Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes any procedure that alters or injures the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

In its most severe form, after removing the sensitive clitoris, the genitals are cut and stitched closed so that the woman cannot have or enjoy sex.

A tiny piece of wood or reed is inserted to leave a small opening for the necessary flow of urine, and monthly blood when she comes of age (most FGM is carried out on infants or young girls before they reach puberty).

When she is ready to have sex and a baby, she is “unstitched” – and then sewn back up again after to keep her what is described by proponents as “hygienic, chaste and faithful”.

At this exoneration of FGM’s perpetrators, I was quite taken aback, practically thunderstruck by the enormity of the error, of its practical implications and an amazement that seemingly reasonable people could believe this. I had not imagined that my partners in conversation would cleave so closely to their cultural relativism as to embark on an apology for a practice so cruel and inhuman. But then this is among the fundamental philosophical problems with such extreme cultural relativism; it puts one in the uncomfortable position of having to accept any kind of brutal rights violation insofar as it is consistent with some arbitrary cultural value or tradition. My compeers at least were consistent in their barbarousness.

It occurred to me then, as it has before, that the anarchist as such cannot also be a cultural relativist in any meaningful or principled way, for the opposition to authority simply will not brook even longstanding cultural practices such as FGM. Anarchists oppose authority not randomly or haphazardly, not in any piecemeal way that happens to make us feel comfortable in a given case. The opposition operates always, at all times.

It must not be overlooked, moreover, that all such barbarities — supposedly legitimate, “not barbaric” practices like FGM — are of course bound to be vaunted pieces of the cultural and customary inheritance. Were this not the case, were these vile practices simply aberrant and treated as such, they would hardly be worth opining on. It becomes necessary to vociferously condemn crimes like FGM precisely to extent that they are considered time-honored cultural traditions. Indeed, it must escape relativists such as my conversation partners that the lowest, most odious forms of bigotry — racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, etc. — are all age-old cultural practices in their own right. We are apparently meant to defer to crimes like FGM just to the extent that they are at their most vicious, inhumane and ingrained. This is the juncture at which open-mindedness becomes mere mindless folly, an exercise in preposterous infinite regress.

Individuals are the social elements which actually exist. Culture, religion, politics — all of these we as individuals have invented, exalting them to such a degree that we now make of them much more than the human lives they are there to preside over. Cultural relativists give all manner of potential genocidal maniacs and human rights violators a carte blanche, a cultural pretext to which they can point while devastating human lives. Doubtless we ought to respect other cultures, even to actively look for the unique contributions they make to overall human flourishing. We must not, however, pretend that the imprimatur of culture is capable by itself of redeeming savage acts such as FGM. One needn’t be an anarchist or a proselyte of the nonaggression principle to understand that such acts are wrong wherever they are found, regardless of religion or culture.

No one should raise the stars and stripes on the 4th. The proper flag to raise on the 4th of July is the black flag of anarchy. It’s far more revolutionary than the military colors of the U.S. government. This is especially true, because of the frequent aggressive military actions engaged in by the American state. The status quo has been statism and militarism for ages. A genuine revolution would overthrow both.

This appropriation of nominally statist holidays is a good way to reach the broader populace. People are more likely to respond to imagery related to what they are familiar with. This is the tactical relevance of reinventing these holidays. It allows the anarchist message to reach a greater number of people. This is important for the purpose of garnering mass support.

In garnering mass support through these means, anarchists are changing the culture from a state reverent one to an anti-state one.  A change in culture is essential for the success of political and economic liberty. The changing of holidays is a crucial part of our struggle against government.  Its help in cultural progress could be immense. It’s a chance not to be passed up.

A related subject pertains to whether we ought to make use of our own unique holidays as well. The answer is a resounding yes. There are anarchist themed holidays like May Day that should be preserved. It’s an integral part of our history as anarchists. The historical is not always worth keeping around, but this celebration is.

The fact that keeping around May Day is worth it raises the question of how we can make it even more anarchistic. We can emphasize the role of government in oppressing the working class. The use of military and police power to break strikes.  We can put an emphasis on how government redistributes wealth upward to a governing class. Let us begin to do this today!

