STIGMERGY: The C4SS Blog
The Weekly Libertarian Leftist and Chess Review 59

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz discusses the myth of Thanksgiving.

Uri Avnery discusses new right-wing bills up for passage in Israel.

Nicola Nasser discusses recent bombings in Palestine.

Jonathan Schell discusses Nick Turse’s book on Vietnam.

Annabelle Bamforth discusses a new report on drone deaths.

Ivan Eland discusses the Afghan war.

Lew Rockwell discusses how the presidents are our enemies.

George H. Smith discusses psychological egoism.

Sharon Presley discusses libertarian feminism.

Mikalya Novak discusses feminist and Austrian critiques of mainstream economics.

Binoy Kampmark discusses the Jewish nation-state bill in Israel.

Uri Avnery discusses the situation in Israel.

Brian M. Downing discusses Iran vs the Islamic State.

J.D. Tuccille discusses the core of government.

Jesse Walker discusses Eric Garner’s death.

Zaid Jilani discusses Democratic Party complicity in police militarization.

Chris Floyd discusses refugees and the paucity of money to support them.

Chris Floyd discusses the plight of a Gitmo prisoner.

Chris Floyd discusses drone strikes and state terrorism.

Glenn Greenwald discusses the new defense chief.

Patrick L. Smith discusses the Russia-Ukraine debacle.

James Carden discusses why grand strategy is bunk.

Rob Urie discusses police violence and the idea of race.

Michelle Renee Matisons discusses class, race, gender, and U.S. policing.

Mike Caccioppoli discusses Darren Wilson.

Kelly Vlahos discusses the loss of a champion of civil liberties in Congress.

Dan Fromkin discusses 12 things to keep in mind when reading the torture report.

Esam Al-Amin discusses how Egypt’s coup leaders are a criminal syndicate.

The famous Samuel Reshevsky loses to Rafael Vaganian.

Thomas Ernst defeats Ferdinand Hellers.

Relatório da Coordenação de Mídias em Português: Outubro/Novembro de 2014

Como afirmei em setembro, nós passaríamos por um momento de apertar os cintos na embaixada em português do C4SS. É claro que isso não significa que vamos cessar todas as nossas atividades, mas apenas que não estamos trabalhando no ritmo frenético em que vínhamos desde fevereiro.

De 26 de setembro a 25 de outubro, publicamos apenas 6 artigos. Em outubro, nosso blockbuster foi o panfleto de Kevin Carson O punho de ferro por trás da mão invisível, que recebeu até uma introdução especial para o público brasileiro pelo próprio Carson.

Já de 26 de outubro a 25 de novembro, publicamos 9 artigos, três deles originais. Valdenor Júnior falou sobre o separatismo brasileiro e sobre a consciência negra. Já o convidado Eduardo Lopes, por ocasião do Dia da Consciência Negra (20 de outubro) falou sobre como a Lei de Terras, sancionada durante o Império no Brasil, impediu os negros de ascenderem socialmente.

Em outubro, conseguimos 476 curtidas em nossa página no Facebook. Já em novembro, mais 227, ultrapassando a marca de 3000 curtidas. No Twitter, chegamos a 99 seguidores outubro e permanecemos no mesmo patamar em novembro. Não registrei o número de republicações que tivemos neste mês, que ficarão para o mês que vem, quando farei um resumo das atividades de todo o ano.

Você pode nos ajudar! Doe!

Erick Vasconcelos
Coordenador de Mídias
Centro por uma Sociedade Sem Estado

Portuguese Media Coordinator Update: October-November 2014

As I stated in September, we would be tightening our belts in our Portuguese stateless embassy. It obviously does not mean that we will cease our activities, but that we will not keep the rhythm we had since February.

From September 26 to October 25, we published 6 articles. But during that month our blockbuster was Kevin Carson’s The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand in Portuguese, with a special introduction to Brazilian readers, written by Carson himself.

