Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 432-0600 Participant Access Code: 525118#

My personal goal is to get C4SS articles read by users on these sites, as well as create a brand that will be positively recognized and revered by readers.  By posting commentary pieces on a variety of websites and keeping up with profile connections, this tactic should be successful.  Our goal is to especially target “millenials,” people born between the mid-1970s to early 2000s, who are soon to be outnumbering baby bombers. This group spends more than 16 hours a week online and more importantly, 96% of them have joined a social network — and most importantly, they focus on what their friends think and like rather than traditional marketing and ads.  Baby boomers are also catching onto the social networking phenomenon, but at the much slower rate of 41%.  Quite obviously, there is a large selection of networking sites to choose from, and this is where strategy will be important, through experience, analytical theory and experimentation.

Reddit, Digg, Diigo, Delicious, StumbleUpon, Mixx, Slashdot and Folkd are websites in which C4SS has an account thus far.  You can help out by subscribing to our profile page and “voting up” any links that we post using these sites.  Also, C4SS is on FriendFeed, which incorporates most of these services on the profile page for easy reference.

Google Buzz and Yahoo Buzz, are websites that are more individual — you can post C4SS links to your own private networks, but they can also become public.  Google Buzz appears in your Gmail and uses a Twitter-like following technique while Yahoo Buzz is more global and even incorporates the “voting up” system.

For any type of RSS feed subscription, use this link for our commentary articles.  Google Reader is an example of this, as well as being an available option on most personal websites or blogs.

And lastly, two more sites to add, C4SS has a Myspace profile and a LinkedIn group.  Myspace has been around since before Facebook, and since has become decreasingly popular, but may still be worth the effort.  LinkedIn is a website that is used for “professional networking,”

For this week’s update, I am going to highlight Reddit, which seems to be one of the most recent growing link sharing social news websites.  It is possible to submit both links and self made posts and then other users may vote these up or down, and the posts with the most votes up gets to reach the front page.  On top of this, users can communicate through comments.  What is unique about Reddit are the availabe “subreddits,” in which users can find posts that relate to specific topics.  In C4SS’ case, commentary posts will be going in the libertarian, anarchism and politics subreddits.  Many anarchists and activists flock to Reddit, which also has local meet ups, so you even have the potential to meet users face-to-face.  It is crucial that C4SS jump on the Reddit bandwagon while it gains popularity — remember, the more “up” votes, the better!  Lastly, Reddit puts a block on submissions from users whose posts have not gotten good feedback, so “up” votes are crucial to maintain steady readership on this site.

Now that you have been bombarded with information, what can you do to help C4SS?  This social networking plan has two ingredients — the people who know of C4SS and those who don’t — and your commitment is needed to reach the latter.  Under each commentary post, you will see a button that is titled, ”Share/Save.”  Click on it, scroll down, and click on one of the websites mentioned in this post.  You will be redirected to the website in a new window or tab, register/login and promote our articles!  If you use another website that was not mentioned, please let me know and it will be included in next week’s update.

C4SS Social Media Specialist Update  – October

After experimenting for about a month with different social networks, it became obvious that some were beneficial and others not so much.

Reddit, as predicted, was the most interactive and C4SS got many “up votes” from users.  Reddit has a certain culture to it, which I’m just catching on to and look forward to exploring.  For example, it was pointed out that instead of simply copying and pasting article titles, to make up one that is more descriptive and properly conveys the article content.  Also, one can post topics of debate and let users comment on just the submitted text.  C4SS seems to almost take over certain subreddits at some point, so I try to back off with posting until others have posted other things — it may be interesting to try to do promoting of conference calls on Reddit, too, to make the community appear “real” and not just computer-based.

Many social bookmarking sites have appeared to be dead.  This is not too much of a surprise because there are literally a hundred to choose from.  I have decided to cut out some of the time-wasters and begin the search for new resources.

It seems like the best thing to do is to seek out anarchist-related blogs, feeds, organizations, etc. and get them to link to C4SS.  This has been successful and now if I spend most of my time doing this rather than posting to dead social networking/bookmarking sites, there should be a lot more progress.

I am super excited about using this a website by Google, called “orkut,” which seems to be a strange version of Facebook.

