Center for a Stateless Society » drugs

This week, the chemist Alexander Shulgin died. Hailed/demonized by the press as the “Godfather of ecstasy”, Shulgin was a pioneer in the science of mind altering substances and an outspoken drug advocate. From a distant enough perspective, Alexander Shulgin was just a chemist often under the employ of the federal government and chemical companies. His life was very much one spent inside labs, labs in all likelihood funded through nefarious means. The life, times and influence of Sasha (as his friends called him) can only be fully understood from an internal perspective, a perspective which cannot be imputed in anyway to the uninitiated except by anecdote. His life and research was one of deep internal experience and exploration, as he tried to hone the chemical effects of many of the world’s favorite psychedelic substances.

To understand the influence Shulgin had on the world completely, we must also dwell on the internal shifts he caused in others. With that said, allow me to indulge you in a drug story. Nearly 3 years ago, I was at a low emotional point in my life, perhaps the lowest. I was 22 and imagined that life had already dealt me the cards of introverted misery and resentment that I would carry until my grave. But, one night a young woman sent me a text asking if I would be interested in going to a small rave and experimenting with MDMA. At this point, I knew as much about Molly as your grandmother probably does. It was a goofy new speed which made people dance and hug each other. Hardly my scene, I thought. However, my friend was persistent, insisting that this would get me out of my rut of aggression and despair with the world around me. So I acquiesced.

What happened later that night will never lose its’ full and splendorous meaning to me. This fad party drug had somehow connected me to a room full of people I didn’t know at all or had little acquaintance with, but for perhaps the first moment of my life, I felt open. I felt unashamed. I felt loved. I felt free. If my subjective experience allowed for it, I might have wept for a decade wasted in depression and isolation, but no, I was not capable of regret. I was only capable of embracing this, of embracing my new found friends, who to me were no less than saviors in this moment. On that night, I came out as bisexual to a room full of people, something 5 years prior was literally unthinkable to me and had become more or less a part of me I didn’t feel was worth sharing. That night, it was worth sharing. I was worth sharing.

Alexander Shulgin made that experience, and many more like it, possible. His research liberated me. While the headlines today read that Shulgin as the godfather of “the party drug ecstasy”, Terrence McKenna first described him as the godfather of psychopharmocology. Rather than influencing party culture, which will inevitably take hold of powerful psychoactive chemicals, Shulgin was the first to synthesize MDMA as we know it today and to apply it as a therapeutic agent. Today, MDMA is openly used by psychiatrists in the treatment of PTSD, with often times miraculous results.

While most known for his MDMA research, Shulgin thrived within the realm of more traditionally psychedelic substances, especially phenylethylamines and tryptamines, gracing us with the presence of new powerful agents of self-discovery.

Throughout his research, Shulgin remained transparent and friendly with the government and law enforcement, even sharing his compounds with agents of the DEA and writing manuals for use in the classification of drugs. However, like all researchers of illegal substances, Shulgin’s research was shut down by the DEA in 1994. The federal government had had enough of Shulgin’s two sides, one side an obedient chemist and the other a writer of subversive, drug-promoting literature. The DEA declared his more personal writing to be nothing more than “cookbooks” for illegal substances.

Shulgin knew his research would remain mostly isolated for his lifetime. Despite the definitive proof that MDMA and other psychedelics contain within them the solution to many psychological ailments, the U.S government has done nothing to tighten its’ grip beyond allowing strict therapeutic and lab research. The only political victory he experienced was through his testimony to Spanish authorities which had it effectively rescheduled as a substance of minimal danger.

I will not allow this to be Shulgin’s final legacy. He has been nothing less than a personal liberator of thousands, perhaps millions of minds. The drug war and the iron fist of government generally is anathema to a world fully exposed to the influence of Shulgin’s life’s work. I am freer because of him and have made it my own life’s mission to liberate others, to free them from the psychological constraints the drug war keeps us all in. While remaining for much of his life an apparent friend of the State, Alexander “Sasha” Shulgin used his position to ultimately undermine the drug war and started many down a path of self-discovery and mental freedom which will ultimately undermine the brutalizing, regressive nature of government power.