From October 26 to November, we published 9 articles, three of them originals. Valdenor Júnior talked about secessionism in Brazil and about black awareness. Invited writer Eduardo Lopes, for the ocasion of the Black Awareness Day (November 20th) talked about the Law of Lands, that was sanctioned during the Brazilian Empire and prevented black people from reaching economic independence.

In October, we got 476 likes in our Facebook page, while in November we had 227 likes, surpassing the 3,000 likes mark. On Twitter, we reached 99 followers and remained at the same level in November. I did not register the number of pickups we had this month. I will do so this month, when I will do a retrospective for the whole year.

You can help us! Donate!

Erick Vasconcelos
Media Coordinator
Center for a Stateless Society

Antiwar.com Needs Your Support

Antiwar.com is having its annual fundraising drive right now. And it’s well worth contributing to. You won’t easily find a better and more comprehensive news source. The site also features great in house editorial writers like Lucy Steigerwald and Justin Raimondo. Not to mention providing links to many op-eds around the web.

The site is something I visit everyday to enjoy the above features. It keeps me abreast of the latest machinations of the warfare state. This has led to a few blog posts on war related current events. If you’d like to see those posts continue; one way to help is to donate to the fundraising drive.

Another reason to contribute is that the financial deck is stacked against the forces of anti-militarism and anti-imperialism. The war party has the whole U.S. treasury at their disposal. Both of the two major party establishments are committed to a policy of statist interventionism. A way of countering this imbalance is to make contributions to sites like Antiwar.com.

In addition to the reason above; Antiwar.com is also worth making a contribution to because of the timely importance of the issues it addresses. In light of further U.S. military intervention in Iraq and continuation of drone strikes; its message is more relevant than ever. We can’t afford to lose a valuable source of information on the warfare state’s policies at a time like this.

As the destructive impact of said policies spreads; we need to keep abreast of developments more than ever. Knowledge is part of challenging oppressive militaristic power structures and the fruits they bear. Antiwar.com does a real service in furthering this aim. An aim that can save countless lives around the globe.

The immense loss of life from U.S. military policy in particular justifies special attention and focus. We can’t afford to lose sight of the importance of battling the evils of U.S. military interventionism. Antiwar.com is an invaluable resource for furthering this agenda. It deserves our support and attention.

The war party responsible for the above doesn’t sleep and neither does Antiwar.com. News is updated daily and new op-eds from around the net appear on a daily basis as well. If you have any extra cash to spare; do consider helping Antiwar.com continue to do this. You will be rewarded many times over by the information and opinion it gives you access to. If you can; please donate today. Don’t put if off. Antiwar.com needs your support today.

I’m sorry Eric Garner. I don’t know what else to do.

“I am that whore. I do confess. I put you on just like a wedding dress and run down the aisle.” I’m listening to Wedding Dress by Derek Webb. I go to this song when I’m sad.

I’m sad. Beyond angry. Brokenhearted. The Staten Island Grand Jury chose not to indict the officer who choked father of six Eric Garner to death on the street while attempting to arrest him for selling untaxed cigarettes.

They chose not to make the officer even stand trial. Despite video. Despite the fact that chokeholds are illegal. Despite the coroner ruling the death a homicide. Despite everything. They found no evidence to indicate a crime may have been committed. But they did indict the man who filmed the killing. And they tell us cameras on cops will make a difference.

This is a hard day. It’s been a hard week. A hard month. A hard year.

You get to that point when you’re not angry anymore. When you read the NYPD Tweet, “The #NYPD is committed to rebuilding public trust. #Wehearyou,” and just sit there with your mouth agape, thinking, “How could you?”

The NYPD Commissioner joked about it.

How could you?

This is what the police are saying.

How could you?

#BlackLivesMatter? Like hell they do.