Also wondering if I should figure out some sort of video website to make a C4SS account.  Perhaps YouTube, and just add a bunch of anarchist accounts as “friends” to aggregate anarchist videos in one place.  Perhaps feature some from C4SS writers, too.

C4SS Social Media Specialist Update — November/Current

Tabled for C4SS at a Students for Liberty regional conference in Boston.  Went extremely well and 100s of pamphlets and booklets were taken by students!

I am currently working on the new and improved Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left.  The only criticism that I am hearing is that blog rings are outdated, but I am noticing that this is the only place of its kind that aggregates all the Left Libertarian blogs together in one place.  Facebook is a jumbled mess, not all blogs link to other LL blogs, etc.  It serves its purpose, is easy to manage, and it is even how I began learning about LL, using the old BLL, so it gives readers a chance to see personal blogs over factual information on LL that may be difficult to comprehend.  Overall, a win in my book!

For the next week, I want an update on the BLL page.  We need to select a graphic from the Photobucket account to be the default, and I also want to put up the other images on the page with directions on how to change the image to one’s personal favorite.  All websites are different, so we need to allow users to pick the one that best fits their layouts.

Also, I am going to be looking at people’s “blog rolls” and contacting LL bloggers about putting their site up on the blog ring.  I am going to do this until we reach 50 or 60 members.  That is a good enough base that I do not have to put much more effort into the ring — and I can start the next project!



Former Illinois State Trooper Matt Mitchell crossed over the median and hit a car carrying four teens head-on — at 126 mph, while sending text messages to, and reading messages from, girlfriend.  Mitchell pleaded guilty and only received thirty months probation. In the current system, pleading guilty to even completely obvious crimes with dozens of witnesses gets you a lesser punishment.

Because Mitchell was “doing his job” as a state trooper, he may be eligible to receive state mandated workers’ compensation in addition to two years of salary.  According to attorneys, even if an accident occurs when the employee is negligent, exercises poor judgment, or even is found to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol, workers’ compensation is in order.

Others who have texted, driven a vehicle and killed have faced much more serious consequences than Mitchell. Craig Bigos of Taunton, Massachusetts killed a 13 year old boy under similar circumstances. He was charged with motor vehicle homicide. Like Mitchell, he was sentenced to 30 months … in jail, not on probation. If anything, the circumstances of his crime were less damning than Mitchell’s: He struck the child at night in an alley, where visibility was more of an issue .

Cases involving texting and driving are not only disastrous to those directly affected, but also pose a threat to liberty and serve as an excuse for expansion of government. It only takes a few of these accidents in the news to inspire campaigns for police crackdowns and new legislation. A media hysteria campaign can make it seem reasonable for the police to level up their Big Brother status.

There are quite a few solutions to texting and driving that could exist without government.  Certainly risky behavior should not be controlled due to its nature, but there are simple market incentives for indirect maintenance.  For instance, with insurance in a completely free market, perhaps companies would not cover such accidents, resulting in a strong incentive to be a focused driver.  It would not be advantageous to irresponsibly kill innocent people; there would be extreme costs incurred from doing so.  Results would often include ostracism, public scrutiny and media attention, tarnishing the image of the reprehensible aggressor.

Want to get away with murder?  Become a member of the state’s apparatus of rulership, act as if you’re doing “official business,” and then you can even get compensation for any injuries obtained!  No conspiracy even required.

When entering the park, there is a requirement to purchase a ticket as an entrance fee.  This purchase requires that a person follow all the rules and regulations that the park puts in place.  Many of the rules, of course, follow those set down by the government outside of the park, but many others pertain the the specifics of the location.  There are a number of signs around the park, citing if the ticket bearer breaks any of these rules, they may be asked to leave without a refund.

Entering a park is voluntary and before choosing a specific park, an individual may research the rules they are expected to follow.  If the certain park is not preferred, the person may choose another park elsewhere.  This example of the freedom of choice would possibly be seen in an anarchy, almost in the sense of joining specific communal groups based on personal preference.