Miley Cyrus et la culture libertarienne rénégate

Ryan Calhoun — Mon, 12 May 2014 11:00:26 +0000

L’artiste la plus célébrée et controversée de l’année est, sans aucun doute, Miley Cyrus. Miley a rapidement et parfaitement transformé son image enfantine des années 2000 à la rebelle corporate. Miley a captivé les audiences avec ce que beaucoup considèrent comme un comportement choquant qui embrasse l’hédonisme et en se moquant des valeurs puritaines. Alors que beaucoup considèrent ses représentations scéniques comme des provocations gratuites, ça marche indéniablement pour attirer l’attention sur elle et transformer son image en quelque chose de nouveau et même de radical. Mais pourquoi est-ce que les libertariens devraient s’intéresser à Miley Cyrus ?

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

The Black Market Correction

Gabriel Amadej — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:00:53 +0000

It’s intriguing to see the progressive Left uniting against drug prohibition. They’re not with us in spirit, nor should they be, but they’ve laid the groundwork for its critique, and in a way that is sewn with the same threads of our passing commonalities. Many hold that only “hard” drugs should be combated with force and other “safe” drugs regulated in their consumption. This is certainly disappointing, but we, the decentralist Left, can exploit this opportunity.

Despite progressive’s claim to command a substantive critique of social and systemic power, they will celebrate governmental structures of plutocracy. They see plutocracy as an externally constituted force that can combat diffused power hierarchies while failing to be a part of them. As if it were a “neutral” force, a blank executive slate upon which a rational justice can be inscribed and effectively commanded by the intended rationality of the prescribed justice itself. Exposing the modern progressive’s ignorance of the structures of oppression is another opportunity.

We’ve all seen this mantra, “Legalize it, regulate it, tax it!” Notice the awkward position they place themselves in. The difference between regulation and prohibition, for there to be a distinction at all, is that regulation makes exceptions for the privileged – that’s little comfort when you’re the one effectively prohibited in either case. While heavy-handedness has resulted in calamity, they’re confident that a moderate application of forceful regulation is workable. Public policy writing, it seems, isn’t equivalent to playing whack-a-mole while wearing a blindfold.

“Unregulated” Black Markets? Where?

It’s often implied that the dangers of criminal drug markets are a result of their “unregulated” character. If we just legalized drugs and let the government regulate their quality and consistency, everyone would be safer. I agree that everyone would be safer under legalization, but regulation has nothing to do with it. Far from it, because the existing harm is spawned from the failures and faults of the regulatory state. Not just because outright banning the production, distribution and consumption of a good is the highest form of regulation imaginable, but because it disempowers consumers by fostering hierarchy and violence on a structural level.

First, prohibition erects strict barriers to entry, requiring that market actors to either possess privileged access to specialized resources – such as the means of producing and distributing the prohibited good in the first place – or go through unreliable channels at differing levels of the economic hierarchy. Not only are prohibited resources made harder to acquire, but the artificial risks and costs that come with avoiding law enforcement ensure that the divide between winners and losers is not a fair one, and that only a fortunate few, who now control the industry, have access to certain resource inputs. The power of consumer-voting is hampered because distributors frequently have different channels of access to the same supply chains. There is little use for a buyer trading one rip-off for another.

Second, the unmatched profits that privileged participants extract from the risk premium and controls on distribution leads to unequal economic power relationships. This kind of violent domination and bullying can be seen in the Mexican drug cartels. In a truly freed market where participation is open to the public, free competition acts as a check on the power and honesty of involved actors. Absent the artificial specialization of necessary resources, most competitive actions delivering short-term profits for smart actors will be leveled overtime when others adopt or modulate their ideas. Instead of the current situation where actors having circumstantially better resources and access to power means that everyone else can’t do anything about it. In an unrestricted market, there would be nothing stopping anyone from having access to the same resource inputs.

Third, the State’s forceful monopoly on the provision of law and security reserves for them a special power of exclusion, which, when used, has a distorting effect on black markets. It’s a clear case with illegal drug markets. We are disabled from creating our own institutions of justice while at the same time there’s a forced need for security – that is protection from law enforcement. So, as black market actors, we are heavily constrained in our options to protect against risk, and hierarchical cartels form in response. Not only does prohibition define what kinds of institutions are possible, but the need for hiddenness and anonymity severely distorts everyday market transactions on an individual basis. It doesn’t feel particularly safe exchanging with some shady stranger in his van at night, but there isn’t much in the way of options – not as traditionally conceived.

