leftlibertarian.org

Responding to my own comments in my recent post on Ron Paul, Rich Paul, a minarchist (see his blog), writes "I don't know that there is any mismatch between anarchist principals and voting ... after all, votes are weapons, and most anarchists who vote do so only in self defense."

I agree. But unless hard-core libertarians and anarchists vote only for candidates who promise to abolish the government immediately, they must accept the compromises of politics. If they are committed to parties and elections, they can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Too often I hear complaints that so-and-so is not a "real" libertarian because so-and-so doesn't have the same priorities or strays from the hard-core line once too often. But if such a person can persuade more people to take the country in a libertarian direction, wouldn't we all be better off?

If on a scale where a centralized totalitarian state is, say, a 10, anarchism is 0, the Libertarian Party is a 1, and Ron Paul is a 3, I can see the argument that Ron Paul shouldn't represent the Libertarian Party - if the LP exists primarily as an education tool. That's different, however, from saying that a Ron Paul campaign would be a bad thing for liberty. When every other politician in America is a 6, 7, or 8, we need Ron Paul and his Constitutionalism even if it's not pure libertarianism. Paul is the only visible counterweight to authoritarianism in America.

The role of the radical is to persuade moderate libertarians and Constitutionalist conservatives to the radical position. But the role of the Ron Pauls of the world is to persuade big-government moderates to become moderate libertarians and Constitutionalists. In the tug of war for liberty, the radicals are the intellectual anchor, but Ron Paul's broad coalition of supporters will provide the manpower.

In response to the news of the Liberty archive's first-phase completion, my friend Iain commented, "now, if only someone could do that for Freedom between 1886 and 1926!"

Amen! And for Mother Earth, and for any number of other important anarchist papers and journals. I've started to work up a text archive of the six issues of The Rebel (Boston, 1895-6), an anarchist-communist paper, which had a few Voltairine de Cleyre items in it, in part because it looked like a simple job, and because I wanted to look at something other than issues of Liberty and Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly for a change. Partly, I tackled it because it was there, and we ought to do what we can to make locally available bits of our history available more universally.

I'm working on a proposal for the Liberty Site that suggests both a philosophy and some mechanisms for gathering up our scattered heritage, using Liberty and the debates within and around it as a focus, and our interest in those debates as an engine, for extending and improving the existing archive. If someone was willing to begin a similar scanning project with Freedom, Mother Earth, or any of the other significant social anarchist periodicals, we could, if nothing else, bring to bear that much more interest and, one would hope, labor. If anyone is interested in attempting such a thing, get in touch. Perhaps we can work out some way of making it happen.

Two of the hard-to-find pamphlets by Joshua King Ingalls have surfaced among the items digitized by the Labadie Collection staff. The Unrevealed Religion is listed in their index of titles, but the pamphlet scanned also includes Social Industry, the Sole Source of Increase, which was issued as an introduction to Ingalls' columns in Fair Play. I had read The Unrevealed Religion, but had not attempted to transcribe the faint, brittle interlibrary loan copy I had access to. The faintness of the scans suggests the difficulties involved. But access to this electronic version means I can get that transcription done at my leisure, without jeopardizing the integrity of any rarities. Slowly, but surely, all of Ingalls' work is surfacing.

As probably every libertarian, especially every left-libertarian knows, a careful choice of words is crucial when communicating our political and philosophical ideals. This especially concerns such catchwords as "capitalism", "socialism", "freedom", "democracy", "liberty", "law", "anarchy", "government", "State", etc. For example, if you debate market anarchism with a so-called "democratic socialist" there's a good chance that you're only going to met with a managable deal of hostility if you open your description of libertarianism by mentioning that one of its intellectual forefathers was Benjamin Tucker, who sometimes called himself, well, a democrat (an unterrified Jeffersonian one that would be, but you don't need to mention that) and a socialist. On the other hand, if you start by calling your ideal "anarcho-capitalism", chances are that your counterpart isn't going to take you very seriously.

Another cathword you need to use carefully is "the free market". I actually think it is a relatively neutral but still adequate word to describe what you stand for. But since most people think that "Western democracies" are "free markets" and that "free market principles" define and lie at the base of the curent state of globalization, the first thing you have to make sure when you use the word is clarify its implications and to point out that a free market doesn't exist anywhere in the world on any mentionable scale.