Now, forget that the park is for fun and games, but think of it as a private commune, with ticket profits funding goods and services such as roads, healthcare, emergency services and even necessities like housing, food and water.  Instead of purchasing ride equipment, paying taxes and employing workers at minimum wage, this privately owned area could set down its own budget that would then be promoted to possible attendees.  With a voluntary ticket purchase, you could be entering a private area that could potentially satisfy all your needs — again, without government.

In the amusement park scenario, there are a number of private security entities located in the park, but no more than needed — and especially not performing unnecessary tasks.  The park only makes as much profit as it gets from tickets and some sales, spends a lot on other purchases, and it cannot afford to go waste money in such a manner.  However, it recognizes that there is a need for security, especially that it would boost attendee numbers, and it choses the most effective way to handle it, relying on market forces.

Certain gray areas exist in modern amusement parks, such as potential monopolies such as high food and drink prices.  Once you enter the park, you cannot leave and make a cheaper purchase elsewhere and bringing in outside food and drink is prohibited.  There can be a few explanations for this phenomenon and not all point to selfish park owners trying to make the most profit possible and exploit customers.  First, parks have to pay extremely high property taxes, insurance, and other government regulated costs, so they require a huge profit in order to make these ends meet.  Secondly, the park is not set up to be a living space, simply a day trip, and the attendees come to enjoy the park services, not protest the costs of commodities.  Of course, if they lived in the park, there would probably be some kind of uproar about the prices and eventually they would be driven down or there would be a high risk of losing customers.

During my park visit, I was never under the impression that the park was chaotic, dangerous or unregulated, and I actually felt a sense of freedom.  The fact that I had made a decision to enter the park, paid my admission, enjoyed the services provided, and that I was kept safe made the trip well worth it.  These desirable aspects of the amusement park experience are what makes them so profitable and popular with high attendance capabilities, even without the market being genuinely free yet under statism.  The construction of an amusement park can be considered a rough backbone of the possibilities of an anarchist commune — minus the roller coasters (maybe).

Surprisingly, both the state and churches were mostly uninvolved with marriage until the ninth century. Prior to this, there were a few ad hoc codes determining at what age one could marry, what religions could marry, and how class separations and marriage interacted. Recorded ceremonies were recommended to the upper class, primarily to settle issues of inheritance.

Over time, however, churches became involved with blessing marriages, and eventually asserted authority as legitimizers of the institution. Attempts were made to restore a civil marriage standard in the 19th century, but failed due to the advantage of position religion had attained in the area.

Marriage licenses are a fairly new invention, created in the mid-nineteenth century as a tool the state could use to enforce social proscriptions on interracial marriages.  By the early twentieth century they were nearly universally required as enforcement tools for the state’s increasing regulation of inheritance, parental authority, taxes and other matters.  Churches were subsumed into the new regulatory scheme — required to themselves obtain licenses both as establishments and for their officiants, in order to perform wedding ceremonies and act as agents of the state in enforcing those licenses.

Government’s involvement with marriage licensing seems counterproductive, considering licenses must be bought, which rake in revenue, but then are counterbalanced by tax exemptions and the costs of administering divorces and child custody as legal matters within the state’s purview.

A license is defined as “the permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.”  By obtaining a marriage license, a couple is begging for permission of the state to marry, which places both love and the church under the authority of government.  While the state often condemns polygamists, it  requires couples to marry a de facto third spouse — the government itself.

While ridding couples of the need for a state-sponsored marriage and privatizing marriage may be the most principled answer, the current exclusion of same sex couples from the existing institution sadly only strengthens the argument to continue that institute. Instead of striking at the root of the issue, same-sex couples are forced, by practical matters such as hospital visitation and mutual ownership of property, to beg for the same status as straight couples.

Separation of government and marriage in its entirety is the only real, lasting solution. Government should not be the third wheel in marriage and matters of the family. It’s time for individuals to terminate this illegitimate state imposition once and for all by refusing any and all government documentation of marriage.

The city’s lawyer asserts that if a blog has the potential to make a profit — if, for example, it features any paid advertising space — its author must purchase a business privilege license “whether or not they earned a profit during the preceding year.” If your blog makes you a few dollars here or there, you’re still subject to the $300 lifetime (or $50 a year) tax, even if that tax exceeds the amount earned.