Market Responses

We live in interesting times. The spread of the internet and the information-based economy is empowering people to create the kinds of social spaces for themselves that would otherwise be prohibited. Whereas traditional modes of organization creates visible or vulnerable targets for the State to smash, networks are much more resilient because they can recreate themselves easily. Through this model of networked organization, we are seeing a partial reversal of the forms of economic disempowerment created by state prohibition and regulation.

The Silk Road (SR) has made a tremendous impact over the last few years, and its recent take down by the FBI was a great injustice, to be sure, but for perhaps the first time we are seeing a blunting of blows. The U.S. government’s response shattered the SR’s disruptive constituents into a million pieces. Those pieces are being taken up by super-empowered groups and individuals to be forged into weapons of their own. Consumers are making use of a growing array of darknet marketplace alternatives – included among them is a bottom-up remaking of SR itself – and with but a few hiccups along the way we have been relatively unhampered in our ability to peacefully exchange goods and services with each other, regardless if they’re “prohibited” or not.

To better understand the roles these distributed alternatives have to play, we should draw our attention to the innovations and failures of the original SR. SR was a “hidden” service deployed only on the Tor network, i.e. you could only access it if your browser was configured to use the Tor network or if you just used the Tor Browser Bundle. Functioning much like a tweaked Amazon or eBay, it offered a host of useful features that helped facilitate trust between sellers and buyers, such as an Escrow payment system, seller feedback, and dispute resolution. According to their civil forfeiture complaint (PDF), the FBI purchased samples from SR’s drug listings and laboratory-tested them (page 6), and typically found high levels of product purity matching what was advertised. The reputation-based nature of SR, combined with often accurate information on seller profile pages and the official forums, empowered buyers to make informed choices and remain safe.

SR’s critical point of failure was its centralization. Although the ability to operate “hidden” is a useful byproduct of the Tor network, the service can be compromised given a few mistakes by its founders or if the physical servers are discovered. Upon the initial SR seizure, the contingency mechanism that would release members’ on-site Bitcoins to their chosen addresses was never activated due to unforeseen circumstances. All of its useful functions were internalized, requiring blind trust in the honesty and competence of the site’s administration.

It’s true that the long-term returns on sales commissions proved a greater incentive than short-term gains from scamming the entire user base and making off with their Bitcoins, but the failures of hidden services like “Sheep Marketplace” and “TorMarket” illustrate that this only happens so long as the future prospects of the service seem good. TorMarket shut down without warning and was never heard from again, after a period of disruption and uncertainty in other marketplaces and being subjected to several DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks that left users unable to access the Bitcoins in their on-site personal and Escrow wallets.

Those are lessons that had to be learned. One “hidden” service called “The Marketplace”, located on I2P, instead of the Tor network, is not, as they explain, actually able to steal from the digital wallets you create for Escrow. Although it remains centralized in other ways, there is a large community interest in giving more control to the end-user, from which “The Marketplace” forged its model in recognition. Other markets are performing similar experiments. The potential for fully decentralized marketplaces is there – where essential buyer/seller protection features exist trust free and it is being realized by projects like Open Transactions.

This phenomenon is similar in effect to the ‘invisible molotov’ described by William Gillis:

For those of us interested in resisting and undermining coercive power, the issue is less how a truly freed market might one day improve our lives, but rather how the faint sparks of freedom in the market today are already working against hierarchy, banditry and the concentration of power and how those sparks might be stoked. Therefore our interest is not the market’s invisible hand, per se, but the invisible molotov it carries.

The tighter their grip, the more that slips through their fingers. The networked social systems we create for ourselves can stand up to fragility. In fact, it’s an environment where we thrive; as anti-fragile institutions we self-modulate and improve in response to failure. The monolithic State requires stability and predictability, but in the new millennium that’s a dying cause. The ends of total social control are the only means of its survival, but these distributed elements of disruption are here to stay. This system of conglomerates and nation-states continually provoke this disruption and thus participate in its own destruction. A surging black market correction is unraveling the institutions of “neutral” power that progressives dream of commanding, all the while provoking frantic reactions that reveal their nature as not-so-innocent forces of totalizing oppression.