Et bien, parce que le grand public est important, et plus encore, les institutions et constructions culturelles qui persistent sont importantes. Les libertariens ont fait un travail extrêmement bon en développant une théorie de comment une société idéale devrait opérer, alors que dans le même temps ils ne se préoccupent pas de savoir si leurs travaux intéressent ceux qui ne sont pas déjà acquis à la cause. Pourquoi donc est-ce qu’un individu moyen qui a à peine la moindre connaissance en politique ou en philosophie s’intéresserait aux valeurs libertariennes ? La réalité est que de nombreux libertariens sont des iconoclastes rationnels. Nous aimons ne pas être conformes et bousculer l’ordre établi. Nous pensons que l’attaque la plus percutante est un syllogisme ou peut-être la 25ème édition anniversaire de La Grève. Le libertarien ne voit pas de rigueur intellectuelle dans la culture populaire et juge donc inutile toute analyse. Ce rejet a mené le libertarianisme à être vu comme une théorie excentrique destinée aux solitaires et aux introvertis. Si les libertariens veulent accomplir de réels changements dans la société, ils ont besoin de passer moins de temps à débattre théorie et plus de temps à infuser leurs idées dans la culture populaire et soutenir les normes culturelles qui favorisent la liberté. Les normes culturelles sur le sexe, les drogues et toute autre amusement dont certaines personnes ne veulent pas que d’autres personnes en profitent ne valent pas plus que l’opinion de ces personnes elles-mêmes. La loi n’est pas une force divine que l’on ne peut pas braver. C’est une question de reconnaissance sociale. Personne n’ira faire respecter la loi sur les feux rouges à New York, puisque tout le monde les grille. Il serait impossible d’essayer de la faire respecter. Les libertariens doivent arrêter de convaincre les gens de changer leurs valeurs culturelles et doivent commencer à promouvoir celles qui leur sont importantes.

Roderick T. Long et Charles W. Johnson ont abondamment argument sur pourquoi est-ce que les libertariens devraient embrasser les valeurs traditionnelles de gauche, question de cohérence culturelle. Le succès d’une société libertarienne n’est pas seulement d’anéantir l’état, mais d’anéantir toute forme d’oppression. A quoi bon vivre dans une société sans état si les femmes y sont toujours traitées comme des objets ? Où votre couleur détermine votre statut socio-économique ? Les libertariens doivent regarder sérieusement les formes d’oppression qui existent hors de l’état, puisque l’état puise ses pouvoirs dans ces oppressions non gouvernementales. (voir Roderick Long, « Féminisme libertarien : Est-ce que ce mariage peut être sauvé ?«)

Il y a des formes d’oppressions qui ne dépendent tout simplement pas de l’existence de l’appareil d’état. Les lois sont faites des normes que le peuple est prêt à reconnaître et à appliquer. Même les institutions politiques autoritaires par excellence comme l’armée reposent plus sur l’acceptante culturelle, l’obéissance et la docilité que sur les intentions des généraux et des politiciens. Et s’il y avait une guerre et que personne ne venait ? Les institutions politiques donnent la possibilité faire usage d’intimidation, mais personne n’est forcé à devenir militaire. Personne ne vous met un pistolet sur la tempe et vous demande de soutenir les troupes. Si demain chacun arrêtait de croire que chaque soldat est un héros et que chaque guerre est un sacrifice au nom des valeurs américaines, peut-être verrait-on un déclin de cet empire du mal.

Comme Johnson et Long, je pense aussi qu’il est nécessaire d’avoir une conception plus large du libertarianisme. Plus précisément, je pense que les libertariens devraient embrasser ce que j’appelle lelibertinage culturel, par cela je veux dire l’expression de la volonté d’une personne à faire ce qu’elle et elle seule désire. Cela signifie soutenir les actions spontanées des individus, qu’elles soient en accord avec nos propres valeurs ou non. Quand les normes culturelles sont utilisées pour étouffer les préférences personnelles, les libertariens devraient s’indigner.

L’historien Thaddeus Russell a longuement argumenté que pour les libertés que nous considérons comme acquises, de l’indépendance des femmes au week-end, il faut remercier des renégats. Les renégats ne sont pas des hommes politiques. Ils n’ont rien à faire du principe de non-agression (NAP) ou d’une société sans état. Dans certains cas, ils pourraient bien être des personnes très désagréables avec qui vous ne voudriez pas être laissés seuls bien longtemps. Ils ne sont certainement pas les gens disciplinés qui seraient à la tête de sociétés d’aide mutuelle ou de coopératives. Ils pourraient être ces cavaliers seuls dont on a peur. Néanmoins, ces actes qui peuvent nous dégoûter nous ont donné une vision plus large de la liberté individuelle, tant sur le plan politique que culturel.

Mais que diable viennent faire les singeries de Miley Cyrus ? Eh bien, je regarde les actions de Miley de ces derniers temps, que ce soit sur sa sexualité, sa consommation d’ecstasy ou qu’elle ait fumé un joint sur scène face à des millions de spectateurs, moins comme des actes qui visent à choquer, mais comme une forme dedésobéissance culturelle. La désobéissance culturelle, comme la désobéissance civile, implique des actions qui soient culturellement mal vues. Quand Miley rejette son rôle d’idole pour adolescents et commence à se frotter sauvagement contre Robin Thicke avec des ours en peluche sexualisés en arrière plan, elle fait plus qu’attirer l’attention pour son nouvel album, elle se débarrasse de ce que l’on attend d’elle en tant « qu’innocente ». Miley affiche sa sexualité à bon usage, comme quelque chose de fort que chacun peut apprécier comme il l’entend.