Now, if you want to avoid this trouble, William Gillis, who like myself likes to use the expression "anarcho-'capitalism'", has an suggestion for you: simply use the phrase "the freed market". Here's what he has to say about it:

You'd be surprised how much of a difference a change of tense can make. "Free market" makes it sound like such a thing already exists and thus passively perpetuates the Red myth that Corporatism and wanton accumulation of Kapital are the natural consequences of free association and competition between individuals. (It is not.)

But "freed" has an element of distance and, whatsmore, a degree of action to it. It becomes so much easier to state things like: Freed markets don't have corporations. A freed market naturally equalizes wealth. Social hierarchy is by definition inefficient and this is particularly evident in freed markets.

It moves us out of the present tense and into the theoretical realm of "after the revolution," where like the Reds we can still use present day examples to back theory, but we're not tied into implicitly defending every horror in today's market. It's easier to pick out separate mechanics in the market and make distinctions. Also. Have I mentioned that it makes an implicit call to action?

Brilliant! I'll start using that phrase right away!

Now I only wish I hadn't already registered the domain derfreiemarkt.ch ("the free market.ch") for my personal German blog. I would totally dig derbefreitemarkt.ch ("the freed market.ch").

Tags: the freed market, Newspeak

William Gillis recently made some damn good points about language and the struggle to be understood in anarchist economic theory discussions:

Instead of referring to the behavior and dynamics of the free market, I refer instead to “a freed market.”

You’d be surprised how much of a difference a change of tense can make. “Free market” makes it sound like such a thing already exists and thus passively perpetuates the Red myth that Corporatism and wanton accumulation of Kapital are the natural consequences of free association and competition between individuals. (It is not.)

Read the whole thing.

It’s a simple point, really, even in Marxian terms… Oppressive kapitalism is ALL ongoing “primitive accumulation”. Reciprocal exchange, per se, is blameless.

Pity that such points get harder and harder to make when the likes of Jeffrey Tucker insist on combining all of the right theory with all of the wrong values (and no sense of context). Tucker has a piece on LewRockwell.com entitled “How To Handle Getting Fired“, which isn’t perhaps as knuckle-headed of a title as the headline used to promote it on homepage of the site — “Getting Fired Is Good for You“. This is the sort of misapplication of theory that makes free market advocacy sound not intensely liberating, but more like a deranged, brainwashed S&M cult. “Hurt me! Hurt me, please!”

Tucker is correct that a change of employment can be a career growth opportunity. Tucker is also correct that it is best for relationships, including employment relationships, to end when they stop being mutually beneficial. Tucker works so hard to make these points, though, that he loses sight of how devastating such a financial upheaval can be for the ordinary person.

There is a sort of unreal, “through the looking glass” feeling that comes with reading the work of someone who seems to exist in some sort of Disneyland where the biggest potential problem with getting fired is merely a bruised ego. In the case of most people, getting fired results in a palpable sense of fear — and I don’t mean some vague, existential threat of the unknown and moving into uncharted territory that merely needs to be confronted by our individualist hero. I refer to the immediate and nigh primal human fear of not being able to pay your rent or not being able to feed your kids. Nowhere in the piece does Tucker even acknowledge any problem with that set of common circumstances accompanying job loss, and more’s the pity from a libertarian perspective, due to the role of the State in creating those circumstances.

I read Christopher Buckley's Thank You For Smoking in 1995 and saw the movie on DVD tonight. The novel's wit was terrific and translated well onto film, and the film's writer/director Jason Reitman improved its plot.

The story is largely a satire about spin, about talking. But whereas Buckley "chickened out" at the end of his novel, Reitman remains true to its libertarian themes. And the libertarianism is only secondarily about defending private businesses from federal harassment and regulation. More important is how tobacco lobbyist Nick Naylor "spins" his position: he challenges individuals to question authority, investigate the facts, and make decisions for themselves. He promotes parental and individual responsibility.

In the end, is it ethical to promote the interests of Big Tobacco? That's not for me to judge, but what could be more ethical than defending personal freedom?

This digest is the espanol edition! But only in the title

Grrr! The Warfare State is Bloodthirsty

Will Bush Invade Pakistan? I Wouldn’t Put it Past Him — or His Democratic Successors

Yes to Recriminations against Iraq Policymakers

Sheldon Richman tells us to hold the politicians accountable. I agree and want to know when the war crimes trials begin. They tend to be rather rich folks, so I imagine they’ll have plenty of cash or items or something for reparations.