Translations for this article:

Portuguese, As correções do mercado negro.

Weed Legalization As Privatization, Disempowerment

Ryan Calhoun — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:00:51 +0000

The beginning of this year saw the first fully-fledged legal weed markets open in America in nearly a century. Lines formed, similar those for a midnight movie premiere. Giddy stoners stood in shops in amazement at the ease, variety and quality of the shopping experience.

Of course, this is not the introduction of a free market in marijuana. Rather, it is the state-controlled dream of political progressives who have been pushing for a government overhaul of the weed market for quite some time. At the root of this movement is an ethos of paternalism and extortion. Weed must only be legal under the condition that the government can act as “partner” and that it be put in the hands of “responsible” retailers. And thus, Big Marijuana is born.

Marijuana’s legalization seems much more like neoliberal privatization of markets than true liberation of them. While I do not question the decency of these first major marijuana retailers, there are legitimate concerns. Those most victimized by the state’s rabid oppression of marijuana markets will find themselves very often out of luck, as extensive background checks are required by law, and any drug felony charge is enough to exclude individuals from operating as vendors. TakePart magazine notes in an article that even as weed is legalized, those in prison for the crime of possessing or selling marijuana will remain there. While new businesses boom with customers, those who formerly tried to compete in this market remain locked up in cages.

The drug war has affected millions during its hellish tear through Americans’ lives and culture, but it has always been particularly racialized and classist. This leaves many black, Hispanic and poor individuals with a permanent hex affixed to them that these laws do not address. Like with the beltway libertarian conception of privatization, legalization picks the winners of the weed market from those who were lucky enough to not find themselves on the wrong side of the law and who already have access to the capital to invest into this expensive business.

Legalization, at its best, functions as an opposition to continued state violence against drug users and possessors. It is therefore troubling that we find even after this so-called legalization, many remain shackled both by the pre-existing landscape of the market and by new regulations which prohibit them from participating in it. It is never by the political means we realize our freedom, but only a hold-back of even worse oppression. We fight an uphill battle against the incredible damage the state does. And now facing the age of Big Marijuana, we might be shocked to find the sorts of restrictions many established pot shops favor. In order to delegitimize street dealers, we have to treat them as inherently dangerous and volatile.

This is the current direction of the marijuana movement in this country. It is towards centralization and exclusion, as are all white markets to some extent or another. This can be changed. It can be changed by fully humanizing and recognizing as innocent anyone and everyone accused of a drug crime. It can be changed by recognizing all individuals as legitimate self-owners, whose purchases and consumption are not the business of bureaucrats, cops, jailers or regulatory agencies. We must confront myths about the dangers of drugs and how they need to be controlled by those the state deems responsible.

On the bright side, attitudes are changing, especially toward marijuana use. The general tenor of the country has reached its most sane and scientific: Weed is neither dangerous nor a big deal. It is a personal choice. The only organization that seems to be living in the 1980s anymore is the federal government, which has stayed rather quiet this first historic week of 2014. Its miserable attempts to control even the most innocuous drug use are coming to a close. It is time Colorado, all other states and ultimate all individuals fully accept the ethos at the heart of the anti-drug war movement: You cannot control us.

Miley Cyrus and the Libertarian Renegade Culture

Ryan Calhoun — Sat, 16 Nov 2013 01:00:49 +0000

The most controversial and celebrated artist this year is, without a doubt, Miley Cyrus. Miley has quickly and flawlessly altered her image from 2000’s bubblegum sensation to corporate-sponsored rebel. Miley has captivated audiences with what many consider to be shocking performances that embrace hedonism and the mocking of puritan values. While many might consider her performances cheap stunts, they are stunts that undeniably work – getting her attention and altering her image into something new and even radical. But why should libertarians care about Miley Cyrus?

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.

The New Silk Road

Ryan Calhoun — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:00:17 +0000

Today we can celebrate the recent relaunch of the Silk Road drug market, named for a predecessor taken down over a month ago by federal agents for its connection with an alleged assassination conspiracy involving alleged founder Ross Ulbricht. The FBI is attempting to tie Ulbricht to the online identity of the Dread Pirate Roberts (DPR), an entrepreneur in the drug trade radically motivated by the Austrian school of economics and the left-wing ideal of Agorism.