Récemment Miley s’est de nouveau engagée dans un acte de désobéissance culturelle en allumant un joint sur scène durant un événement télévisé. Encore une fois, on peut voir ça comme une publicité provocante. Elle n’aurait jamais fait ça si ses avocats ne l’avaient pas approuvé auparavant. Mais c’est un signe qui montre que les normes sur la consommation de drogue sont en train de s’effondrer. La plus grande nouvelle dans la pop ces derniers temps est d’être choqués de la voir prendre de la drogue et, ce faisant, elle fait sa part dans la normalisation de la drogue dans notre culture. Comme j’ai pu écrire auparavant :

« … nous n’arriverons pas au point où la consommation de drogues n’est plus sévèrement réprimandée par la société et par l’état sans avoir des consommateurs de drogues pour participer à une désobéissance civile passive. Ceux qui allument un joint sur leur porche ou dans un parc public ne sont pas seulement en train de planer, ils sapent les normes sociales qui légitiment ces lois. Quand nous soutenons les conservateurs qui font de l’œil aux politiques libertariennes mais mettent de côté ceux que nous voyons comme déviantes, nous soutenons une culture puritaine. Nous oublions nos vraies valeurs, nous soutenons les valeurs qui rendent les lois sur les drogues possibles. »

Considérez cela tout simplement comme une extension de l’application de la pensée agoriste. L’agorisme reconnait que le gouvernement est aussi bon que l’économie qu’il contrôle. La culture libertarienne reconnaît que la culture joue un rôle similaire dans la fondation des lois en vigueur. Les drogues ne sont pas devenues illégales parce que les politiciens l’ont dit, mais à cause des campagnes anxiogènes sur leurs effets et à cause du profil des personnes qui en prennent. Les femmes ne se sont pas réveillées dans un monde d’oppression le lendemain du passage des lois régulant leur corps. Il était déjà accepté dans la culture dominante que les femmes doivent être traitées de la sorte, et ça c’est manifesté dans la loi.

Miley Cyrus peut potentiellement faire avancer les choses, comme d’autres figures de la pop. Vous n’avez pas à adorer leur musique ou la façon dont ces gens se vendent. Le fait est que les libertariens devraient adopter une attitude sex-positive et drug-positive afin d’éliminer l’oppression qui est faite sur les minorités sexuelles, les consommateurs de drogues et les dissidents culturels. Considérez qu’il y a plus à l’expression de votre philosophie politique que le NAP. Quand les gens se dressent et déclarent qu’ils sont libres malgré les normes sociales, nous devrions les désigner comme les meilleurs représentants de notre philosophie. Vous devons soutenir les renégats culturels et, plus particulièrement, la culture populaire qui bouscule les mœurs traditionnelles. C’est en mettant en avant les idées libertariennes et même libertines dans la culture populaire que le libertarianisme progressera. La guerre sur la culture (ndt. référence à la guerre sur les drogues aux USA) est réelle et les libertariens doivent commencer à la prendre au sérieux.

Traduction de Miley Cyrus And The Libertarian Renegade Culture de Ryan Calhoun

These accolades are well-deserved, as Joseph Schumpeter showed. Schumpeter, an Austrian economist who studied entrepreneurship, molded the place entrepreneurs have in the public eye. Schumpeterian entrepreneurs unite economic resources in new and innovative ways, providing means for the production of more value using fewer resources. This allows the resources now regarded as “extra” to be put to use satisfying other preferences. To draw an analogy to biology, entrepreneurs are the source of adaptive mutations in the marketplace.

Still, even non-Schumpeterian entrepreneurs meet needs that are not currently being met. These sorts of entrepreneurs recognize a preference that is not being met and redirect resources from preferences of lower importance to the more pressing preference. Someone who starts a business selling small aquatic pets is doing nothing new or innovative, but if their business succeeds, they are giving others access to goods that they would not have been able to procure. In the process, they are improving the quality of life for others by introducing the means to satisfy a greater number of more important preferences. In biology, these entrepreneurs are akin to the reproductive process.

A less well-received idea in popular discourse is that of direct action, and rightly so. Direct action intentionally sidesteps popular discourse. By simply ignoring popular opinion and working to achieve their ends outside of entrenched systems, activists can bring about their desired societies without needing to appeal to those in power. “Direct action” is a necessarily nebulous term. It includes in its purview agorism, strikes, community organizing, civil disobedience, cop blocks, etc. Anything wherein people act together against an ailment imposed on their society is direct action.

Importantly, direct action is not advocacy. It does not seek to change opinions. Part of the reason for its enormous success in many places is precisely this: It forces others to cease their illegitimate behaviors. When it succeeds, it does not do so because of the approval of those in power. Rather, it is a tool for forcing change in spite of the disapproval of the system as-is.

In one direction, the connection between entrepreneurship and direct action has already been developed. Agorism seeks to build alternatives to oppressive institutions by being entrepreneurial. Once again, it cares not for the opinions of its participants regarding the system they are changing. Only the first Schumpeterian entrepreneur in an agoristic endeavor has to care that the business is eating away at the existing institutions. It is partially because they care that this market actor is able to recognize the profit opportunity and act as an entrepreneur.

