leftlibertarian.org

I recently finished Part 1 of Kevin Carson’s Studies in Mutualist Political Economy. I use the verb “finished” in a very loose sense, as I will be very well served by two or three re-reads of that part of the book. The Wikipedia links I’m peppering throughout this post will serve as ample warning that I am a neophyte on these matters. However, I think I understand the basic arguments for locating the source of economic value in labor.

The Labor Theory of Value - frequently associated with Marxism - is almost universally rejected by modern liberal economists, to say nothing of mainstream libertarians. However, I found it interesting that Carson prefaces his entire thesis on a statement from Boehm-Bawerk, a 19th century economist who is credited with burying the LTV once and for all.

I have criticized the law of Labour Value with all the severity that a doctrine so utterly false seemed to me to deserve. It may be that my criticism also is open to many objections. But one thing at any rate seems to me certain: earnest writers concerned to find out the truth will not in future venture to content themselves with asserting the law of value as has been hitherto done.

In future any one who thinks that he can maintain this law will first of all be obliged to supply what his predecessors have omitted–a proof that can be taken seriously. Not quotations from authorities; not protesting and dogmatising phrases; but a proof that earnestly and conscientiously goes into the essence of the matter. On such a basis no one will be more ready and willing to continue the discussion than myself.

(My emphasis)

Boehm-Bawerk’s ambivalence in declaring the outright victory of the Subjective Theory of Value is curiously even-handed (and almost modest in spite of itself). For Carson to invoke the statement demonstrates the deep intellectual tradition being revived - an opportunity, I should think, which any honest, thoughtful libertarian must gladly and excitedly embrace. For a philosophy so dependent upon the market as a model of human relationships and motivations, it is incumbent on libertarians to revisit the mysterious core of market mechanics: value and its true source.

Now, if I understand it correctly, Carson’s thesis is that in a truly free market, “profit” and labor would theoretically dovetail, so that there would be no gain without corresponding time and toil. It is only coercive market intervention, sponsored by the state for the benefit of an elite, that creates the possibility that labor would be robbed of its full return. I’m still trying to get clear on how exactly the subjective forces factor in: my current best understanding is that in a free market, demand for the products of labor - while subjectively determined - would tend to balance out with the supply. Therefore, any subjective distortions from the ideal price of labor are temporary and do not change the source from which value originates. And I reserve the right to be wrong about that.

Studies has served as a feast of thought for me. If economics is really psychology practiced on the collective scale, finding trends among the accumulated actions of individuals that give insight into fundamental human nature, then I’m curious about how (if at all) prescriptive either the LTV or the STV are. What I mean is this: would both theories accept the actual practices and instituions of an authentically free market, were it to arise, regardless of where the true source of value actually originates? In other words, how important is precision in articulating the source of value in human transactions, so long as those transactions are all purely voluntary? We may have academic disagreements about the abstract mechanisms at work in generating the value thusly traded, but surely no mutualist, agorist, or other school of (non-vulgar) libertarian thought would reject an actually existing free market - were it to arise - because it conformed less with his preferred theoretical framework, right?

I don’t mean to discount the value of scientifically studying economics; I’m simply trying to understand whether mutualism prescribes certain outcomes or whether mutualism - or any school - simply predicts a certain system arising in a free market. Given that, would not any system arising from the free market be the correct or just system, ipso facto? Or are there aspects of a genuinely free market which Carson, Konkin, Rothbard, and other market anarchists would reject as unacceptable - though uncoerced?

Again, I’m probably demonstrating my ignorance, but I just want to be sure I understand these positions. It gets back to an extremely interesting debate on LewRockwell.com (for which Roderick Long provides an excellent digest) about the expectations of libertarians in reforming social institutions vs. simply restraining the state (among other equally interesting veins of thought). If mutualism is a true scientific investigation of economic systems, then it should be open to whatever that true system happens to be - as should we all. I’m curious: are we?

Incidentally, as I put the finishing touches on this article, I just read a post over at lettuce have peas that makes a very similar point to mine (though it finds fault with Carson instead of asking for clarification, as I did):

The problem I find with Mr. Carson is his unwillingness to concede that there is some vague middle ground, a no-mans land so to speak, of which it’s utterly impossible to divine what arrangements might actually prevail under the misty veil of the unknown free market ideal. I am even tempted to borrow the phraseology of the late Friedrich August Hayek, using what he termed “fatal conceit” to describe this willful egalitarianistic dream.