The identity of the new DPR is unknown and will likely remain that way. It’s rumored that various old administrators from the Silk Road forum planned to take over, but those who have answered deny that they are the new DPR. The market has been left relatively untouched in style except for a new encryption key system which promises greater anonymity protection for transactions. Of course, the primary concern is whether or not the feds are involved — or, more accurately, just how involved are they?

The takedown of Silk Road and various smaller markets proved that the feds have done a spectacular job infiltrating these online communities as vendors, or by having vendors cooperate with them. There is no doubt that paranoia is warranted. Indeed, paranoia is the name of the game in the underground economy. When dealing in “crimes” that could get you locked away in a cage for years with no expectation of being treated as a human, it’s not only your neurotic duty, but your intellectual duty as well, to be paranoid. Through paranoia, that’s how he win. And that is what makes this the revolution that it is.

If you play this game right, if you cover your ass and take the necessary (but not too difficult) precautions, it doesn’t matter from who you are buying. The feds hate consistent cryptography, because it puts the FBI and the DEA out of work. It ends their way of doing things. The feds think that they can pull one over on drug consumers and producers, but consistent cryptography will end them. It just has to be applied, well, consistently.

The old Silk Road was not busted because the feds figured out away around PGP or found a mysterious backdoor into the Silk Road‘s server. They subpoenaed Wordpress and Google (Gmail, Google+ and Youtube). Then, once the had a target, they used intimidation, harassment and psychologically manipulation to get what they needed. The feds aren’t dummies, not all the time. You better assume you aren’t safe. When a person tells me they are constantly watching me and waiting for me to slip up, I believe them.

The feds aren’t relying on consistency, but we will give it to them. We will put up a wall between their guns and our market. Through this we will turn them into nothing more than another neutral market participant. “Yes, Mr. Federal Agent, please do sell me that kilo of cocaine at half price.” The online community is turning the FBI and the DEA into nothing more than drug dealers; which is of course all they’ve ever really been. But now they’re our dealers and they just offered you an ounce of shrooms for 0.4 bitcoins.

This revolution is not just important for those in the drug market. It is the most potent force for resistance since the Smith and Wesson. Anonymous online markets offer unlimited possibilities for entrepreneurs of all trades. They encourage investment in alternative currencies. They encourage people to take their money out of an economy based entirely in violence and transition it to one which stresses cooperation and individuality. Imagine a world free from government and you’ve imagined what the darknet and Bitcoin markets can bring us.

If the feds are truly as entrenched as some in the community fear, then cryptology will only progress faster. The feds invite paranoia — paranoia demands innovation — innovation ends the feds. So, drug users and black marketeers: Unite, encrypt, invest in Bitcoin, fund Dark Wallet, stay paranoid and stay high on the feds’ supply.

O Estado Não Consegue Fazer Cumprir Suas Leis Sem Desobedecê-las

Kevin Carson — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:00:52 +0000

Acabo de ler que pais de estudante autista do ensino médio detido em operação de cilada de drogas em Temecula, Califórnia, em dezembro último, moveram processo contra o distrito escolar. Os pais estavam “inicialmente satisfeitos com seu filho ter feito seu primeiro e único amigo no ano passado na escola,” mas ficaram desconfiados quando o tal “amigo de escola” continuamente arranjava desculpas para não ir à casa deles. O “amigo,” na realidade o Xerife Adjunto do Condado de Riverside, Daniel Zipperstein, “pressinou o filho deles, solitário e vulnerável, com mais de 60 mensagens de texto ao longo de cerca de três semanas insistindo para que ele comprasse meio baseado de maconha de um homem sem moradia.”

A própria existência de “operações de cilada,” por meio das quais pessoal da área de repressão instiga atividade ilegal — em outras palavras, atos em princípio ilegais no curso do cumprimento de suas obrigações oficiais — diz muito acerca da natureza do estado e de suas leis. Quando criadas as primeiras forças policiais em Londres e em New York no início do século 19, elas eram vistas como formadas de funcionários apenas contratados, mas pagos para desempenhar as mesmas funções de “posse comitatus” (preservadas na arcaica prática de “detenção por cidadão”) com a mesma abrangência da competência de todos os cidadãos. A proposição de à polícia profissional ser conferida condição especial acima da de seus concidadãos nunca teria sido tolerada.

