leftlibertarian.org

Gary North hits one out of the park today. [link] I'm often a fan of his, though he's inconsistently good, and holds some odd beliefs. But on economic issues, he seems to "strike the root" more than a lot of people in this thing of ours. I don't even need to add commentary to that article (not like I have much time to do so, I've been fiendishly pressed for time lately, but I'll endeavor to get

Pro Libertate - Man, he's good. Thanks to Vache Folle and JL Wilson for the heads up on him. I've actually followed links back to the Birch Blog before and always liked what I read there, but never actually read it on a regular basis. Now I regret that decision. So Wm Norman Grigg, you are on my blog links. (From my experience, the Birch people tend to be the best or the worst, depending.

Quite some time ago, Kevin Carson posted excerpts from William Greene’s Address of the Internationals thanks to the diligent historical work of Shawn Wilbur (whose transcriptions of important individualist texts are invaluable). I’m just now getting around to reading it (trying to clean out my “to read” list) but something struck me in Greene’s denunciation of state privilege. When I’ve attacked the basis of corporate privilege in the past, defenders have countered that it’s not a privilege per se because everybody is equally entitled to incorporate. Greene, an important figure in the development of mutualism, clarifies why this kind of “equality” is not the basis of a just society:

What is required at the present time is not so much equality before the laws as equal laws: that is to say, laws that do not themselves bring forth and perpetuate inequality; for laws organizing privilege have not, of necessity, a respect for particular persons; since they may have the effect to render it inevitable that a privileged class shall exist, without themselves designating the persons who are to compose that class. The privileged man of the period may say, “I took the world as I found it; and by taking the world as I took it, since we both of us have to deal with the same world, you also may perhaps, if you show the same talent, diligence, and perseverance that I showed, attain to a position similar to the one I hold. There is equality after all; for every one of us faces the same chances.” The college sophomore may say to the freshman, “I kick you in accordance with time-honored custom; but I, also, was kicked, in my time, by my predecessors; and, if you wait patiently, you may, in your turn, kick your successors. There is an equality in the matter; for, ultimately, all kick, and all are kicked.” Would there not be a better equality, and at the same time more justice and more dignity, if no one should kick, and no one should be kicked? Justice—not equal chances in injustice, not the satisfaction of knowing that you may, if you have luck, bite as much as you are bitten, and eat as much as you are eaten—ought to govern the world….

We don’t need equal opportunity in exploitation and privilege. We don’t need a fair chance at grabbing as much of the pie as we can. We need equal opportunity and a fair chance, without qualifications and restrictions. The only thing laws ever do is get in the way of opportunity and justice.

Tags: first international, labor,

A little while back RadGeek had a great Karl Hess quote from the documentary Anarchism in America (recently re-released by AK Press and available from AK Press and through Netflix). I got a chance to watch it this weekend and enjoyed it immensely. Everyone should rent it. (You think Netflix will notice a sudden run on an obscure anarchist documentary?)

The film was made in 1980 and its theme is that there is an implicit anarchism in the American character. It traces the history of both collectivist (communist and syndicalist) and individualist anarchism in the US and even casts a fairly sympathetic eye on the Libertarian Party and libertarianism. The highlight for me was the interviews with so many great American anarchists. Karl Hess and Murray Bookchin each get several segments. I was also pleasantly surprised to see footage of Emma Goldman�whom I have only seen in photos�and an interview with Mildred Loomis. (If you don�t have a copy of Loomis� excellent Decentralism, recently republished by Black Rose Press, what are you waiting for?!).

The DVD also contains the documentary The Free Voice of Labor, about the Jewish anarchist movement in the US�very interesting.

I�ll have more to say about both films soon, but one thing that immediately struck me was how, well, anti-government the traditional left-anarchists were. I know, I know, it seems odd to be surprised that anarchists would be so explicitly anti-statist, but in my own personal experience with and reading of more recent anarchist thinkers and movements, anti-statism, if it shows up at all, takes a back seat to a host of other concerns. Usually it goes roughly like this: Anti-Capitalism, Veganism, Environmentalism, Anti-War, Anti-Racism, Anti-Sexism, Anti-Heterosexism, oh, and �I hate cops!� And I think many anarchists hold something like Chomsky�s view that, so long as capitalism exists, we need the regulatory and welfare state as a counterbalancing force. So, it�s refreshing to see anarchists who actually believe that human beings can get along without rulers and don�t look to the bureaucrats to protect them from the plutocrats.

Okay, I need to work on that title. But anyway, William Gillis tagged me with that book thingie. Let's see...

One book that changed your life: Many books have changed my life. I guess one of them is The Machinery of Freedom by David D. Friedman, the first book I read about market anarchism.

One book that you have read more than once: The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin. I don't think it will ever get boring to re-read it.