On the Lighter Side

Final Harry Potter Book Blasted for Containing Spoilers

New Theories Suggest Kennedy Wasn’t Shot

Back to More Serious Business: Speaking of Economics and Civil Liberties

Martial Law is Now a Real Threat

As Cheap Oil Ends: American Standard of Living Will Decline

U.S. Dollar Falling ill from Poisonous Debt Packages

One Misc. Item

Why Love Is Our Most Powerful, Lasting Form of Activism

Then go see The Simpsons Movie! I ended up seeing it yesterday and walked away with much satisfaction. Its generated a writing by Anthony Gregory too. It’s not a good idea to read it before you’ve seen the movie though, since it contains spoilers.

Sometimes it is useful to post comments about technical issues like the last two about the problems Shag had been having with Sitemeter. By the way Sitemeter seems to be working again so maybe that is finally resolved. Anyway in two older posts here and here the equestrian GIFs used to move but not any longer. Does anyone know why this is happening? Could this be related to the message printed on one of the intermediate pages when Blogger is retrieving graphics for inclusion in a posting, stating the percentage of available graphics memory space. Lately Shag is getting a message of 13 megabytes or one percent of total for this figure. Is this figure realistic? That suggests when I reach 10,000 postings somewhere in the twenty second century will I finally run out of graphics space? What happens to really large blogs with thousands of entries already and larger graphics. But this is a small blog ... although the traffic levels relative to the amount of material are sometimes fairly significant ... I'd like to think so anyway. There are only 107 posts over here to be true although this is obviously compensated by the quality of insight and levels of esprit de corps ... n'est-ce pas?

From the Constitution Party website:

The Constitution Party presidential candidate will be selected at its convention in the spring of 2008. We can’t say for sure what will be decided by the convention delegates, but as the party who puts principle above party loyalty, it seems that in the unlikely event that Doctor No [Ron Paul] is able to capture the Republican nomination, we would stand behind him 100%.

The dilemma we have is that we cannot sit around and wait to see what the Republicans are going to do but must build the ark that true Constitutionalists can find refuge on when it dawns on them that the Republican and Democrat parties will let them drown. To that end we must work to secure ballot access in all 50 states NOW and find a candidate who can carry our principles into a presidential campaign which will more than likely find a left-of-center candidate carrying the Republican mantle.

If the Grand Old Party does choose to return to its conservative ideals by supporting Congressman Paul, then there will be ample opportunity to throw our support behind him should our delegates so decide. If he does not win the GOP nomination we will have done much of the work to gain the ballot lines necessary to field a candidate who shares our values and who will govern constitutionally. That candidate could be Ron Paul should he decide to continue his race by seeking the Constitution Party nomination.

This is quite a dilemma. By the time the Republican primaries are finished thanks to what will be the most vicious and dishonest smear campaign in the history of the Republic (after the strategy of ignoring him had failed), Ron Paul will still have a much larger following and greater name recognition then than he does in this early stage of the campaign. Paul could probably launch an independent or third-party bid and get at least 10% of the popular vote and probably a lot more. If Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination but decides to continue in the race, options include:

- Unity 08; see my column on it here.
- An independent run or creating a new third party, provided it gets tacit endorsement from the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party in that they don't nominate their own candidates. But if Paul runs as an independent, the ballot-access chances of both parties are hurt. But his pro-peace, pro-civil liberties message will also be effective outreach to many on the Left. The ends of both the LP and CP would be advanced, however imperfectly, by an independent Paul run, even if it does institutional damage to those parties.
- seeking the nomination of either the CP or the LP, but not both. This will be a bonanza for the party he chooses, as it would guarantee ballot access for that party in every state. Then again, he isn't a "pure" Constitution Party guy as he's a federalist on the abortion question and rejects protective tariffs, which the CP seems to favor. And he's an even less "pure" Libertarian, as he is more federalist than individualist on "moral" issues, more nationalist than laissez-faire on immigration, and favors national sovereignty over "free trade agreements."
- seeking the nomination of both parties. This could lead to conflicts and confusion on state ballot laws, and perhaps competition between the parties as to who will Paul represent in a particular state.

Time will tell. But it brings me joy to even speculate about it. The Ron Paul grassroots so far has proven to be larger, more enthusiastic, and better organized than I had anticipated, so that his campaign at this point is now more good news than bad, with greater reasons for optimism now than when it started.

And, as I said then, it's better for Ron Paul to run than for everyone to wonder what might have been. Because now, I'm wondering about what might be, which is more fun than trying to speculate which Libertarian candidate has the best chance to win half a million votes.