What has received less attention is investigation of the nature of direct action as an entrepreneurial activity. Where agorism is an entrepreneurial form of direct action, one can also understand direct action as a form of entrepreneurship. Schumpeterian entrepreneurship acts to improve the lot of society through the creation of more value from lesser value. It does this by replacing old and inefficient technologies with new and improved ones. This is the aim of direct action, as well, albeit not through technology as normally understood. Direct action works because it dismantles existing organizational arrangements. In whatever way it seeks to do so, it engages in what Schumpeter famously called “creative destruction”. Economically and socially inefficient methods end up falling apart as oppressors must succumb to even a small minority that refuses to utilize the system as intended. The new systems stand stronger than their predecessors because fewer people have reason to oppose them. Playing within the new rules maximizes social utility more effectively, giving more people reason to participate.

Consider the efforts of the Civil Rights movement in civil disobedience. By ignoring the legal and social rules as they stood and taking the freedoms they rightly deserved, the participants were able to bring about a social change. They created a system in which more people of color had reason to participate in an economy dominated by “whites-only” access. This incentive to tear down the vestiges of segregation has even proved effective in preventing its re-emergence. Most people, now, see the benefits of having more people actively participating as equals in the economy. The new structure has shown itself to be more efficient, both in allocation of economic goods and satisfaction of social desires than its predecessor with plenty of room for improvement to be gained or discovered. The new model has nearly destroyed the old, and the innovation has improved the lot of everyone living under the newer paradigm.

Israel Kirzner, another Austrian whose research focused on entrepreneurs, pointed out that as part of Schumpeterian creative destruction, entrepreneurs are discovering new information. To start a novel business in the way a Schumpeterian entrepreneur does, they must recognize information that no one else has – yet. This “radical” or “sheer” ignorance is the reason the Schumpeterian entrepreneur is important. They show others a way to improve their lives which they were previously radically unaware.

Direct action reveals information to others that was previously under the cover of radical ignorance. It is a part of being a privileged class that the members are unaware of how they benefit from their privilege. Privilege blinds its holders to its own existence. Due to this, those people who suffer under systems of social oppression must struggle to convince the privileged that their place in society is the product of illegitimate systems of oppression. Unfortunately, this is akin to an entrepreneur attempting to convince everyone that they could benefit from an invention which only the entrepreneur understands. In both cases, it is just easier to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed change. Direct action does this by forcing the change to occur or by building alternative systems for its participants.

It is interesting to note that, globally, humanity has never regressed technologically. Long periods of stagnation in some places and vilification of academia in others, but never a mass, collective step backward. Furthermore, in places where steps backward have occurred, there has almost always been a repressive regime of cultural norms or governmental structures. This is, in part, due to Schumpeterian forces. New ideas and better theories lead to greater efficiency in economic and social arrangements, which in turn select for more of the same. As is usually the case, it’s hard to put a genie back in the bottle. This is why anarchists have the future. The inefficiency of the state will pull it apart, and our ideas will be there to catch society when it happens. Until then, it is our job to spin the state’s dynamo faster and weave our net tighter. Direct action does both.

Translations for this article:

• Portuguese, A ação direta como empreendedorismo.

“Dialectics is the art of context-keeping. It is a thinking style that emphasizes the centrality of context in the analysis of systems across time. As applied to libertarian social theory, it counsels us not to disconnect politics from economics, culture, social psychology, ethics, epistemology, and other factors. It views these seemingly disparate aspects as interrelated within a wider totality. Hence, any attempt to understand–or change–society must entail an analysis of its interrelations from the vantage point of any single aspect. This brings forth an enriched portrait of society, and underscores the indivisible connection between theory and practice.”

This brief exploration follows in his footsteps.

Contextually speaking, political legality is important, but it doesn’t exhaust all the factors necessary for sex worker liberation. There is still the necessity of addressing the economic and cultural levels of analysis. Both of which help to provide us with a broader more systemic view of the issue at hand. Without this broader context we risk losing sight of the total picture. This comprehensive picture allows us to grasp the interconnections spoken of by Sciabarra above.

Economically speaking, the mere political legality of sex work matters not without assurances that property owners will not discriminate against sex workers. It also matters not without sex workers receiving a comfortable share of the economic pie. It’s certainly true that the absence of coercive political penalties by the government assists in this, but it isn’t the end of relevant analysis. Private property owners could still use control of economic resources to deny access to sex workers. This is still true with formal legality.

Our final level of analysis is the cultural. In the absence of a sex worker friendly culture, formal legality could be rendered irrelevant by the restrictions of oppressive social mores. This would lead to the economic discrimination mentioned above and induce agitation to restore the laws on the political level. All the more reason to wage an interrelated struggle for sex worker liberation. These three levels of analysis are preferably dealt with simultaneously.