It is always good to nail theorists down with what their actual predictions are for their system, even if it’s only to clarify a “I just don’t know” position. Indeed, I think we need to release the need to know, and to work towards an optimal market society for its own sake. By all means check out Iceberg’s post - it’s food for thought for all of us who suspect throwing off government will change more than just our tax burden.

Tags: mutualism, anarchism, market, economics, labor theory of value, subjective theory of value, libertarianism, left libertarianism

Normally I try not to post mere links (more on this in a few days) but this video is too funny. I always hated it in school when law enforcement officers would come in and give some demeaning, patronizing presentation that completely insulted our intelligence. I don’t think all officers are by definition so coarse and unthoughtful, but certainly the ones that want to scare kids are. I can respect* professional officers who do their job and serve honestly, despite what I may have claimed in anger in the past; I simply would like to see them come down as hard on their own when they do wrong as they come down on us when we “stray”.

Now this officer featured in the video is suing for looking dumb on camera? I just think this is great: you treat kids like idiots and you end up looking like an idiot - seems fair to me (it’s officially too Gen X to mention the irony). I just don’t get this. Of course, this officer is typical of the DEA, which likes to operate with an air of mystique while violating your liberties.

Notes:

• Hat tip to Hammer of Truth
• * Respect for an individual should not be confused with acknowledgement of legitimate authority.
• In other news, I recently became involved with Copwatch. I’ll be helping to redesign their site and get it ready for activist purposes.

Tags: dea, police, firearms, humor, children

One of the reasons I’m a tireless critic and skeptic of bellicose government activities is not out of pure antipathy for the state enterprise - though that’s a large part of it. I’d just like to see it one day, once and for all, demonstrated that all the abuses of power, bungled investigations, ridiculous measures, and mindless bureacracy were worth it. It would make it much easier to support the state if they could make themselves useful while they’re spying on me, invading harmless countries, and spreading disinformation. Yet time after time I’m disappointed by the low bar we set on government belligerence. I’m beginning to think that none of it has anything to do with security, defense, or the thoughtful administration of the country’s affairs - they simply want to dominate, regardless of the price we the citizens pay. It’s about power and intimidation.

Government is often criticized for a lack of common sense, and I’ve become interested lately in theories of institutional organization which provide a framework for understanding a lot of the inefficiency and boneheadedness of modern corporate entities like the state, firms, political organizations, etc. But I’m not going to get so in depth right now. Instead, I’m going to concentrate on a few demonstrable cases where governments toss out our interests for no practical reason whatsoever.

One example of this is the security frenzy. Suddenly, metal detectors are everywhere - regardless of the fact that they failed to slow down the 9/11 hijackers. People don’t seem to get that it’s a total psychological ruse - and for what? So that people can be harrassed, intimidated, and humilated. It’s already been shown that airport security measures only deter casual terrorists - not the real ones. Apparently, if you are a dimwit murderer, the United States of America is completely prepared for you. However, all serious terrorists with half a brain are pretty much written off as uncatchable, unless they make some grave error. I sometimes wonder whether people really understand how little these security stunts help secure us - but they serve as great exercises in hierarchically regimenting society.

In fact, security hysteria is arguably the full reason we’re in Iraq now (because of “smoking gun = mushroom cloud” talk), and the consequences of our activities there will be with us for some time. For our leaders to simply take us to war without thinking about any time horizons whatsoever is bad enough. But the ways in which this war is changing our warfighting mindset are horrifying. And it’s only the latest development in a downward spiral towards permanent war.

The clearest sign of the societal decay in which we’re caught is the debate over torture by U.S. troops - an issue that would have been out of the question at any other point in our history (including points where we were arguably in more danger). I submit that the torture controversy was never sufficiently resolved by our society. The primary element in question, at least as far as I’m concerned, is motivations. I can reject the legimitacy of the state and its enforcement arms while simultaneously evaluating its effectiveness in achieving its stated institutional goals. With that said, I believe the discussion surrounding the military utility of torture is valid.

We need to talk about the distasteful aspects of hysterical security so we can decide how large a price we are willing to pay to win this War on Terror. The discussion would ostensibly be two-fold: moral and strategic.

1. Can an institution which tortures be fairly considered “the good guys”?
2. Is torture a useful part of a warfighting strategy?

