From Winter Patriot:
“The recent revelation by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that senators knew the intelligence on the Iraq War was being cooked in the lead-up to the invasion refutes the claim that Congress was misled by the White House.”
Not like it’s a surprise — but this does make it official.
Watch Mike Gravel explain it further:
Great song by Matt Ames with lyrics expressing clearly anarchist/libertarian sympathies.
Hat tip: Anthony Gregory
By now, all serious news junkies are well aware that Cindy Shehan has thrown in the towel on her high-profile antiwar activism. The sorrow and burnout in her words are regrettable, but it would be foolish to discount the role she has played in turning public opinion against the war — regardless of what the critics say. She spoke out when many ordinary Americans couldn’t find it in themselves to do so. The war against this war has not been won, but the tide has turned and she had a big part in that. I ask you to remember that heroes and heroines don’t flinch from breaking themselves, if that’s what it takes. Make no mistake — Sheehan is a heroine, however imperfect. Let me conclude by directing your attention to Francois Tremblay’s Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan.
Two great blog carnivals just finished their latest rounds/editions:
Carnival of Anarchy
–and–
the Market Anarchist Carnival.
L. Neil Smith wrote a new and interesting short article on the Liberator pistol of WW2, designed to be air-dropped to resistance fighters in Nazi-occupied territory. Towards the end of the article, he muses about the possibility of a 21st century version of the concept:
“We’ve made a very great deal of technical progress since the early days of World War II, and I believe that a modern incarnation of the Liberator Pistol could probably be made for under ten dollars. Given modern super polymers, the thing could even be made invisible to metal detectors. I’m willing to bet there are hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals more than willing to pay for this historic effort.”
An interesting factoid about the FP-45 Liberator is that factories were able, even back in the early days of WW2, to produce the pistols faster than they could be loaded and fired.
“Building the pistol took about six or seven seconds whilst loading took about 10 seconds.”
To me, that seems to point the way toward some rudimentary design specifics. For starters, don’t bother making the weapon reloadable. We’re talking about a “purse gun” for self defense or, in the true heritage of the original Liberator, a “great gun to get another with“. So why not produce the pistol and its full magazine as one, factory-loaded, integrated package — much like the cheap disposable 35mm cameras that come with one roll of film?
While Smith has long praised the .40 Liberty cartridge, cost is an issue. The popular favorite for pistol ammunition remains 9mm, I believe. One can safely assume that, whatever the constraints upon production, 9mm represents the least headache.
The Liberator was conceived of as an essentially disposable weapon in the first place and Smith rightly points to the advantages of high-tech polymer materials today. If we’re talking about a genuinely disposable weapon, materials requirements can perhaps be less stringent than Smith suggests, though. Although I’m nowhere near well-informed enough to say this with authority, it might be that simply using hard, engineering-grade nylon could produce a barrel sufficiently strong to safely shoot as many as perhaps five 9mm cartridges. Five sounds about right for a suggested magazine capacity for this particular weapon anyway.
If we assume that the magazine is made of the same material as the rest of the weapon it is a non-removable part of, and we assume that material is not transparent or translucent, there ought to be an open slot running up and down said magazine in order for the shooter to readily assess the amount of ammunition contained therein.
Ideas? Opinions? Insults?
The relatively unique burden of being both an anarchist and a former holder of elected political office (Second Ward Councilmember, City Council of North Kansas City, Missouri, 1996-1998 in my case) is that you have a duty of conscience to speak out even when you can “see both sides” because you’ve been there yourself.
While the national political arena offers a metaphorically target rich environment for the anti-statist critic, integrity demands not sparing the marginal cases when they come to your attention — including earnest libertarians who’ve managed to win local elections and are trying to do the right thing, if they could only figure out what that is. Certainly my own time in office was very far from perfect in its adherence to libertarian principles. I’m not the same man I was a decade ago, though. For roughly the past two years, I’ve denied that complete adherence to libertarian principle is even possible by politicians and that (as a result) it is not principle that must be thrown out the window by the libertarian movement, but electoral politics.
Libertarianism as a political philosophy tells us that immigration should be unrestricted. Here in Missouri, though, former Greene County Libertarian Party Chair and freshman Springfield City Councilmember Doug Burlison has proposed new legislation to harass migrants and their employers.
“The proposal would punish any local company found to have hired illegal aliens with a $500 fine on the first offense, a $1,000 fine on the second offense and loss of its city business license for a third offense.”
While the wording of the legislation is such that it directly only imposes fines on the employers of the innocent people termed “illegal aliens”, the effect of this would of course be pernicious interference in the ability of such innocent people to find work and provide for themselves and their families. If that doesn’t count as “harassment” in Councilmember Burlison’s view, he should contemplate the prospect of a hypothetical law imposing fines on employers who hire him.