Well, because the mainstream matters and, more importantly, cultural institutions and constructs that persist matter. Libertarians have done an awful nice job in developing theory on how an ideal society ought to operate while completely ignoring ever getting anyone to care about their work that wasn’t already interested. Why the hell should an average individual who has barely a glancing knowledge on issues of politics and philosophy give a damn about libertarian values? The truth is many libertarians are by their nature rationalist iconoclasts. We enjoy non-conformity and bucking the system. We think that the most potent form of attack is a syllogism or perhaps the 25th Anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged. The libertarian does not see rigor or intellect in much of mainstream culture and, therefore, deems it unnecessary of further analysis. This rejection has led to libertarianism being regarded mostly as a kook theory meant more for loners and introverts.

If libertarians want to make an effective change on society, they need to spend less time in debates over theory and more time injecting their ideas into mainstream culture and supporting the cultural norms which favor liberty and personal freedom. Cultural norms about sex, drugs and all other manner of fun that people don’t want other people to have are only as good as the views of those people themselves. The law is not an ethereal force which one violates necessarily. It is a matter of social recognition. Nobody cares about jaywalking in New York City enough to enforce the law because everybody does it. It would be impossible to try and enforce. Libertarians need to stop trying to argue people out of their cultural inculcations and start promoting the cultural values they care about.

Roderick T. Long and Charles W. Johnson have argued effectively for why libertarians should embrace traditionally leftist values as a matter of cultural thickness. The success of a libertarian society is not simply based upon smashing the state, but smashing all forms of oppression. What good is a stateless society where women are still treated like property? Where your race determines your socioeconomic status? Libertarians need to take non-government forms of oppression seriously, since it is upon such non-governmental oppression that the state gains its power. (See Roderick Long, “Libertarian Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved?”)

There are certain forms of oppression which are not simply dependent upon the State apparatus’ existence. Laws are made up of norms which people are willing to recognize and act on. Even prototypically authoritarian political institutions like the military rely more on cultural acceptance, obedience and docility than on the intentions of generals and politicians. What if there were a war and no one showed up? Political institutions give the military a bully pulpit, but no one is being forced into military service. No one puts a gun in your face and demands you support the troops. If tomorrow people stopped acting like every soldier was a hero and every war a great sacrifice for American values, we might begin to see the decline of this evil empire.

Like Johnson and Long, I too see a necessity for thick conceptions of libertarianism. Specifically, I think more libertarians ought to embrace what I call cultural libertinism, by which I mean the expression of an individual’s will to do what she and she alone desires. It means supporting the spontaneous actions of individuals whether they be expressions of our own personal morality or not. When cultural norms are used to stifle innocent personal preferences, libertarians ought to take exception.

Historian Thaddeus Russell has argued at length that the freedom we often take for granted, from women enjoying more independence to the weekend, we have renegades to thank. Renegades are not political figures. They don’t give a shit about the non-aggression principle (NAP) or a stateless society. In some cases, they might be rather unpleasant people you wouldn’t want to be left alone with for too long. They’re certainly not the disciplined folks who would be at the heads of mutual aid societies or coops. They might be those nasty free riders we fear so much. Nevertheless, the very acts we might be disgusted by have given us fuller expression of personal freedom, both politically and culturally.

What the hell does any of this have to do with the antics of Miley Cyrus? Well, I see Miley’s actions, as of late, whether they be embracing her sexuality, being open about her use of MDMA or smoking a joint on stage in front of millions, as not merely acts intended to shock, but as forms of cultural disobedience. Cultural disobedience, like civil disobedience, involves the public display of acts which are culturally frowned upon. When Miley rejected her role as a teenage sensation and began grinding wildly against Robin Thicke with a background of sexualized teddy bears, she was doing more than grabbing attention for her new album, she was stripping away what she saw as this culture’s expectations of her as an “innocent.” Miley is displaying her sexuality as a force for good, as something powerful to be enjoyed at an individual’s discretion.

Recently Miley engaged in another act of cultural disobedience by lighting up a joint on stage during a televised event. Again, we can see this as a cheap publicity stunt. She wouldn’t have done this if corporate lawyers hadn’t approve it already. But this is a sign that norms about drug use are breaking down. The biggest pop sensation of our day is being brazen with her drug use and, as a result, doing her own part in normalizing drugs into our culture. As I’ve argued elsewhere:

“… we will not get to a point where consumption of drugs isn’t severely regulated by society and the State without actual drug users participating in passive civil disobedience. Those who light up joints on their porch or in public parks are not only getting high, they are undermining the social norms that make these laws sustainable. When we endorse conservatives who pay lip service to libertarian policies and try to kick out those we see as deviant, we are endorsing the culture of puritanism.  We undermine what should be our true values, we endorse the values that make drug laws possible.”

Consider this merely an extension or application of Agorist thought. Agorism recognizes that a government is only as good as the economy it controls. The libertarian culture warrior recognizes that culture plays a similar foundational role for the laws that are enforced. Drugs became illegal not just because politicians said so, but because of scare campaigns about their effects and the kinds of people that want to use them. Women did not simply wake up to their oppression the day after laws appeared regulating the use of their bodies. It was already accepted by the dominate culture that women needed to be treated in such a way and so it manifested itself into law.