Back when the legitimization of torture was nightly news, I wrote about this in a comment on somebody’s blog, and now I can’t find that comment. But essentially I made the following argument:

1. I don’t think war is a “game” with “rules”. War is the last resort - the most vivid expression of existential social crisis. Therefore, while I reject the practice of war wholesale, I’m loathe to make distinctions about how it is waged. War is war is war.

   In my opinion, war is such a terrible horror that it should be waged fiercly, totally, and without mercy - and therefore, only when absolutely necessary. In fact, I say it’s this idea that we can wage these limited, low intensity wars while most of us live our normal lives that creates the acceptance of perpetual war in the first place. War should have consequences that society cannot ignore in order for it to be legitimately sanctioned by the electorate - not that that makes the war just; simply that it requires a certain amount of investment commensurate to the destruction the society is willing to export.

2. Because I believe war is an all or nothing proposition, I do not believe any binding moral critiques of its means apply. War can only be waged immorally, or perhaps at best amorally - even when justified. To put it another way: if we have any compunction about using the full strength of our power in the most effective manner possible, regardless of the human suffering it will cause the enemy, maybe we don’t really need to be at war in the first place.

   It is relatively rare that hawks succeed in convincing a vast majority of the electorate that a war is desirable. It follows that there’s a natural disdain for war, even if the military is appreciated. It is a severely dysfunctional society - frightened, desparate, and full of dread - that backs a war with unanimous support, even if it is indeed necessary for survival.

   In order to wage this war from motivations of achieving victory, strategic advantage, not humanism, must be the sole motivating factor. To be interested in anything more than total victory is an abuse of the social contract between state and citizen as well as between citizens. War is an existential struggle, not a political tool (to hell with Von Clausewitz) and anything goes. Anything - including torture. Only the willingness to engage in brutality justifies war, and only a sincere danger of survival justifies brutality.

3. Since anything goes, and there is a goal of strategic advantage and eventual total conquest, we should evaluate the practice of torture based on its effectiveness, not on its moral appeal. If torture is an useful, efficient way of extracting information, then let’s use it. But if it’s not - if it’s just about sadism - then let’s not. This is not about being “the good guys”; that’s a false criterion. This is about national sacrifices having meaning, instead of just being about desperation - in the same way that airport security should be about results, not psychological props.

Now, let me make it abundantly clear: I do not endorse torture, because I do not support the war that is creating the need for it. My moral argument against torture stands, and I believe it’s still valid. However, for the sake of argument (and since we’re already in an immoral war), let’s put that aside and assume for the moment that the war is necessary; in other words, let’s put ourselves in the shoes of those making the policy decisions who are true believers in neoconservatism. From their point of view, it should be about winning a war that has to be won. They’re convinced there is no alternative - however wrong they might be. Since war is the last resort of a free society, it makes sense that they should feel obligated to pursue every possible avenue in winning it. If we accept that this is indeed “civilization vs. islamofacism” (or whatever they’re calling it these days) then we should not be fretting about the details.

So, now comes the million dollar question: is torture effective? There’s been lots of partisan information out there, and a lot of it is anecdotal (oh, the Saudis have had marvellous success, etc.). What we’re missing is cold, hard evidence. Any practice of our military should be justifiable - it should demonstrate a cost effective, strategic usefulness. It is proper to hold the practice of torture to the same standard as we hold any military tactic. We should also be wary of the long term costs of our practices.

There are larger implications than national reputation and standards of welfare for prisoners. We must also consider the psychological effects of torture on the torturers - ostensibly, our government agents. If we’re asking them to do such horrible things (sanctioned murder notwithstanding) we should be able to see a clear benefit from the act. It’s only fair that what we ask of our soldiers actually result in more security for America. If we’re turning our troops into monsters for no practical reason, then the torture policy should be rejected.

Yet there has been no evidence that torture actually works, regardless of the possible danger. Instead, this latest tactic in the War on Terror has been about casting as large a dragnet as possible (and get away with it), suspending our rights when convenient, and desperately creating an atmosphere of security and sustainability - but on terms conducive to business and social order, not necessarily individual citizens.

Additionally, we are risking the institutionalization of torture. If torture becomes a way of doing the state’s business, the state will begin to attract leaders and bureaucrats even more depraved than our current government. It will also tend to create sadists out of good but influencable people. We are encouraging existing damage in our civilization, and we’re creating more of it.

In a recent interview of an ex-Delta Force soldier confesses that the current expansion of military activities into new human rights abuses is both morally wrong and a bad strategic error.

Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney …

A: (Interrupting) That’s Cheney’s pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It’s about vengeance, it’s about revenge, or it’s about cover-up. You don’t gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It’s worse than small-minded, and look what it does.

I’ve argued this on Bill O’Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He’s an employee of yours. It’s worse than ridiculous. It’s criminal; it’s utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I’m saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don’t do it. It’s an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, “Well, they do it to us.” Which is a ludicrous argument. … The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what’s legal and what we believed in. Now we’re going to throw it away.

This fear of a new thinking in the administration of government force is not just concentrated at the Federal level. Local law enforcement has is also undergoing a change that reflects the increasing hostility of public servants towards the “served”. At the Agitator, Radley Balko has been writing a lot lately about indiscriminate use of force by police units. A recent article cites a veteran police officer’s disdain for the attitudes of the “new breed” of cops coming in.

As a lifelong supporter of Law Enforcement allow me to say: It is now in some cases sadly attracting the wrong element of wanna be tough guys. The old guys call them “the new breed” and it ain’t a compliment. Some younger ones in particular seem to relish weilding their authority, frequently use profanity, and a very, very small number border on sadistic. I don’t know how the MMPI didn’t weed them out.

Their mommy sat them in front of too many episodes of “COPS.”

My friend was the assistant Deputy District Attorney and is now a Judge in the Criminal Division. The Sherriff’s Dept asked him how to staff the SWAT team they were forming. His answer:

“Ask for volunteers, then take that list of names… and toss it in the trash. That’ll eliminate the Cowboys.”

He goes on to point out how some of the actions he’s hearing about police committing scare him, commenting on the mental health of those involved in outright police brutality in one case.

We should listen to veterans of government institutions when they report alarming trends towards tougher, more pervasive government intervention in our lives and the lives of our international neighbors. I believe that an argument about the validity of torture as a military tactic is acceptable. However, I also am confident that in a fair debate the evidence is on my side: the anti-intervention side. I also think such a dialogue, expanded to include the broader picture and the long view policy and social consequences, would serve as a more accurate predictive picture of the hyper-brutal state; something the public needs to consider. We need to temper all our actions in a respect for ourselves, our principles, and our own sense of justice and conscience - no matter what the various agendas urge us to think, or rather, refrain from thinking about.

Tags: iraq, security, torture, militarization, society, politics

From Brad Spangler’s excellent breakdown of the parallel interests of socialists and libertarians:

We’re the Libertarian Left, and we’re the new Reds.

Read his whole post: it’s a good compendium of links related to the debate between the left and right wings of the libertarian movement. I’m still catching up on Studies in Mutualist Political Economy so I can’t get into the mix on these things. However, it’s clear that this whole controversy over the JLS symposium on Carsonian mutualism (see here) is exposing a lot of issues in the libertarian ideology that need clarification, discussion, and exploration. What can I say: it’s an exciting time to be anti-state!

Tags: left libertarian, mutualism, mises, libertarian,

Many anarchists, especially left-socialist anarchists, see a tight connection between radical participatory democracy and anarchism. Indeed, some have argued that anarchism just is the full realization of participatory democracy. Libertarian and individualist anarchists, not surprisingly, have their doubts. The issue is connected to differing conceptions of freedom, questions of jurisdiction, consent, and general social organization that are worth exploring and clarifying. Moreover, as Roderick Long points out in his recent Rothbard Memorial Lecture, (Haven�t read it/watched it yet? Well, what are you waiting for?!!) it is also relevant to relations between left-libertarians and other groups on the left.

In his discussion of participatory democracy, Long quotes Rothbard:

In the broadest sense, the idea of "participatory democracy" is profoundly individualist and libertarian: for it means that each individual, even the poorest and the most humble, should have the right to full control over the decisions that affect his own life.

I think this is a quite accurate representation of how many social anarchists think about the relation between freedom, democracy, and anarchism. It�s often referred to as the principle of self-management--freedom, then, is taken to be having a say in any and all decisions that affect one's life. (I realize that this isn�t exactly what Rothbard says, but it�s the way I have often seen the principle formulated.) Note the basically republican idea that freedom is participation in collective decision-making. Further, we can see the link to notions of freedom as non-domination, in that having a voice in decisions that affect you can be seen as decreasing the degree to which you are dominated by another, where domination involves being subject to the arbitrary will of another.