But, then, how could I? I am complicit. I have not yet burned the fucking system to the ground. The system that allows police to kill young black males twenty-one times more often than their white counterparts. The system wherein people respond to that stat with lies about black criminality. The system where white men Tweet at me, “Why is this about race?” The system which buys cops tanks but never offers consequences for breaking the law, starting with the one that requires them to report on how many people they kill every year. This is the racist, corrupt, lawless, and totally unaccountable system I build and support and allow through my complacency and it is a system for which I must be called to account.

I’m going to the White House tonight. It’s not enough. It’s not even close to enough. It’s so far from enough that, to quote a friend, “A part of me wants to crawl into a hole and never emerge again.” But I’m going. I don’t know what else to do.

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist and Chess Review 58

David S. D’Amato discusses equality and libertarianism.

David Vine and Nick Turse discuss U.S. bases in the Middle East.

David Stockman discusses how the war party won.

Doug Bandow discusses why North Korea should be talked to.

Grant Babcock discusses non-violence and modern libertarianism.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses Max Boot’s plan for Iraq.

Lawrence Wittner discusses whether wars defend American freedom or not.

Brian Terrell discusses drone strikes and protests to stop them.

David S D’Amato discusses top down anti-poverty efforts.

Glenn Greenwald discusses who the victims of drone attacks are.

Stephen Kinzer discusses why sending troops will not fix Iraq’s problems.

Steve Coll discusses drone warfare.

Dave Lindorff discusses the metasizing of the police state in America.

Sheldon Richman discusses Hilary Clinton and Henry Kissinger.

Faiza Patel discusses the recent Obama admin statement on torture.

Sheldon Richman discusses natural law and immigration politics.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses the torture report.

Gwynne Dyer discusses how Western militarism fuels blowback.

Grant Babcock discusses breaking away from conservatism.

Spencer Ackerman discuses drone strikes and accuracy.

Kathy Kelly discusses Obama’s expansion of war in Afghanistan.

Jason Brennan discusses the morality of killing government agents.

Tom Engelhardt discusses Iraq War 4.0

Kevin Carson discusses how state justice failed Michael Brown.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses the Hunger Game movies and war.

Dave Lindorff discusses Michael Brown’s killing.

Najdorf beats Averbakh.

Najdorf beats anonymous player.

English Language Media Coordinator Update, 12/01/14

Dear C4SS supporters,

A quick update on English language media for December:

  • I made 33,437 submissions of C4SS op-eds last month, each submission to as many as 2,597 newspapers worldwide (some submissions, if they were only relevant to the US or to some particular locale, to fewer publications than that).
  • I’ve identified 50 media pickups of our op-eds for November.

A couple high points:

As of two years ago, my standard for a “successful” month within the Center’s op-ed program was 20 “pickups” — one each weekday in a 30-day month. Lately, that standard has been 50 pickups per month, for several reasons.

One reason is that Before It’s News, a popular aggregation site, picks up most of our material. We had an internal discussion as to whether or not to count those pickups since BIN is an aggregator; we came down on the side of counting them because BIN is an extremely popular site that gets us lots of exposure … exposure worth including in our counts. It regularly ranks in the top 3,000 sites on the Internet per Alexa and its demographics indicate a very broad reader spectrum that qualifies it as “mainstream” in audience. So while there’s a certain “inflationary” effect, it’s not a false effect.

Another reason for raising the bar, of course, is that we expect, want and strive to get better and better at placing our op-eds in newspapers. And in my opinion we are meeting that expectation. Even two years ago, we were lucky to get the occasional pickup in a weekly community newspaper (we loved, and still love, that market, by the way).

These days it’s not at all unusual for our stuff to show up in small town dailies from coast to coast in the US, with occasional penetration into international markets that we had no expectation of getting into back then — Barbados, Jamaica, Fiji and Taiwan are four that come immediately to mind over the last few months.

My new goal, which I have no expectation of making next month but every expectation of making next year, is the 100-pickup month.

I see no reason why we can’t average two pickups per day by “regular daily newspapers” in addition to 40 BIN reprints, left/political media pickups and US/international market/topic-specific “occasionals.”