Miley Cyrus is a potent force for good, as are other pop culture figures like her. You don’t have to dig their music or the way these people sell themselves. The fact is libertarians ought to adopt sex-positive and drug-positive attitudes in order to eliminate the oppression which is imposed on sexual minorities, drug users and cultural dissidents. Consider that there are more expressions of your political philosophy than the NAP. When people stand up and declare their freedom in spite of social norms, we ought to point to them as the best representatives of our philosophy. We must support cultural renegades and, especially, mainstream culture that deviates from traditional mores. By promoting libertarian and even libertine values in the mainstream, libertarianism is done a great service. The culture war is real and libertarians need to start taking it more seriously.

Translations for this article:

• French, Miley Cyrus et la culture libertarienne rénégate.

Como tende a acontecer depois de cada pavorosa ocorrência da espécie, os disparos na escola em Connecticut deram ocasião para revivescência do debate acerca de controle de armas de fogo nos Estados Unidos.

Dada a qualidade desse debate, não estou realmente interessado em contestar nem os presunçosos reptos liberais de “bem, até que enfim vocês parecem prontos para recuperar a sanidade” nem a histeria direitista do “O Muçulmano Marxista Queniano está vindo para tirar nossas armas de fogo!” Apenas direi, para que fique bem claro, que sou anarquista, e não me importo muito com a ideia de o mesmo estado responsável por escutas sem mandado e pela Lei de Autorização de Defesa Nacional regular o acesso do público a armas para defesa pessoal. E não desejo que uma nova Guerra às Armas seja levada a efeito  pelos mesmos brutamontes paramilitares ilegais em roupas de kevlar que já combatem nas guerras às drogas e ao terrorismo. Ao mesmo tempo, não posso dizer que morra de amores pelas vozes mais estridentes da direita que protestam contra o controle de armas.

Portanto, farei apenas algumas observações de caráter geral. Primeiro, duvido que o nível de violência armada nos Estados Unidos tenha muito a ver com os tipos de leis vigentes relativas a armas de fogo. Este país teria alto índice de violência armada independentemente das leis codificadas, só por causa de nossa cultura. Há muita verdade nos argumentos liberais contra a “cultura de armas de fogo” dos Estados Unidos. Os Estados Unidos têm mais violência armada do que qualquer outro país ocidental pelo mesmo motivo de terem uma cultura de venerar a bandeira e de “prestigiar as  tropas” sem paralelo no hemisfério ocidental, pelo mesmo motivo de o sionismo cristão ser poderosa força política em nosso país, e pelo mesmo motivo de grande parte de nossa população de fato acreditar que a Terra tem 6.000 anos de idade.

Parte disso deriva do papel ímpar daqueles que o falecido Joe Bageant chamava de fronteiriços, escoceses do Ulster ou escoceses-irlandeses na formação da cultura estadunidense. Em decorrência, a cultura política estadunidense é mais predisposta do que a maioria a uma espécie de autoritarismo Tipo A com fixação no uso da violência para “mostrar a eles quem é o chefe” ou “dar-lhes uma lição.” A veneração da instituição militar e do executivo remonta aos escoceses do Ulster dentro da Paliçada, com sua adulação do rei Billy.

E parte provavelmente deriva do Segundo Grande Despertamento, que está — direta ou indiretamente — na raiz das maneiras pelas quais a cultura estadunidense saiu dos carris em comparação com o  resto da cristandade ocidental. O “Dispensionalismo Premilenial” de John Darby, partilhado pelos Batistas do Sul e outras seitas fundamentalistas e difundido por Hal Lindsey e pela série Deixados para Trás, remonta àquele. E bem assim nossas atitudes puritanas em relação ao álcool, e nosso estranho afeiçoamento a Israel.

Segundo, minha expectativa é de que leis estritas quanto a armas de fogo venham a ser tão eficazes quanto o estado policial de “contraterrorismo” posterior ao 11/9, a Guerra às Drogas, ou o estrito regime de copyright digital em reduzir, na prática, a atividade que pretensamente intentavam reduzir. Leis estritas relativas a armas de fogo dificilmente causarão diminuição na posse de armas ou no crime com armas de fogo. Nos lugares alardeados como exemplos dos benefícios do controle de armas de fogo, como Europa e Japão, os níveis de propriedade de armas e de violência armada já eram muito mais baixos do que os dos Estados Unidos, antes mesmo de tais leis terem sido aprovadas.