Of course, seeing participatory democracy as �profoundly individualist and libertarian� may be too quick. Recall Nozick�s discussion of having a say over what affects you in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. I don�t have the text right here, so forgive any inaccuracies.

Let�s say you are a brilliant and famous conductor and you decide to resign your position at an orchestra. You aren�t breaking a pre-existing contract, but your quitting will have profound negative consequences for everyone at the orchestra. They�ll, let�s say, probably go under once they lose their famous conductor. Do they get to have a vote on whether you can leave because it seriously affects their lives?

Or, imagine a case where there are four men vying for the attention of a single woman. Each will be devastated if he is not chosen. Do they get a vote in whom she chooses?

The point, obviously, is that taking the self-management principle as a general principle won�t work. The question is one of jurisdiction: who gets to make the choice? If just being affected by my actions gives you a vote in my behavior, then we don�t have libertarian freedom. Moreover, Rothbard�s formulation (�full control over decisions that affect his own life�) doesn�t help much. People are constantly making decisions that affect my own life and most of them are decisions that I don�t and should not have control over, let alone full control.

Of course, if you do have a conception of freedom along these lines, you can start to make sense of Marx�s ideas about alienation and freedom under communism. Under communism, no longer will people be buffeted about by social forces beyond their control that seem to them as an �alien power.� All decisions that affect you will be under the rational democratic control of the collective, in which you have a vote. No more pesky spontaneous orders.

So, being affected is not a sufficient criterion for jurisdiction, unless, of course, the effect is a violation of your rights. Does that mean libertarian anarchists should eschew participatory democracy? Nope. Participatory democratic forms of collective decision-making might be perfectly appropriate�indeed might be best in keeping with libertarian values�in those areas where collective decision-making is legitimate. If I am going to have to submit to the decisions of some collective body, then I sure as hell want a voice in that process (and protections of my rights, too). Perhaps we can say that participatory democratic forms are called for when some people are under the direct authority of others. I think this is part of what Kevin Carson is getting at here:

The difference between anarchism and democracy, at least when the latter is taken to its logical conclusion, isn�t all that great. Arguably, anarchism is the ultimate development of the Jeffersonian democratic principle, in the same sense that Thoreau�s government that governs not at all is the ultimate example of the best government governing least. The heart of the Jeffersonian/anglo-republican understanding of democracy was government by consent. And the smaller the unit of government, the closer that consent approached to unanimity, the better. Majority rule was not the defining feature�majority rule was just a proxy for consent, an imperfect way to simulate it when genuinely unanimous consent was impossible. So devolving all government to direct democratic town meetings and neighborhood assemblies is a big step in the right direction. And going a step further, depriving the town meetings of the power to collect payment for services from unwilling clients and allowing competing service providers, takes us the rest of the way: we�re at the point where anarchism and radical democracy coincide.

So what we need is collective decision-making founded on the consent of those who are under the authority of the decision-making body; the right of exit/seccession; and the desirability of a voice in that decision-making process. Of course, in a free society, there will be organizations that are internally hierarchical and authoritarian. And if participation in such an organization is voluntary, then so be it. But if you are a libertarian and an anti-authoritarian, these will not be organizations that fully embody anarchist values.

Folks on both the left and the right often make the mistake of thinking of society itself as a big organization. Social anarchists who make this mistake will want to see society run as a worker-owned, self-managed collective, i.e., a participatory democracy. And as long as democracy is direct (no representatives), that will be an anarchist society. But society is not itself an organization, it�s a spontaneous order. Thus, its appropriate state is not participatory democracy, but anarchy. But that doesn�t mean that libertarian anarchists shouldn�t endorse and promote self-managed, participatory institutions and organizations within the anarchist order.

Tags: enron, conservatism, corporatism, current events

I’d like to recommend Roderick Long’s lecture called Rothbard’s “Left and Right”: Forty Years Later to anybody who is still trying to get clear on what left libertarianism means. It’s an excellent talk (quite enjoyable to listen to as well) and it definately crystalized some concepts for me. Here’s an excerpt that I thought was particularly well formulated to express the leftist critique of the state-corporate alliance:

We might compare the alliance between government and big business to the alliance between church and state in the Middle Ages. Of course it’s in the interest of both parties to maintain the alliance — but all the same, each side would like to be the dominant partner, so it’s no surprise that the history of such alliances will often look like a history of conflict and antipathy, as each side struggles to get the upper hand. But this struggle must be read against a common background framework of cooperation to maintain the system of control.