Taxing a blog under such vague circumstances of potential profit leaves the city the option to tax just about anything. A public speaking engagement, an account on Ebay, or even small tax-free money transactions such as babysitting fall under this kind of all-encompassing scheme. 

What’s behind it all? City governments (especially Philadelphia’s) are in a bad spot due to their past poor budgetary decisions. Those $75 million taxpayer-subsidized baseball stadiums and such eventually add up to real money. So they’re scrambling for quick revenue fixes and the result is cockamamie tyrannical debt “solutions” like this one.

A few Philadelphia City Council members are promoting a “reform” proposal that would exempt bloggers who make less than $100,000 per year from pro rata taxes on their blogging income, but that proposal would still require the “business privilege” license for any blog intended to generate revenues.

These tax schemes in particular obviously conflict with freedom of the press and of speech. Most bloggers use their sites as personal online journals or soapboxes. They’re not in “business” in any meaningful sense of the word. Few make any money at all and even fewer make enough to cover the cost of their monthly Internet access bills, let alone anything a reasonable person would consider a “profit.”

On the practical side of the ledger, how does the city government determine that a blog “business” is even located in Philadelphia? Where’s the server it’s hosted on? How do they know you don’t drive out just past the city limit sign with your 3G laptop to update the blog each day? And why can’t they be content with the sales tax rakeoff they get when you spend that $20 in “surprise” blog money you made, instead of hectoring you for $300 that you’ve never seen and certainly aren’t going to give to them?

The city, of course, considers itself justified. All governments view “their” citizens as cash cows to be milked dry. If Philly’s politicians want to tax people who wear New York Yankees hats, they’ll come up with a pile of justifications for doing so, wrapped in legal paper and secured with red tape. Complaining about this one manifestation of government idiocy does little good. To fight it, one has to reject the idea that he or she is “just another taxpayer” and start treating those politicians like the muggers they are. Avoid them if you can, fight them if you must, throw some money at them and get away if you have no other choice.

In that simple declaration, Rogers showed that he faced no moral dilemma in condemning a man to death for releasing information to the war-funding public — information on the death of innocent children, journalists, and bystanders. He continued, saying, “We know for a fact that people will likely be killed because of this information being disclosed.” Such efforts to exaggerate or fabricate threats to national security are typically just an attempt to hide any possible embarrassment to the state. It’s a common tactic used to cover up the guilty tracks of the state and bolster the perceived legitimacy of violent state actions. In esssence, what is being said is: “Sure, we have killed a lot of people, but now more are going to die; that’s the real problem.”

The general public does not seem to be outraged by the Rogers quote, war statistics, SWAT raids, police brutality and other acts of violence from the state. More importantly, the mass media avoids showing the public the gruesome truth about these acts as if it is old news or unimportant. When the media does highlight statist violence, there is no uproar or call for peace by the masses. These acts are not only tolerated, but widely considered acceptable.

There are many possible reasons for why this may be the case, some even going back to our childhood psychological development. Growing up, one watches sanitized death in the media, in games, and in general fictitious situations — death completely disconnected from reality. We seldom see it face-to-face. When encountering real death, many fail to grasp its reality or significance; with resulting emotional impact comparable to a Chuck Norris film.

Training overcomes this disconnect between violent infotainment and real-life acts of violence, using methods such as brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling. By the time soldiers make it to a war zone, they are not only craving to act upon all the training they have completed but feel completely “one” with violence. When returning home, about 30% of troops end up with serious psychological problems and many experience withdrawal from the immersion in violence.

Government monopolizes murder but gives its social impact very little serious consideration. Whether it be an individual or genocide, the murder of any innocents is a condemnable act. Political leaders appear to incorrectly believe violence can be used to achieve peace and stability. That’s a very flawed approach that, historically, has not worked at all. Certainly without a government to go about systematically mass-producing death and destruction there would still always be occasional issues of violence. We can say with confidence that practical solutions would arise in an anarchistic society, though, because there would be no tax funding to shift the costs of warfare onto people who don’t make the decision to go to war.