One book that made you laugh: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson. But there are many more. Douglas Adams and Elfriede Jelinek come to mind. Okay, Jelinek might sound surprising but it's true.

One book that made you cry: None, so far. But Requiem for a Dream by Hubert Selby, Jr. and Youth by J.M. Coetzee would count as honorable mentions.

One book you wish had been written: Oh that's hard. It sure would've been nice if Hubert Selby, Jr. had been able to complete that semi-autobiographical novel he was supposedly working on at the time of his death.

One book you wish never had been written: There are lots of bad books which inspired some people to do terrible things. But I agree with many other people that this doesn't mean that I wish they hadn't been written. If I had to pick one I would probably pick something like Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes.

One book you are currently reading: Le pont de la rivi�re Kwa� by Pierre Boulle.

One book you have been meaning to read: One?! Okay, let's take a random pick... Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.

Now tag 5 people: I don't know who's been tagged yet. How about Roderick Long, Sheldon Richman, Charles Johnson, David and whoever wants to do it at Bureaucrash?

Tags: literature, books

“Leadership”


The word graces resumes, bios, political campaigns, awards and recognitions. Phrases like “proven leadership in the community” are so prevalent that people almost forget what they mean. And what exactly do they mean? By simple definition, leadership is the trait of someone who leads, in any way--by example, by expertise, by knowledge, by innovation. In prevalent contemporary use, however, it has almost exclusively come to signify the trait of someone who is good at being in charge, at calling the shots; someone who is decisive, and commanding. It is exactly in that connotation that the word has acquired its overwhelming and society-damaging hype.

How important is it for someone to have a history of being in charge, when the real issues require not mere decisiveness or commanding style, but actual insight on the issues? Is it better to have a school board superintendent who “knows how to be in charge” than one who knows how to foster an enriching and cultivating learning environment? (only if your aim is children who are confident and creative, instead of just compliant and dutiful). Is it better to have a manager who “lets people know who’s boss” than one whose management is centered on facilitating the talents, ideas and abilities of those with whom (and not over whom) he or she works? Is it better to have a president who can “act decisively” on gut and impulse than one who acts on progressive ideas and principles?

In organizations, in government, in communities, and even in companies, we need to move beyond our simple view of leadership, focusing on which person has the most executive savvy, to an idea in which people work together in a collective leadership based on the best ideas and a common view of progress--one in which everyone has the right to speak and be heard. The right message is the right message, and the right approach is the right approach, regardless of which person is its proponent.


“Professionalism”


A profession is a person’s area of work, focus, or expertise; “professional” is a word that is meant to describe a level of proficiency that person has in his or her occupation. It is most often used, however, for something that has nothing to do with how well someone does something: a style or manner of dress, an attitude or air expected around one’s peers or superiors, a “standard company face.” In short, it is used to make sure people are not themselves at work; to make them understand that they are not to be comfortable, for they are on their employer’s time, not theirs.

Is it truly a wonder how, in such a working environment, many people dislike their jobs (and often their bosses and co-workers)?! People spend a significant part of their lives at work. Perhaps the next cause of workforce entitlement should be the liberty to be comfortable and to be oneself at work, to assert that, while the employee may be working for the employer, and receiving pay, the time spent doing so is still part of the employee’s own life, time that benefits the employer and should be reciprocated with a positive environment. I would like to see employees begin to assert their right to anything of their personal happiness at work that does not functionally interfere with performance. This goes for blue collar and white collar professions, and jobs of any other collar. Professionalism should be how people perform in their vocation, not whether they adopt or conform to an approved style. The world needs more people and personalities and less uniformed drones and stuffed suits.


“Decency”


With larger indecency fines looming over media networks, maybe it would be a good idea to think about just what decency is, what is harmful to children, and what our cultural sensitivities are. What is decent? It’s undeniably subjective--you will get a different answer from different people, and different sensibilities have prevailed at different times. The I Love Lucy Show pushed the envelope by depicting a husband and wife who slept in the same bed--imagine indecency in that! Some cultural sensitivities have run counter to what we now consider basic principles of human rights--such as, for example, offense over the sight of an interracial couple. It continues today, with public affection of gay couples--in some areas a part of everyday life in the community, and in others grounds for public harassment. There are ideas of decency, still, to which nearly all people still agree on--that violence, abuse, and exploitation, for example, are not part of a decent, civil society.

The definition that seems to rule as far as broadcasting goes is that sex and nudity, along with certain expressions of language, are “indecent.” Most violence, however, passes the decency test on even major television networks. So, while the human body, and expressions of affection between people, are not deemed good or appropriate things, the destruction of human life by people is not just depicted, but occasionally celebrated and glorified on primetime television. Unless we want children to grow up with idea that violence is okay, but sex and their own bodies are bad, we need to re-tune our decency meter.