Congratulations and thanks to Mr. Long for a great lecture which I believe, as Brad Spanglerwrote, “will, in time, come to be considered a landmark in [the left libertarian] movement history.”

Tags: movement of the libertarian left, anarchism, politics, libertarian, leftist

James Leroy Wilson has put together a short and to-the-point essay that further solidifies my advocacy for the cultivation of an individualist identity as part and parcel of the struggle against authoritarian, false collectivism. In The Separation of Soul and State Wilson acknowledges arguments that the state could be seen as inevitable in the human experience. But he soundly and succinctly rejects the typical corrollary: “loyalty to one’s government” is not necessary, even if the state is. This makes sense when one looks at past abuses by the state - in every case a large group of people surrendered their loyalty to their own conscience in favor of allegience to an institution:

Yes, we may prefer one set of laws to another. But behind them all is a history of massive criminality and naked violence. Loyalty to the present government should exist only as obedience and compliance, and only to the extent we are convinced it is better than any available alternative, but should not exist as an end in itself. By divorcing the soul from the State, we would become more resistant to the State’s ridiculous claims and recognize its blatant hypocrisies and injustices. We would see that our country in no way resembles what it says it is, let alone what we would wish it to be. We would then see more clearly when it is time to secede, shoot the bastards, support a coup, or take some other “illegal” action.

Here’s some conclusions I’ve drawn from the ideas in Wilson’s essay:

1. Resistance to the state is the natural act of humans. Even if the state is never fully abolished, it can only become a monster with our consent. That means never substituting state interests for our own, even when they momentarily align. In other words, think for yourself. Just because people have historically acted a certain way within a cage of oppression and marginalization is no testament to the true nature of human beings.

2. You have to define who you are before you know your authentic interests. The state thrives on collectivist generalizations of people by nationality, race, ideology, etc. None of those are who you are: the real you, that spark of unique, irreplacable creativity. If the state is indeed necessary, how much more important that each individual identify and act from that spark!

   Eternal vigilence may be the price of liberty - however, this vigilence should be exercised on the self as well. Not in any dogmatic sense, but simply as a function of finding out who you are. I am invoking this process in the same sense that mystics, philosophers, and truth seekers since time immemorial have sought the kernel of life’s meaning.

3. Anarchism - the systematic rejection of the state as a legitimate institution (regardless of its usefulness) - would consequentially appear to be intimately involved in the two points above. Accordingly, would it be going too far to say that the conservation of individual conscience is the primary expression of anarchism?

4. If we want to achieve our shared goals of freedom, we need to give people more credit. It’s always assumed - especially by libertarians - that most people are pretty stupid. However, if we have any hope of achieving personal liberty, we must stake everything on the notion that people are not hopeless. Kevin Carson recently criticized the libertarian penchant for snobbish derision towards the “common people”. But the truth of the matter is that there is no alternative to promoting a people’s movement.

   We need our brothers and sisters in order to achieve our freedom. After all, if we’re going to have to share this planet with others, the only way to get other not to oppress us is to reach out to them! I don’t think we really want to “trick” the “stupid” masses into liberty. If we really believe at some level that the vast majority is best served by being free, shouldn’t this be obvious to them once they’ve given it sufficient thought? Then isn’t it all really less about pedagoguery and more about reflection and self-knowledge?

If I’ve articulated ideas here that have any truthfulness at all, then this casts new light on the typical libertarian appeal to education in principles. We need more than that. A person who doesn’t know who he or she is cannot see the usefulness of principles. I’m not interested in a political strategy at this point: without a better understanding of the nature of our condition, we can’t formulate a realistic strategy.

However, I can start working on better knowing myself - right now.

Tags: anarchism, conscience, individualism, identity, politics, state

From Matt McIntosh:

…I guess political infeasibility is the price you pay for getting to the heart of the matter.

So true. It’s little gems like that line which keep me going back to Catallarchy, not to mention the very astute observation about the economics of illegal immigration from which that excerpt originated. McIntosh makes the same points about “social engineering wars” that are always overlooked in politics.

As an aside, I had brought up similar issues of enforcement to a conservative blogger whom I know. You shouldn’t simply be able to rattle a nationalistic saber and get the country to ask “how high” - you need to think this shit through, people. But… that’s a problem we’ve been having for some time, and I doubt this debate will put it to rest.

Tags: immigration, politics, policy, economics, social_engineering