of the world as a target and a problem to be solved by force.

I salute the work done by the New Left: sending a clear message to the WTO and their corporate masters that their way is unacceptable to the people of this nation was brilliant, as is their work on defense of the environment. But I cannot in all good conscience support their longer term goals because I believe that socialism can collapse into fascism very quickly and easilly.

So instead I choose to labor on the New Right: to try and derive a political vision based on a basic desire for the welfare of all, wise to history and compatible with reason without the failings of the left but informed by it's insight. To take the suffering caused by poverty seriously, but to take the suffering caused by despotism and dictatorship (even of the proletariat!) even more seriously.

Lefty Libertarianism.

I don't know what that political philosophy might really be called, so that will have to do for now.

Give me some feedback: write! The link is on the top left near the nav.

All the best,

LL.

2002-09-24T09:48:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal on Independent Coffee vs. Starbucks. Turns out the independents are doing fine. Makes me wonder what other goods or services could be provided by this "leaderless franchise" model.

Another example is the chinese resturant. There are probably as many chinese resturants as there are Wendys and close-on as many as McDonands. They're a brand, hugely successful, but without any centralized control or leadership. Branches share brand just like a corporation and have most of the same economies of scale via specialized service companies. What they don't have is the Iron Grip of the Brand Controller which stifles all innovation and change.

This phenomena of decentralized brands has, I think, got a lot to say about both democracy and business: this notion of collective success produced by uniformity (i.e. you know you can get Orange Beef in almost any chinese resturant, or an Iced Mocha in almost any corner coffee shop - a successful brand exists) but with room for individual creativity and self-expression really seems to capture something good.

I think that, in some ways, this is what a federalist wanted America to be like. The Corner Coffee Shop, rather than Endless Starbucks. A basically agreed-upon set of rules, with many regional variations according to taste.

We've lost a lot of strength in that diversity by having an over-uniform Federal Government which has blunted the state's ability to represent the charactaristics of their people. Let South Dakota have Jury Nullification, and California have Medical Marijuana. The union will not dissolve, but grow stronger.

It is not a brittle thing and should not be treated as such.

2002-09-24T08:50:00.000-07:00

Gulf of Tonkin looks like another instance where the USA allowed an attack to justify war.

2002-09-24T08:41:00.000-07:00

We can finally see the British Report on the War on Iraq. Bottom line? It's unimpressive. Nothing unexpected, no surprises. Makes you wonder what all the fuss is about. Perhaps it's the OIL.

2002-09-24T08:38:00.000-07:00

Bush wants a regime change to these guys. Sunday Herald does the good deed again.

2002-09-24T08:36:00.000-07:00

Energy company witheld capacity from California during the crisis for megabux. Expect californian retaliation!

2002-09-23T23:06:00.000-07:00

I don't like Al Gore. Just something about the guy - not even his politics just him as a person. But respect where respect is due.

The very idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedy, and that this can be done on the sole say-so of the president of the United States or those acting in his name, is beyond the pail and un-American. And it ought to be stopped.

2002-09-23T21:48:00.000-07:00

Unequal Protection - a book on the history and rise to power of limited liability companies.

FWIW, I think limited liability was a big mistake, and one of the key pillars of libertarianism I'm all for is that there is NO LIMITED LIABILITY. Corporations do not exist, only partnerships. I wish people would stop prattling on about libertarianism / anarchocapitalism being all about corporations ruling the earth.

It's not. First thing we do is put them all do death by converting the to full liability partnerships. Granting limited liability is the government making another entity, a corporation, immune to basic natural rights: share profit, share loss.

As Nader says, corporations have tried to create a "privitization of profit and socialization of loss". Not on our dime. You take a share of the profits, you go down with the ship if they fuck up, go bankrupt or get sued into oblivion. That's fair, right?

Personally, I think that's the best way of getting corporate power back where it belongs.

2002-09-23T21:37:00.000-07:00

Oh shit. Not good, not good at all. Mossad is a very, very fearsome organization and smallpox vaccine is not entirely safe: people (about six in a million) die and many more get significantly sick from it's administration.

This was not done lightly: one would have to believe that the Israelis now believe there is a credible smallpox threat. I'd like to post some preparedness stuff on smallpox, but frankly I think I sound like enough of a loon already. If you want that stuff on here, email me and I'll post some links.

Israel Inoculates Emergency Workers
Wed Sep 18, 1:26 PM ET

By LAURIE COPANS, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM (AP) - A hospital has begun inoculating emergency workers against smallpox in preparation for a possible attack by Iraq, officials said Wednesday, amid reports that sales of air filters, tranquilizers and bottled water are up across Israel.

Israel's deputy defense minister, Weizman Shiri, said Israel is well prepared for an Iraqi attack with chemical or biological weapons.

"I say with my hand on my heart, not just to calm everyone, that the state of Israel is ready," Shiri said. "It would be easier for them to carry out a biological attack on even the United States than Israel."

The government decided last month to inoculate 15,000 emergency workers against smallpox. On Tuesday, Ichilov Hospital in Tel Aviv began the inoculations, at a rate of 30 people per day, hospital officials said. Other hospitals will also begin inoculations.

During the Gulf War ( news - web sites) in 1991, Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles against Israel, causing damage but few casualties. Israeli experts say they do not know if Iraq possesses chemical or biological weapons, but the possibility cannot be ruled out.

Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said Wednesday he supported an American attack on Iraq, but Israel wanted to keep a low profile in the dispute.

"We greatly respect the decisions of the (U.S.) administration and identify with the intention to hit one of the key Mideast elements of the 'axis of evil,'" Ben-Eliezer said, using President Bush ( news - web sites)'s term for Iraq, North Korea ( news - web sites) and Iran.

"But we are not directly part of the coming conflict, if it comes, and we have no intention of being part of it unless it is forced upon us by an Iraqi attack," Ben-Eliezer added.

Israeli officials have said Israel reserves the right to respond to an Iraqi attack.

The Israeli government this week ordered increased gas mask production to prevent a shortage as the expiration date on 600,000 old masks draws closer, and Israelis continue to flood mask distribution centers.

Shiri said the Home Front Command distributed 24,000 new masks on Tuesday alone, proof that there is no shortage at the moment.

In the event of a real threat of a biological attack, it will take authorities four days to vaccinate the entire population against smallpox, Shiri said. Israel has 2.5 times as many smallpox vaccine doses as there are citizens, he said.

The Shavrav company that builds air filtration devices has reported a 300 percent jump in sales, the Yediot Ahronot newspaper reported. Bottled water companies say sales are up by 25 percent.

In addition, Israelis have been purchasing more tranquilizers in recent days, said Aharon Reiss, chairman of the Pharmacists Union.

By the way, that's what REAL civil defense against biological warfare looks like: masks, vaccinations and training.

Our government is doing none of that, yet we're attacking Iraq because they represent a credible threat. You tell me what the fuck that is about.

2002-09-23T21:31:00.000-07:00

Dismantling Democracy
What's Behind the Magic Trick of War?

Back in 1983, before its publisher was acquired by a multinational corporation, the American Heritage Dictionary left us this definition of the form of government the democracies of Spain, Italy, and Germany had morphed into during the 1930s: “fas-cism (fâsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. [Ital. fascio, group.]”

Important article. I said I'd write something here today about practical action, and I didn't. It's just too damn hard to get the thoughts down coherently, to try and sketch out strategies of freedom in the face of this kind of bullshit. I'm going to keep trying.