“Family values”


For the wonderful and positive thing that family is, it has been used with such vehemence in the political and social spheres that one almost might forget what family means. Some groups have attempted to commandeer the family, and ascribe to it values which are absolute and universal, and, not surprisingly, their own. Most of this has been making sure that children assume their expected roles, and instilling in them the values of judgment and prejudice against people and families different from them and theirs. Most of that, even more ironically, is attributed to the teachings of a man who admonished his followers to love, tolerance, and forbearance from judgment.

Let us not forget that family is a positive thing, one that should engender positive qualities in people and society. Family is a symbol of love and unity, trust and security, and closeness and intimacy, and is defined by relationships in which those things are present. Marriage and parenthood should be defined in the same way. Family values should have to do with valuing one’s own family, not devaluing someone else’s.


“Patriotism”


What does it mean to be a patriot? What is it to love one’s country? Boasts of patriotism and charges of lacking it have been thrown around a lot in recent years. They have mostly been used by proponents of America’s current foreign and military, and domestic security, policies, and against those who would criticize or question those policies. Maybe we should ask, then, what of those policies is uniquely and quintessentially American, that to call them into question or openly criticize them is unpatriotic? Are unnecessary military action and threats thereof more American than international diplomacy and open dialogue? Is it more American to assume we’re always right, in an arrogant attempt to avoid national shame and embarrassment, than to admit when we’ve been wrong, in a noble attempt to correct ourselves and learn from mistakes? Is it un-American to question extremes of executive governmental authority when they stand in stark violation of liberty or human rights?

I don’t believe so. Some believe loving one’s country means joining in whatever nationalistic fervor can be mustered towards accomplishing a particular political agenda. I believe it means making the country better and ensuring its conscience. In the words of one former Supreme Court Justice, Robert H. Jackson, “It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.”

Real patriots aren’t fooled by affluent, comfortable people who sit in nice leather chairs and say “stay the course” and act like they’re courageous. Real patriots aren’t distracted by voices who cry against any who may burn the flag in protest, yet themselves burn the principles for which it stands. Real patriots ask questions. Real patriots call for change when it is needed.

I just finished reading Kevin Carson's book Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and the symposium on it in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. The good thing is I enjoyed reading all of it a lot! The bad thing is that Carson couldn't convince me in all regards.

Part One, where Carson tries to update the labor theory of value, is very challenging for someone who has no academic background in economics (yet). Since my own path to market anarchism was much more influenced by subjectivism, not only economically but also philosophically, than that of most anarchists, I was naturally skeptical to that theory. Nevertheless, Carson almost got me at the end of Part One. Still, Robert Murphy's excellent critique in the abovementioned issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies convinced me that the subjective theory of value is not only simpler but also more accurate and that Carson's labor theory of value is, after all, a subordinate aspect of the subjective theory of value.

Part Two is an excellent historical analysis and description as to why there has never been an era of laissez-faire in recent history. It provides us with many useful counter-arguments against people who claim that we need statism to defend the poor against the allegedly harsh outgrowths of the free market. Ever since I defended the free market I did so not only with emphasis on liberty but also on somewhat economically egalitarian grounds. I agree with Benjamin Tucker when he demands "Equality if we can get it, but Liberty at any rate!" but I also believe that if we get total liberty, we will definitely also get much more equality than we have today. So, there was little room for me being converted by Carson but I still find Part Two extremely helpful since I have so far only grasped the theoretical implications of statism in regards to the poor but apart from single anecdotes and examples I didn't have enough historical knowledge to reproduce a coherent historical analysis. I think I now can.

But there is one chapter in Part Two which really advanced my own theoretical mindset in a crucial way. It's the discussion of one of "Tucker's Big Four", the alleged illegitimate land monopoly of absentee landlordism. Ever since I started following Carson's "exchange" with George Reisman, I began to realize that I hadn't made up my mind about the issue of land ownership yet�only to come to the conclusion that it is in my view actually the most important single issue of every political philosophy. Reading that chapter, Roderick Long's critique of some of its ideas and Carson's rejoinder to it led me to the conclusion that Long is absolutely right. The Rothbardian notion of land ownership is�combined with Long's and Carlton Hobbs' theories of common property in a market anarchy�the only one defendable on the grounds of individual self-ownership. And I don't think that I came to that conclusion because I read Carson's book through a Rothbardian lens; for some weird reason I really didn't consider questions about land ownership such a big issue for a long time.

Finally, Part Three concerns itself with the question of how to "get there from here." This is an area where I haven't fully made up my mind yet, although I find agorism the most interesting theory I've read. That's why I think it's too bad that there's no discussion of it in the book, especially since there are obvious parallels between agorism and some ideas presented by Carson. Nevertheless, Part Three is very interesting and made me look at some things in a different way.