Burlison responded to critics recently before I had gotten around to making this post. As a result, I’d like to go over it now.
“It is true that I have verbally pledged to propose an ordinance that addresses one small aspect of the current immigration problems we are experiencing in this country.”
Right off the bat, an error in thinking on the part of Burlison presents itself. I don’t know exactly who Burlison meant when he said “we“, but I doubt he has had a green card demanded of him lately or bled from blisters on his feet acquired in a deadly march across burning hot sands. From the perspective of justice and liberty, the only “problems” with immigration are the statist restrictions on it.
So why did Burlison do this (even though his fellow councilmember John Wylie called it a “moot point”)?
“This came about after being invited to speak to the local chapter of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps about immigration issues. I spoke from the heart (and off the cuff) about my take on the screwed up situation we have found ourselves in. . .
Okay, so he’s going to talk to the Minutemen, even though he’s surely aware that they oppose open immigration. In and of itself, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly there are more than a few anti-liberty groups I’d like to have a word with myself. But, still, one has to wonder what he was thinking.
The bill of rights talks about the basic freedoms humans are born with, not just Americans, but all humans.
Okay, so he understands that all persons possess inalienable rights that are not granted by written constitutions, but hopefully recognized by them to some degree where such constitutions exist. This is a key point. Burlison knows better than to do this evil and tyrannical thing — but he’s going to do it anyway.
I would like to see our border with Mexico as normalized as our border with Canada sometime in my lifetime.
In fact, he’s even quite aware that open immigration is a desirable goal.
“Legal immigration needs to be streamlined and expedited.”
Sure. Simple. Abolish the restrictions the bureaucracy is there to administer. Of course, you can’t do that as a city councilmember, Doug. One would hope, though, that you would seek to avoid personally adding to the injustice that bureaucracy carries out, as a self-described “libertarian”.
“Welfare needs to be majorly reformed and reduced.”
Here’s where he’s getting really off track. The “illegal immigrants” Burlison seeks to persecute are not responsible for the statist welfare system of the United States government. That responsibility lies with the government policymakers and their allegedly “private” supporters. In fact, since “illegal immigrants” can’t vote, they are perhaps the people in America who are the least to blame for the statist welfare system. So why does Doug Burlison think welfare has anything to do with immigration?
“Social Security needs to be protected by a transformation to individually owned accounts, rather than collectively squandered political funds.”
Why on earth that would be an excuse to further harass people who already face legalized kidnapping by uniformed thugs and countless other difficulties and injustices is beyond me.
“The War on Drugs needs to end. The black market we’ve created finances thousands of passages through our southern border.”
Sure the War on Drugs needs to end. Doug Burlison has not claimed responsibility for the War on Drugs, though. If he ever does, I hope he renounces it as well as his contribution to the War on Innocent Brown People Who Talk Funny. That people evading one set of unjust laws are able to provide mutual aid through market mechanisms to people evading another set of unjust laws is, from a libertarian perspective, a Good Thing(tm), Mr. Burlison.
“Federal policies have made a mess of this issue, which are now having an obvious effect in our local community. Local law enforcement has at least an informal “catch and release†policy because of the confusion and lack of federal support in regards to undocumented, Spanish-speaking suspects. This has created the situation where domestic citizens are held to a higher standard of the law, while alleged illegal aliens get a pass.”
How positively egalitarian of you, Mr. Burlison, to seek to make us all equally oppressed rather than equally free. From a libertarian perspective, if an unjust law is unenforcable, that’s a Good Thing(tm). If a just law is unenforcable because of the inefficiencies of government, it is an indictment of governments monopoly of “law enforcement”. If Mr. Burlison genuinely believes that the detrimental effects of that monopoly are such a grave concern, he should (before attempting to infringe upon the liberty of others in the service of that monopoly, at the very least) resign his seat and agitate in favor of market anarchism .
Ultimately, what Burlison is going through here is the basic tension that any “libertarian” political office holder goes through. The pressure is enormous, and I can say that from personal experience, to sacrifice liberty in the interests of trying to make government work. It’s a losing battle, Doug — government doesn’t work, as Harry Browne noted. The extent that you succumb to that pressure will be the extent that you lose your own sense of integrity or “soul”. Turn away from electoral politics and toward agorism.
There’s more to Burlison’s response, but I just can’t bring myself to wade through it all line by line correcting each of the many errors in thinking it contains. Read it yourself and critique it further if you wish. All I can say now is that this is the sort of thing that makes me glad I no longer support the Libertarian Party.
Note: Title of this post inspired by Samuel Edward Konkin III’s masterful “The Damnation of Bill Bradford“.
Excerpts from Joyce Arthur’s “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion“…
“Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique — not like those “other” women — even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reasons.”