Nunca entendi a lógica por meio da qual alguém uniformizado pode cometer ato definido como ilegal em lei escrita, no curso de operação de cilada, sem esse alguém ele próprio violar a lei. Se é ilegal cidadão oferecer para venda drogas ou atos sexuais, ou instigar sua venda por outrem, como poderá ser legal policial oferecer-se para comprar ou vender drogas de um cidadão?

A resposta, naturalmente, é que o estado não consegue funcionar usando a mesma lógica aplicável a seus cidadãos. De certa feita eu disse a colega de trabalho que, no tocante a operações de cilada de drogas e sexo, os policiais deveriam estar sujeitos às mesmas leis referentes a instigação que eles nos fazem cumprir. A resposta dela: “Mas então como eles poderiam pegar pessoas que fazem essas coisas?”

Boa pergunta. Obviamente, não poderiam. O estado simplesmente não consegue funcionar a menos que conceda a seus próprios funcionários, com uma piscada de olho e um toque de cotovelo, isenção das leis que todo mundo mais está obrigado a obedecer.

O estado não conseguiria fazer cumprir leis contra drogas, trabalho sexual ou qualquer outra atividade consensual se fosse literalmente restringido pelas leis como o processo devido garante na Carta de Direitos. Imaginem como a Guerra às Drogas se sairia se a Quarta Emenda fosse feita cumprir literalmente, sem qualquer das ressalvas de “expectativa razoável de privacidade” ou “causa provável” ou “boa fé” que os tribunais têm lido nela — se os policiais realmente tivessem de ter mandado especificando o lugar e o que estão procurando antes de poderem pôr o pé na propriedade de vocês? Imaginem se o confisco civil fosse tratado como violação da quinta emenda, e o estado não pudesse tomar os haveres de vocês sem primeiro acusar vocês de crime e persuadir um júri a condenar vocês. Nesses termos, não importaria se as restrições substantivas às drogas fossem tão severas quanto em Cingapura — elas seriam letra morta na prática, pois seria impossível fazê-las cumprir.

O confisco civil foi primeiro instaurado nos setores de coleta de receita do governo, porque entendeu-se, desde o início, que interpretação literal da proibição, na lei consuetudinária, de confisco de propriedade sem o devido processo legal tornaria as leis tributárias impossíveis de serem feitas cumprir. O processo legal criminal ordinário para arrecadar de evasores de tributos custaria mais do que o valor da receita.

O confisco civil efetuado por legislação administrativa, baseada na preponderência da evidência, foi originalmente uma forma de lei prerrogativa na Inglaterra. Tribunais prerrogativos como a Câmara da Estrela derivavam suas regras procedimentais da lei civil romana, tal como codificada no governo de Justiniano. A proliferação de tribunais prerrogativos sob os Stuarts contou-se entre as coisas que levaram tanto Charles I quanto James II a perderem seus tronos. Contudo, mesmo depois da ascensão de William e Mary, entendia-se que alfândega e receita eram exceção às exigências “universais” do processo devido da lei consuetudinária.

Foram as autoridades alfandegárias, funcionando sob a lei do Almirantado, que alisaram o pelo dos colonos estadunidenses no sentido contrário e provocaram a Revolução Estadunidense. Mesmo, entanto, depois da ratificação da Constituição e da Carta de Direitos, foi rapidamente estabelecido na jurisprudência que a proibição de confiscar propriedade sem julgamento por júri não se aplicava a alfândega e a receita — porque seria impossível fazê-lo.

Portanto, no final das contas, não importa o que a lei diga, e nem mesmo como, no papel, ela restrinja o estado. Se o governo precisar de isenção não escrita da lei para fazer o que deseja, obtê-la-á.

Artigo original afixado por Kevin Carson em 1o. de novembro de 2013.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

The State Can’t Enforce Its Laws Without Disobeying Them

Kevin Carson — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:00:07 +0000

I just read that the parents of an autistic high school student arrested in a drug sting operation in Temecula, California last December have filed suit against the school district. The parents were “initially happy their son had made his first and only friend last year at school,” but became suspicious when his “school friend” kept making excuses for not coming over. The “friend,” actually Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy Daniel Zipperstein, “pressured their lonely and vulnerable son with more than 60 text messages over about three weeks into buying half a joint from a homeless man.”