My favorite question posed by minarchists at these debates, “What about the roads?”, is countered by privatization and other consistent responses by the anarchists. Anarchists defend morality, while minarchists argue order. Minarchists say that they have a working example of limited government, Hong Kong, while anarchists are only subject to the devastation of Somalia, which is a highly flawed argument, but to the uneducated debater or onlooker, this case may appear initially credible. Other hot topics of debate include national defense, natural disasters, the environment, violence and security.

In fact, all of the above occurred at the rather interesting “Anarchy v. Limited Government” debate that took place at FreedomFest 2010, featuring Doug Casey and Tom Palmer on the side of anarchy and John Mackey and Mark Skousen on the side of limited government. Surprisingly, at the end of the debate, when asked by the moderator if there were any converts from one side to another, about 10-15 people said they converted into anarchists and none converted to limited government. Considering this to be an experiment, it can be seen that in public debate, especially when emphasizing morality and consistency, the anarchist side gains the most support.

I believe that a precursor must exist for either of these systems — a widespread public consensus. It may sound obvious, but unless most of the players involved are like-minded, they most likely cannot succeed. It cannot be possible to have either limited government or anarchy if the populace are unaware of the principles and founding beliefs consistent with the ideology.

The example of limited government not working is evident, for the American state was founded on this concept — but power corrupts, and almost immediately government exploded in size. With anarchy, it is hard to imagine simply dissolving government and everything being a utopian perfection. At PorcFest, for example, while living and interacting with like-minded people, aware of all the principles of liberty, I saw hope for anarchy functioning. The principles that I see as necessary for a well-functioning anarchy include, but are not limited to, knowledge of the non-aggression principle, self ownership and personal responsibility; PorcFest attendees follow these beliefs religiously. Certainly a small group of people, living and thriving together, can be stable because of the like-minded factor, which is why commune living (such as seen with the idea of Agorist Acres) may be the best method for anarchists to achieve liberty rather than fighting for the entire world to change its way of thinking.

So, the next time you see a Tea Party rally or an angry anarchist spouting that “we need this” and “we need that,” remember — large-scale societal change cannot come without a philosophical revolution that has an impact on the mindset of the masses. Otherwise, we are simply rowing upstream, making tiny strides towards our goal of liberty, but quickly being pushed back downstream.

To live in an anarchist society, certainly most people would have to accept certain basic anarchist principles; it is not a lifestyle that can be enforced. One could compare this to the notion of a democratic society. People might not consciously identify as “a democrat”, but nearly everyone has to internalize certain democratic assumptions. A public consensus has to be achieved.

With that in mind, is it beneficial to argue for anarchy for everyone or just those who choose to live by its principles? The simple principles behind anarchy will eventually “catch on,” but until then, it may be best to only work with those who want to live free and work towards our like-minded goals. Remember, though, that grabbing a few converts here and there after anarchy v. minarchy debates doesn’t hurt!

John also received an acceptance letter to the same school. In his case, his parents are not so well off so he qualifies for both federal and state financial aid. Because of his high GPA he receives college scholarships as well. Still unable to afford college, he is offered and accepts several loans because he believes that going to a more expensive college means that his degree will be worth more and will eventually get him a high paying job. Eventually, he figures, he will be able to pay off those loans.

Most students at college tend to fall somewhere between those two cases. After wading through the bog of muddled information from college admissions offices about financial aid, parents are relieved to have even made it through the process alive, figuratively speaking. Little time or energy is then left to investigate questions like “What does my tuition money actually fund?”

College campuses are set up like miniature governments. The endless red tape and long lines. The faculty senate. The handbook, codes, rules. The unnecessary bureaucracy. Offices of disabilities and abilities alike. Signature collection, approvals, stamps, mailboxes, and forms. Even at private universities, you can expect to run into your fair share of government documents to fill out regarding employment, finances and running your affairs.

Colleges are very heavily subsidized by the government — through the current stimulus package, especially through aid and loans for students as also through a variety of other means. In turn, colleges know that they can raise tuition prices through the roof and get away with it. Government, which is to say the taxpayers extorted by the government, will always be there to provide the money. Right? This allows colleges to continually add more employees and limitless layers of bureaucracy, simply because they can afford it. An illusion is created that the college is progressive, growing and innovative. In reality, they’re simply unnecessarily wasting resources.