Anecdotes:
“I’ve had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, ‘You’re not going to tell them, are you!?’ When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn’t want this to interfere with it.” (Physician, Texas)
“We too have seen our share of anti-choice women, ones the counselors usually grit their teeth over. Just last week a woman announced loudly enough for all to hear in the recovery room, that she thought abortion should be illegal. Amazingly, this was her second abortion within the last few months, having gotten pregnant again within a month of the first abortion. The nurse handled it by talking about all the carnage that went on before abortion was legalized and how fortunate she was to be receiving safe, professional care. However, this young woman continued to insist it was wrong and should be made illegal. Finally the nurse said, ‘Well, I guess we won’t be seeing you here again, not that you’re not welcome.’ Later on, another patient who had overheard this exchange thanked the nurse for her remarks.” (Clinic Administrator, Alberta)
“I had a patient about ten years ago who traveled up to New York City from South Carolina for an abortion. I asked her why she went such a long way to get the procedure. Her answer was that she was a member of a church group that didn’t believe in abortion and she didn’t want anyone to know she was having one. She planned to return to the group when she went back to South Carolina.” (Physician, New York)
“We have anti-choice women in for abortions all the time. Many of them are just naive and ignorant until they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Many of them are not malicious. They just haven’t given it the proper amount of thought until it completely affects them. They can be judgmental about their friends, family, and other women. Then suddenly they become pregnant. Suddenly they see the truth. That it should only be their own choice. Unfortunately, many also think that somehow they are different than everyone else and they deserve to have an abortion, while no one else does.” (Physician, Washington State)
More here.
Who’s telling the truth — Lew Rockwell or Eric Dondero? Although I have my differences of opinion, emphasis, style and ideological particulars with Rockwell, my wager would be on him every time.
Libertine warmonger, Bushevik and faux-libertarian Eric Dondero has publicly alleged here and here that Lew Rockwell was the author of some racially-charged material in an old Ron Paul newsletter from back in the early 90’s. I have in my possession a personal email from Lew Rockwell in which he says:
“Brad, another lie from the hate-filled Dondero.”
The Paul campaign has already deflected the larger controversy over this material (as an attempted smear) with the explanation that it was written by a staff member without Paul’s approval. Pending evidence otherwise, I find that explanation from the Paul campaign credible, if only because the remarks seemed very unlike anything I recall ever hearing from him. He has notably denounced racism in the past as a “collectivist mindset”.
However, as a self-identified left libertarian, I would like to point out that political alliances with the right that blur the lines between conservatism and libertarianism are a strategic blunder precisely because they bring with them all of the poisonous, anti-libertarian baggage of the right — such as racism.
Exhibit A: the unspecified staff member who wrote the arguably racist material in question and Dondero himself both managed to find work on Ron Paul’s staff — if we assume they weren’t one and the same person. Dondero was fired. I can only hope that was also the case with the author of the newsletter material, pending better information.
UPDATE: Carol Moore also had some things to say recently about Ron Paul and Eric Dondero.
Another thing about Ron Paul… Despite my own anti-electoral position, I can’t fail to acknowlege that he’s “growing” the libertarian movement. Watch the video.
Gotta love this line:
“The Republican base? We’re the Republican acid.” — Rachel
Hat tip to: Lew Rockwell
As I said before, I’m starting to see this particular campaign as a potential black swan event — but this reflects a shoring up of the right-moderate end of the libertarian spectrum that enables a harder push towards the left-radical end. The last thing ideologically advanced libertarians should do is flock to the GOP and Ron Paul’s campaign. Remember, our work is seperate as are our goals. Ultimately, the last government — the one we abolish — will probably be some sort of “libertarian” one as a reflection of the popularization of our ideas.
UPDATE: User DH sent me email about trouble posting the following comment. I’ll look into that, but first here’s DH’s comment followed by my response:
“Paul is attracting more people to libertarianism, but I’m a bit concerned about how many people he’s going to repel if he keeps on and that post-LA riots material comes to the fore. I think enough of the normals already have it in their heads that when they hear about free markets, limited (god forbid *no*) government, and libertarianism in general, that there’s an at least subtle elitism and racism involved. I can’t help thinking that if he makes it through New Hampshire with as good an impression as he made in South Carolina and people start digging, there’s going to be some major blowback to libertarians in general, as they try to separate him further from the GOP. And if that loathsome slug Dondero is telling the truth in this case, and Lew Rockwell was the author of that alarmist trash, another major outlet for libertarian thought is going to be discredited.”
While I’m not aware of the post-LA riots material DH is referring to, I would say that the situation apparently calls for an immediate and thorough left libertarian critique, in line with what I’ve been saying about critical support. Please send me links to the material mentioned or post your own critiques of it.
UPDATE 2: Followup here.