The very existence of “sting operations,” by which law enforcement personnel solicit illegal activity — in other words, perform acts which are illegal on their faces in the course of their official duties — speaks volumes about the nature of the state and its laws. When the first professional police forces were created in London and New York in the early 19th century, they were regarded as simply hired functionaries who got paid to perform the same “posse comitatus” functions (preserved in the archaic practice of “citizen’s arrest”) within the competency of all citizens. The proposition that professional police be granted special status over and above that of their fellow citizens would never have been tolerated.

I’ve never understood the logic by which someone in uniform can commit an act that’s defined as illegal by statute, in the course of a sting operation, without themselves breaking the law. If it’s illegal for a citizen to offer drugs or sexual acts for sale, or to solicit their sale from others, how is it legal for a cop to offer to buy or sell drugs from a citizen?

The answer, of course, is that the state cannot operate on the same logic as its citizens. I once told a coworker that, when it came to drug and sex work sting operations, cops should be subject to the same anti-solicitation laws they’re enforcing on us. Her response: “But then how would they catch people who do that stuff?”

Good question. Obviously, they couldn’t. The state simply can’t function unless it gives its own functionaries, with a wink and a nudge, an exemption from the laws that everyone else is supposed to obey.

The state couldn’t enforce laws against drugs, sex work, or any other consensual activity if it were literally bound by laws like the due process guarantees in the Bill of Rights. Imagine how the Drug War would fare if the Fourth Amendment were enforced literally, without any of the “reasonable expectation of privacy” or “probable cause” or “good faith” lacunae the courts have read into it — if cops actually had to have a warrant specifying the place and what they were looking for before they could set foot on your property? Imagine if civil forfeiture were treated as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and the state couldn’t take your possessions without first charging you with a crime and persuading a jury to convict you. Under those terms, it wouldn’t matter if the substantive restrictions on drugs were as harsh as those in Singapore — they would be dead letters in practice because they were unenforceable.

Civil forfeiture was first introduced in the revenue collecting arms of government, because it was understood from the beginning that a literal interpretation of the common law prohibition on seizure of property without due process of law would render the tax laws unenforceable. Going through the ordinary criminal law process to collect from tax evaders would cost more than the revenue was worth.

Civil forfeiture by an administrative law body, based on a preponderance of the evidence, was originally a form of prerogative law in England. Prerogative courts like Star Chamber derived their procedural rules from the Roman civil law, as it was codified under Justinian. The proliferation of prerogative courts under the Stuarts was among the things that led to both Charles I and James II losing their thrones. But even after the accession of William and Mary, it was understood that customs and revenue were an exception to the common law’s “universal” due process requirements.

It was customs officials, operating under Admiralty law, who rubbed American colonials the wrong way and helped bring on the American Revolution. But even after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it was quickly established in case law that the prohibition against seizing property without a jury trial didn’t apply to customs and revenue — because it couldn’t.

So in the end, it doesn’t matter what the law says, or even how it explicitly restrains the state on paper. If government needs an unwritten exemption from the law to do what it wants, It will get it.

Translations for this article:

Portuguese, O Estado Não Consegue Fazer Cumprir Suas Leis Sem Desobedecê-las.

A Vontade Do Povo Não Significa Nada Para Os Combatentes Contra Drogas

Martin Baldwin — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:00:49 +0000

The following article is translated into Portuguese from the English original, written by Dave Hummels.

A Associated Press informa que oito ex-administradores da Administração de Repressão a Narcóticos – DEA estão urgindo a administração Obama a processar Washington e Colorado a propósito das mudanças, aprovadas pelos eleitores, no sentido de legalização da maconha.

Um ex-chefe, Peter Bensinger, teme que os esforços bem-sucedidos de legalização levem a um “efeito dominó” nos Estados Unidos. Onde é que ouvimos essa expressão antes? Bensinger continua, esbaforido: “Meu temor é que o Departamento de Justiça faça o que está fazendo agora: fazer nada e dizer nada … se não agir agora, essas leis serão plenamente implementadas em questão de meses.”