All in all, Kevin Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy is an excellent book with some (probably inevitable) minor flaws and it is in my view a great and very important contribution to the diverse body of works about libertarian theory. I urge everybody who's interested in the kinds of issues discussed in the book to read it and to read, in addition, at least Robert Murphy's and Roderick Long's critiques of it. Murray Rothbard's essay in the abovementioned issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies is interesting too. Heck, you should even read Walter Block's and George Reisman's critiques of Carson's book. Although they are deeply flawed and often totally besides the point they still have some good minor points to make. And you should, of course, read all of Carson's rejoinders too.

Generally, what the book did for me is reinforce my conviction that I'm a left-libertarian of the Rothbardian type, with as much emphasis on "left" as on "libertarian." If that makes me a capitalist depends who I'm talking to. I just preferred the term had never been adopted by anarchists. Still, the term "anarcho-capitalism" succeeds in distinguishing my beliefs and those of many others from the "mutualists" and "individualist anarchists" such as Tucker and Carson. Because, although we agree in almost everything, we differ in our views on land ownership. But in the end, all terms are empty and open to hijacking.

Tags: mutualism, individualist anarchism, left-libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism

Radley Balko has posted some great YouTube videos related to law enforcement lately which I think merit sharing (in lieu of actual original writing on my part - yes, America, I’m in another blogging funk).

• L.E.A.P. (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) created a video of former police officers presenting their case against the drug war.  It’s always reassuring to see the authorities talking common sense (for once).
• Here’s a video of cops firing rubber bullets at unarmed, non-threatening people and then laughing about it.
• Here’s a video of cops arresting somebody simply for asking for a officer complaint form.

Yay, America.

Tags: law enforcement, radley balko, drug war, police abuses

I am anxiously awaiting the release of Lambchop’s new album Damaged on Tuesday.  Lambchop has been my favorite band since I saw them live at The Belcourt the day after my wedding in 2000.  I’m very disappointed I won’t get to go to Sunday’s "Brunch with Lambchop" at Grimey’s, though. 

One of my favorite songs of all time is "Are You Ready to Be Heartbroken" by Lloyd Cole & The Commotions.  The song appeared on Cole’s brilliantly underrated Rattlesnakes album too many years ago.  Well, now the band Camera Obscura has recorded a sort of answer to Cole’s song.  The song is called "Lloyd, I’m Ready to Be Heartbroken."  It’s a great song, but I like the idea behind it even better. The song is on their new album Let’s Get Out of This Country.

When I saw my friends Amy and Jared a couple of weeks ago, they were raving about the output of the Swedish label Labrador Records.  I was already familiar with a few of their artists like Acid House Kings, Lasse Lindh, Ronderlin, The Radio Dept., Club 8, and The Legends.  They were singing the praises of the band South Ambulance. Now I have their song "Die 5times times5" stuck in my head. 

Powered by Qumana

Hi, everyone. My apologies for the long absence, but it has been a very busy summer. So, for now, a few updates. I'll be returning to semi-regular blogging shortly.

First, after many years of blissful domestic partnership, I finally got hitched to my brilliant and gorgeous partner in crime. Amongst her many favorable qualities, she is a philosopher who works in both Feminist and Buddhist philosophy. (As many of you know, Roderick and Charles have an excellent paper, "Libertarian Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved?" Let's hope so!)

So, after our big wedding extravaganza, we were off to Thailand for almost three weeks. Thailand was fabulous! Unfortunately, just before beginning the 24 hour return trip to the US, I picked up a nasty case of food poisoning. I lost about 10 lbs in 36 hours. Not fun.

Next up, we drove to Canada for our friends wedding celebration. I was still sick, but it was a great time nonetheless.

So, now things are returning to normal and I'll be able to post more frequently. I've got a lot of stuff in the works, but for now, one announcement:

The Molinari Society will be holding its third annual Symposium in conjunction with the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in Mordor, I mean Washington DC, December 27-30, 2006. Here�s the latest schedule info:

GVIII-4. Friday, 29 December 2006, 11:15 a.m.-1:15 p.m.
Molinari Society symposium: �Anarchist Perspectives�
Virginia Suite C (Lobby Level), Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road NW
Session 1, 11:15-12:15:
chair: Roderick T. Long (Auburn University)
speaker: Matthew MacKenzie (Muhlenberg College)
title: �Exploitation: A Dialectical Anarchist Perspective�
commentator: Charles W. Johnson (Molinari Institute)

Session 2, 12:15-1:15:
chair: Roderick T. Long (Auburn University)
speaker: Geoffrey Allan Plauch� (Louisiana State University)
title: �On the Myth of the Founder-Legislator in Political Philosophy�
commentator: Charles W. Johnson (Molinari Institute)

Make sure to catch both sessions, if you can. (Oh, and I've heard that MacKenzie guy is pretty smart.)

Cheers