Terceiro, porém, o que leis estritas quanto a armas de fogo farão será levar o nível de estatismo policial, de anomia e de patologia social geral um chanfro acima, do mesmo modo que o fizeram a Proibição e a Guerra às Drogas. Minha expectativa seria a de uma Guerra às Armas de Fogo expandir o volume do crime organizado e dar poder às quadrilhas criminosas que lutam pelo controle do mercado paralelo, exatamente da mesma forma que a Proibição o fez nos anos 1920 e as leis estritas referentes a drogas vêm fazendo desde os anos 1980. Esperaria que ela levasse a erosão adicional das formas de proteção previstas na Quarta Emenda contra busca e apreensão, que aumentasse a militarização da polícia via equipes SWAT, e expandisse o imoral império do confisco civil, do testemunho perjuro de presos informantes, da incitação ao delito, das armações com evidência plantada, e da chantagem de declarações negociadas de culpabilidade. Em suma, a Guerra às Armas de Fogo nos levará ainda mais na direção de uma sociedade totalmente entregue a quadrilhas criminosas violentas, e à maior quadrilha de todas: As bestas de rapina criminosas uniformizadas.

Artigo original afixado por Kevin Carson em 14 de dezembro de 2012.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

Tal como tiende a suceder inmediatamente después de un horroroso incidente como este, el tiroteo en una escuela de Connecticut dio ocasión para revivir el debate sobre el control de las armas en los Estados Unidos.

Dada la calidad del debate, realmente no me interesa contestar los cínicos retos liberales estilo “¿bueno, es que finalmente están listos a entrar en razón?”, o los ataques de histeria derechista tipo “¡El Keynesiano Marxista Musulmán nos quiere quitar nuestras pistolas!”. Tan solo diré, para que conste, que soy un anarquista, y que no me interesa demasiado la idea de que el mismo estado responsable de los pinchazos telefónicos ilegales y de la Ley de Autorización de Defensa Nacional regule el acceso del público a las armas como instrumento de defensa personal. Y no quisiera ver el lanzamiento de una Guerra Contra las Armas por los mismos matones paramilitares en prendas de kevlar encargados de las guerras contra las drogas y el terrorismo. Por otro lado, no puedo decir que estoy loco de amor por las más estridentes voces derechistas que protestan contra el control de las armas.

Por lo tanto, solo haré algunas observaciones generales. Primero, dudo que el nivel de violencia armada en los Estados Unidos tenga demasiado que ver con los tipos de leyes sobre tenencia de armas que estén vigentes. Este país tendría un alto nivel de violencia armada independientemente de la letra de la ley, simplemente debido a nuestra cultura. Hay mucho de verdad en los argumentos liberales contra la “cultura de las armas” en los Estados Unidos. Tenemos más violencia armada que otros países occidentales por la misma razón que tenemos una cultura de veneración a la bandera y de “apoyar a las tropas” sin paralelo en el hemisferio occidental, por la misma razón que el sionismo cristiano es una fuerza política tan poderosa entre nosotros, y por la misma razón que una gran pluralidad de nuestra población cree que la tierra tiene 6000 años de edad.

Parte del problema deriva del rol único de lo que Joe Bageant llamó Borderers, escoceses del Ulster o escoceses-irlandeses, en la formación de la cultura estadounidense. Como resultado, nuestra cultura política está más predispuesta a generar autoritarios Tipo A con fijación en el uso de la violencia “para demostrar quién es el jefe” o “para darles una lección”. La veneración del militarismo y del poder ejecutivo deriva de los escoceses del Ulster dentro de La Empalizada, con su adulación del rey Billy.

Y otra parte del problema probablemente deriva del Segundo Gran Despertar, que está –directa o indirectamente– en la raíz de tantas maneras en la que la cultura estadounidense se descarriló en comparación al resto de la cristiandad occidental. El “dispensacionalismo premilenarial” de John Darby, compartido por los bautistas del sur y otras sectas fundamentalistas, difundido al público por el predicador Hal Lindsey y la serie de libros “Los Relegados” de Tim LaHaye, deriva de esto, como también nuestras actitudes puritanas hacia el alcohol y nuestro raro apego a Israel.

Segundo, creo que una legislación estricta sobre la tenencia de armas sería tan efectiva como el estado policial “anti-terrorista”, la Guerra Contra las Drogas o el estricto régimen de copyright en disminuir las actividades que supuestamente intentan combatir. La legislación no podrá influir sobre la tenencia de armas o el crimen armado. En los lugares que suelen promocionarse como ejemplos de los beneficios del control de la posesión de armas, como Europa y Japón, los niveles de tenencia de armas y violencia ya eran mucho menores que en Estados Unidos antes de que esas leyes fuesen implementadas.

Pero en tercer lugar, lo que lograría una legislación estricta de la posesión de armas sería llevar el nivel de estatismo policial, de anomia y patología general a un nivel aún más elevado, tal como lo han hecho la Prohibición y la Guerra Contra las Drogas. Mi expectativa es que una Guerra Contra las Armas aumentaría el volumen del crimen organizado, y le daría poder a las pandillas criminales que se disputan el mercado negro, exactamente de la misma manera que lo hizo la Prohibición en los años 20 y la legislación estricta sobre las drogas desde los 80. Esperaría que se erosionasen aún más las protecciones contra la búsqueda y captura contempladas en la Cuarta Enmienda, que aumentase la militarización de la policía vía equipos SWAT, y la expansión del escuálido imperio de la confiscación civil, el falso testimonio de soplones de cárcel, la incitación al delito, la evidencia plantada y el chantaje de las declaraciones negociadas de culpabilidad. En definitiva, una Guerra Contra las Armas nos llevaría más aún en la dirección de una sociedad totalmente entregada a pandillas criminales, y a la pandilla criminal más grande de todas: Las bestias de rapiña en uniforme.