Portanto os guerreiros contra drogas estão ficando loucos por causa de Colorado e Washington. Bom! Só podemos esperar que as sombrias previsões de Bensinger se realizem e que mais estadunidenses estejam de fato acordando para o absurdo da proibição da maconha.

Os ex-burocratas da DEA argumentam, corretamente, que a maconha permanece sendo ilegal nos termos da Lei de Substâncias Controladas. Mesmo nos casos envolvendo maconha médica, o governo federal pode abusar da cláusula de comércio como base para criminar usuários, plantadores e vendedores de maconha (conforme Gonzales v. Raich). A cláusula de comércio tornou-se o equivalente, na guerra às drogas do governo federal, dos estatutos abrangentes caracterizadores de conduta desordeira nos estados.

Infelizmente esses capangas têm uma sólida argumentação para apresentar ao Procurador-Geral dos Estados Unidos Holder. Em New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932), o Juiz do Supremo Tribunal dos Estados Unidos Louis D. Brandeis disse: “É um dos felizes acidentes do sistema federal que um único estado corajoso possa, caso assim escolham seus cidadãos, servir como laboratório; e tentar novos experimentos sociais e econômicos sem risco para o resto do país.” A classe política de hoje, porém, vê o federalismo como arcaico.

Esperemos que a administração opte por ignorar essa recomendação intimidadora. Se porém decidir por litigar, isso será outro sinal de que os federais não dão a mínima para a vontade do povo. Os estadunidenses amantes da liberdade deveriam responder a esse intrometimento federal com maciça onda de desobediência civil.

Comecemos por publicamente constranger os chefes da DEA mencionados pela AP: “Bensinger, John Bartels, Robert Bonner, Thomas Constantine, Asa Hutchinson, John Lawn, Donnie Marshall e Francis Mullen.” Tomem conhecimento dos nomes deles, libertários! Eles são seus inimigos!

Em seguida, demos a conhecer publicamente os esforços desses autoritários para minar as bases dos eleitores de Colorado e Washington. Perguntemos a eles por que eles continuam a apoiar uma política deorigens patentemente racistas que tem resultado em encarceramentos em massa. Revelemos publicamente os motivos dos órgãos de polícia que fazem cumprir essas leis. Quando os combatentes contra drogas vierem com sua arenga de “proteger as crianças,” confrontemo-los com a pavorosa realidade de incursões em portas equivocadas, animais domésticos de famílias chacinados e crianças aterrorizadas com granadas de aturdimento. Onde um apologista da proibição der palestra ou participar de reunião, deverá ser confrontado por multidões de piqueteiros enérgicos.

Ao expormos esse tiranetes, deveríamos também buscar oportunidades para subverter o maquinário da proibição. Um movimento de massa de nulificação pelo júri(*) em casos de drogas poderá ser uma tática promissora. Os promotores poderão usar o voir direpara remover um ou dois jurados questionáveis, mas e se a nulificação tornar-se disseminada? Eles não poderão remover todos nós. No futuro, deveríamos ver o dever do jurado como oportunidade para libertar pessoas não violentas das garras do estado. (* Jury nullification – Nulificação pelo júri – Doutrina sancionada relativa a procedimentos de julgamento na qual membros de um júri desconsideram ou a evidência apresentada ou as instruções do juiz a fim de conseguirem um veredito baseado em suas próprias consciências. Essa doutrina esposa o conceito segundo o qual os jurados devem ser juízes não apenas dos fatos, mas também da própria lei. - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury+nullification)

No Tao Te Ching, o sábio chinês Lao Tzu escreve: “Quanto mais leis são promulgadas, mais assaltantes e ladrões há.” Repetidamente essa observação comprovou-se correta. A violência da guerra às drogas é perpetuada pelo governo e, nada obstante, as autoridades insistem em que precisam continuar combatendo. Em sua vil tentativa de proteger seu antigo terreno, ex-chefes da DEA mostram suas verdadeiras cores. São gângsters com salários federais. Farão qualquer coisa para assegurar que eles próprios e os de sua laia continuem a extrair sua parte do butim da guerra às drogas. Compete a nós expor seu esquema de extorsão e terminar o trabalho que eleitores sensatos no Colorado e em Washington começaram em novembro.

Artigo original afixado por Dave Hummels em 7 de março de 2013.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.