A truly free market would lack the subsidies that distort the current education market. In a stateless society, to be specific, market discipline would create the expectation that “what you pay for is what you get.” Admissions offices would boast of their efficiency; recruiting new students by pointing to comparisons of the costs versus benefits of attending their school — because that information would be easier to meaningfully identify without market distortions. Instead of cost alone, students and parents would be looking at the actual educational value to be received for their money. Colleges wouldn’t be pressured to give tenure to a horrible professor simply because of how long he had taught at the school. Rather, they would reward instructors based on merit as determined by consumer choices in the market.

From the perspective of the average person, meaningful financial transparency on college campuses is currently rare. With students lost in loan rules la-la land, chasing elusive job openings, and facing overall exhaustion with the current system, it can be arduous to investigate where the money students pay is going. With the current state of the economy, however, students and parents will have to wake up and ask these important questions of transparency, choosing the most cost effective and truly productive school. Such challenges to authoritarian institutions of all sorts will increasingly become crucial to the financial survival of the ordinary person.

This case perfectly presents the case of probable cause and how it is one of the most manipulated, corrupted and downright wasteful actions enforced and protected in the current list of encroaching police powers. The term probable cause can be found written directly in the United States Constitution, and like most of the text, is extremely vague and universally uninterpretable. According to the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  This clause fails to explain just about every aspect of a modern probable cause case, such as the subjectivity of probable cause, whose Oath or affirmation is deemed proper and the general sense of law-protected privacy, allowing the police, in some cases, to even get away with committing crimes themselves.

If following the Constitution as law, certainly the police officers found themselves correct in performing a detainment on Gurrieri. Using their own judgment to determine actions illegitimate, they act, but in the end, they often are wrong in doing so. The police often claim that is best to act in this way, taking advantage of any inkling of possible law breaking, even on private property, and their interest lies in the public good and protection.

In a stateless society, the market would have an intolerance for such probable cause cases, and even using a simple cost-benefit analysis of the situation can determine these actions worthless and a waste of time. Victimless crimes would disappear, and there would be no reason to hunt down any individual for the possibility that they are plaguing society with their actions.  State-sponsored gang members, however, can get away with defying market forces, going against what is actually necessary for a society function, and pick and choose their battles. It is impossible to rid society of opinions and perspectives of its individuals, which makes probable cause exist regardless, but it would be considered irrational and unprofitable to act on these conditions.

Probable cause cases are often hidden behind other terms or in the state of some kind of “national threat.”  The Arizona immigration law, which includes racial profiling, is one of the best examples of probable cause gone wrong. Government has made a person’s appearance to be enough of a reason to ask for their identification and if they refuse to comply, they are made to identify themselves by force or thrown into jail. Now, rather than merely avoiding “suspicious” activity, one has to be conscious of one’s own appearance when performing common tasks such as working, driving or traveling. This law is reminiscent of the Patriot Act, which actually includes all United States citizens, and states that federal agents may conduct surveillance and searches on U.S. citizens without probable cause to suspect criminal activity; the targeted person is not notified and cannot challenge the action.

Other current police stories that include probable cause include the rise in tasing, SWAT raids for drug or arms suspicion, temporary tag suspicion on vehicles, and even for murder.  Probable cause has gone down in the books as being one of the top police excuses with a high success rate for cops to use their encroaching power on the general public.  It opens up the doors to any logically moral individual’s arrest, especially even while following the non-aggression and self ownership principles — or even a non-player or innocent bystander in some cases.

Getting around the threats of the police can be difficult and varies on a case by case basis, but one’s best bet would be to remain vigilant of police were abouts and practice discretion when applicable.  While an individual may know that there are no moral crimes in performing certain actions and can try to explain such beliefs to a police officer, an arrest may occur, which arguably does not benefit the individual or his like-minded community.  Limiting and eventually eliminating the power of the police state will remove the threat of illegitimate probable cause cases, but there is no specific method to achieve this goal.  The efforts made on many different levels — education, activism and building alternative institutions — work towards a less abusive and more free society.