Artículo original publicado por Kevin Carson el 14 de diciembre 2012.

Traducido del inglés por Alan Furth.

Given the quality of this debate, I’m not really interested in engaging either the smug liberal challenges of “well, are you people finally ready to come to your senses” or the right-wing hysteria of “The Kenyan Marxist Muslim is coming to take our guns away!” I’ll just say for the record I’m an anarchist, and I don’t care much for the idea of the same state responsible for warrantless wiretapping and the NDAA regulating the public’s access to weaponry for self-defense. And I don’t want a new War on Guns carried out by the same lawless paramilitary thugs in kevlar who’re already fighting the wars on drugs and terrorism. At the same time, I can’t say I’m too crazy about the loudest anti-gun control voices on the right.

Instead, I’ll just make a few general observations. First, I doubt the level of gun violence in the United States has much to do with the kinds of gun laws that are in effect. This country would have a high rate of gun violence regardless of the laws on the books, just because of our culture. There’s a lot of truth in the liberal arguments against America’s “gun culture.” The United States has more gun violence than other Western countries for the same reason it has a culture of flag-worship and “supporting the troops” unequaled anywhere else in the West, for the same reason Christian Zionism is such a powerful political force in our country, and for the same reason a large plurality of our population actually believes the earth is 6000 years old.

Part of it stems from the unique role of what the late Joe Bageant called Borderers, Ulster Scots or Scots-Irish in shaping American culture. As a result American political culture is more predisposed than most to a kind of Type-A authoritarianism fixated on the use of violence to “show them who’s boss” or “teach them a lesson.” The worship of the military and the executive goes back to the Ulster Scots inside the Pale, with their adulation for King Billy.

And part of it probably stems from the Second Great Awakening, which is — directly or indirectly — at the root of so many of the ways in which American culture went off the rails in comparison to the rest of Western Christendom. The “Premillennial Dispensationalism” of John Darby, shared by the Southern Baptists and other fundamentalist sects and publicized by Hal Lindsey and the Left Behind series, traces back to this. So do our puritanical attitudes toward alcohol, and our weird attachment to Israel.

Second, I expect strict gun laws to be about as effective as the post-9/11 “counter-terrorism” police state, the Drug War, or the strict digital copyright regime in actually reducing the activity they’re ostensibly intended to reduce. Strict gun laws will hardly put a dent in either gun ownership or gun crime. In the places touted as examples of the benefits of gun control, like Europe and Japan, levels of gun ownership and violence were already far lower than in the United States even before such laws were passed.

But third, what strict gun laws will do is take the level of police statism, lawlessness and general social pathology up a notch in the same way Prohibition and the Drug War have done. I’d expect a War on Guns to expand the volume of organized crime, and to empower criminal gangs fighting over control over the black market, in exactly the same way Prohibition did in the 1920s and strict drug laws have done since the 1980s. I’d expect it to lead to further erosion of Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure, further militarization of local police via SWAT teams, and further expansion of the squalid empire of civil forfeiture, perjured jailhouse snitch testimony, entrapment, planted evidence, and plea deal blackmail. In short, a War on Guns will take us even further in the direction of a society handed entirely over to violent criminal gangs, and the biggest gang of all: The criminal beasts of prey in uniform.

Translations for this article:

• Spanish, Algunas Observaciones sobre el Debate del Control de la Tenencia de Armas.
• Portuguese, Algumas Observações Acerca do Debate Relativo a Controle de Armas de Fogo.

When people fear for their lives and safety because of who they are, this is a tremendous assault on liberty.  It limits freedom of movement, with some being afraid to go to school, use public restrooms, or walk at night.  It limits freedom of expression by encouraging some people to remain in the closet and suppress their gender expression.  And this climate of fear is enforced through brutal acts of violence that clearly violate basic individual rights.

I would strongly recommend that all anarchists, libertarians, feminists, transgender rights advocates, and decent people read this article on anti-trans violence and hate crimes laws.  It illuminates the problem in a powerful way, and explains how the state’s top down solutions have failed to address it.  Furthermore, it discusses grassroots approaches to liberating the trans community from violence.  Fundamentally, I consider that type of activism to be at the heart of what anarchist political action is about.

More immediately, I would strongly urge you to find out if there is a Transgender Day of Remembrance event happening in your area.   Why?  As C4SS senior fellow Charles Johnson has written:

Because it’s important, and because it’s the decent thing to do, it’s one of the things you have to do in this life. But I hate remembering our dead. I am sick of there being more people every year that we have nothing left of but a memory. It’s not enough. It’s never enough.

But they deserve at least that.