That’s the next prize. But, and you knew I was going to say this, winning that prize means continuing to ask for, and get, your support. The US Thanksgiving holiday being fresh in memory, let me take this opportunity to thank all of you who have helped make our work effective, and those who will do so in the future.

Yours in liberty,
Tom Knapp
English Language Media Coordinator
Center for a Stateless Society

Plymouth Stock

The talking point popular among right-leaning libertarians that the Plymouth colony is an example of the failure of the commons has been dealt with on C4SS. But it takes a list to make clear just how often the same piece has been rewritten:

  1. Tom Bethell, “How Private Property Saved the Pilgrims”, the Hoover Institution’s Hoover Digest
  2. Jerry Bowyer, “Lessons From A Capitalist Thanksgiving”, Forbes
  3. Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, “The Pilgrims and Property Rights”, Reason
  4. Jim Cox, “Celebrating Individualist Private Property—Based Production Day”, the Ludwig von Mises Insitute’s LewRockwell.com
  5. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, “Giving Thanks for Private Property”, LewRockwell.com
  6. Richard Ebeling, Thanksgiving: Celebrating the Birth of Free Enterprise in America”, Epic Times
  7. Gary M. Galles, “Property and the First Thanksgiving”, the Ludwig von Mises Insitute’s Mises Daily
  8. Anthony Gregory, “Giving Thanks to the Market”, the Independent Institute’s The Beacon
  9. Daniel Griswold, “How Capitalism Saved the Pilgrims”, the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty
  10. Henry Hazlitt, “Private Enterprise Regained” (PDF), the Foundation for Economic Education’s The Freeman (In his editorial comments to the 2004 issue, C4SS’s own Sheldon Richman concurred.)
  11. Kathryn Hickok. “What Governor Bradford Learned at Plymouth’s First Thanksgiving”, Cascade Policy Institute
  12. Aloysius Hogan , “Thanksgiving and Markets“, Competitive Enterprise Institute
  13. Jacob G. Hornberger, “Thanksgiving, Socialism, and the Free Market”, LewRockwell.com
  14. Richard J. Maybury, “The Great Thanksgiving Hoax”, Mises Daily
  15. Benjamin W. Powell, “The Pilgrims’ Real Thanksgiving Lesson”, the Independent Institute
  16. Sartell Prentice, Jr., “Our First Thanksgiving”, The Freeman (and summarized succinctly in an official tweet)
  17. Howard Rich, “A Thanksgiving Lesson”, Americans for Limited Government’s NetRightDaily
  18. Murray N. Rothbard, “What Really Happened at Plymouth”, Mises Daily, excerpted from Rothbard’s book Conceived In Liberty
  19. Byron Schlomach, “Giving Thanks for Lessons Learned”, Goldwater Institute
  20. Paul Schmidt, “The Real Story Behind Thanksgiving”, the Advocates for Self-Government’s The Liberator Online
  21. John Stossel, “The Tragedy of the Commons” (2007), “Happy Starvation Day” (2010), “Thankful for Property” (2013) and “Thanks, Property Rights!” (2014), Creators Syndicate
  22. Alex Tabarrok, “A Thanksgiving Lesson”, Marginal Revolution
  23. Kim Weissman, “The Plymouth Experiment”, Congress Action
  24. “The Real Thanksgiving Story”, webpage with unidentified author on the website of the Foundation for Economic Education (as well as a prominent section in founder Leonard Read’s famous speech “The Essence of Americanism”).

It should be noted that some of the pieces, unlike the one analyzed in the linked C4SS piece, do mention that Plymouth’s economics were imposed by it being a corporation, but none draw a parallel to the modern corporation’s not escaping the same problems. (Prentice’s remark that “Each time I produce less, in my work, than enough to earn a profit for my employer, I am stealing from someone else” gets it even more backward.)

