Ron Jacobs discusses free speech in Manhattan.
Dave Lindorff discusses the Philly cop chief and a newspaper.
Carl Finamore discusses making black lives matter in 2015.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark discusses China in the Balkans.
Bruce Fein discusses abolishing the CIA.
FEE features selections from Max Weber discussing the inherently violent character of the state.
Jeffrey Tucker discusses taking back the word liberal for liberty.
Chance M.E. Davis discusses the private space industry.
Mikayla Novak discusses the great enrichment, network theory, and the liberation of women.
Jacob Sullum discusses whether Obama the drug warrior is becoming the drug reformer.
Jesse Walker discusses a public-private partnership in the service of the War on Drugs.
Norman Solomon discusses a CIA whistleblower.
Gareth Porter discusses the real politics behind the U.S. war on ISIS.
Marjorie Cohn discusses how killer drones are an extension of American exceptionalism.
Patrick Cockburn discusses the war against ISIS.
Ivan Eland discusses what motivates ISIS.
Laurence M. Vance discusses the torture report.
Richard Ebeling discusses a possible New Year’s resolution for friends of liberty.
George Leef discusses making 2015 the year of repealing bad laws.
Wendy McElroy discusses food freedom.
Jacob G. Hornberger discusses conservative hypocrisy on the Cuban embargo.
Charles Pierson discusses the year in drones.
Abby Martin discusses troop worship.
Bionic Mosquito discusses WW2.
James Peron discusses Rand Paul’s response to the Paris terrorist attacks.
Brian Cloughley discusses the nature of the U.S. torturers.
John Chuckman discusses what war looks like.
Lucy Steigerwald discusses the Paris attacks.
I don't think the James Person article represents C4SS very well. It was rambling and filled with erroneous logical leaps. It's rhetoric was obnoxious (as is so typical with partisan news outlets, although this was especially bad), and it hinges on a very ungenerous interpretation of an extemporaneously uttered quote. I certainly don't agree with the sentiment or conclusions Rand Paul has voiced the last few years in responds to militant Islam, but C4SS would do better to promote critical analyses of the issues – I immediately think of Slavoj Zizek's commentary on the Charlie Hebdo shootings in The New Statesmen – rather than pop-liberal political rhetoric.
There are several absurd implications of the piece. First, that because Paul does not address all instances of violence and oppression, then his view on some instances of violence and oppression can be dismissed. Second, in one of the worst attempts at a reductio ad absurdum I have ever witnessed, Person conflates the history of Hebrew and Christian atrocities from the ancient and medieval Levant with modern political realities. It was done, ostensibly, to show that one can't conflate so-called 'acts of terror' with Muslims in general, as if the acts of a Semitic tribe 3000 years ago is just as relevant to our view of it's modern descendant as last week's massacre of villagers in Nigeria is to our view of today's Islam. I don't feel like going into an in-depth analysis of Person's article because it's too poor to merit any more time than I have put into this comment. It was written for mainstream social democrats and accordingly rests its conclusions on self-righteous, patronizing rhetoric and spurious argumentation.
This article does nothing to advance the cause of left-wing, market libertarians. Rather than alienating libertarian leaning conservatives we should seduce them with the principles of radical libertarianism.