Compare with the take on Plymouth of single-taxers like Fred Foldvary. The elision of the otherwise eagerly-cited account by William Bradford’s noting that his assigning colonists private land was “only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance)” has long been one of their points of contention with the mainstream libertarian movement.

Director’s Report: November 2014

We are nearing the end of the year and November was another fantastic month for the Center for a Stateless Society. We were honored to be able to publish a Portuguese translation of Kevin Carson’s The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand and included a brand new introduction, by Carson, just for our Portuguese speaking readers. Our Portuguese speaking writers and translators are amazing and our growing presence in Brazil is humbling. Our Brazilian fans are the most active and engaged part of our social media outreach. Our C4SS Portuguese facebook “like” page has already reached 3,000 likes, up from 2,000, in only two months. At this rate of growth, I wouldn’t be surprised if Centro por uma Sociedade Sem Estado eclipses our C4SS English facebook counterpart in traffic and support by 2017.

All of this growth and expansion needs your help. Our writers and translators need the information and support that your donations provide. We at C4SS want the resilience and information that comes from a swarm of microdonations from many, many people. A small monthly donation will allow us to provide even more left-market anarchist content to our brothers and sisters in Central and South America. There is a whole galaxy out there that hasn’t, yet, heard of C4SS and we are committed, with your help, to remedying this problem.

If C4SS, as an organization and an idea, is something you like having around or would like to see do more things (like funding more studies, publishing more books, helping with travel expenses for writers to speak at events, updating the youtube graphics, etc), then, please, donate $5 today.

What will $5 a month get you from C4SS? Well let’s see,

For the month of November, C4SS published:

21 Commentaries,
Features,
1 Study,
Weekly Abolitionists,
1 Missing Comma,
Weekly Libertarian Leftist Reviews,
2 Blog posts,
Reviews, and
16 C4SS Media uploads to the C4SS youtube channel.

And, thanks to the dedication of our Media Coordinators and translators, C4SS translated and published:

Italian translations,
Spanish translations,
Portuguese translations

Fellows on Patreon

Kevin Carson and Thomas Knapp have both popped up on the creator supporting site Patreon. Patreon allows individual to directly support their favorite creators, or in this case, left-libertarian writers. You can pledge any amount that fits your budget or enjoyment of their work, and, for certain pledged amounts, they offer bonuses.

C4SS Study: Power and Property

C4SS Fellow, Grant Mincy, has complete the first of two full length studies for C4SS on the topics of power, property, commons governance and ecology. The first, Power and Property: A Corollary, takes us through a sketch of how property and power share a mutually determining relationship that can either liberate or destroy us. He then gives a history of the people, institutions, flora, fauna and biome of the Appalachian Mountains; using the setting as a backdrop for describing and explaining the interconnected relationship between power and property.

When thinking of Appalachia, I am amazed by the sheer amount of water in the region. Imagine a drop of water falling from the sky over the rolling mountain ecosystem. As it plummets towards the Earth, a vast green valley and ridge awaits it. The water may land on a mountaintop, perhaps on the limbs of a great Eastern Hemlock, only to join with countless other molecules and make its way to the topsoil. The water would either provide nutrients to the local plant community or make its way into the ground where millions of microbes and bacteria await to naturally filter the precious resource. Water could escape to fresh mountain springs, to be lapped up by a number of animals or perhaps travel further still — until a great turn in the rocky slope takes it to the beginnings of a trickling stream. Here, the water will travel along the river continuum, passing vast aquatic communities, providing habitat for some of the regions incredible, endemic biodiversity. The water will carve and erode ancient rock, just to lay the sediments that will one day tell future travelers about our unique place in history. Water is nourishment, and it is incredibly important to this regions ecology.

***

In the final analysis, any individual or institution with a claim to property wields power. When the libertarian examines property rights, they must consider systems of power, domination, enclosure and assimilation. If one is to mix labor with land, the individual(s) hold dominion over it. A claim to property is a claim to power, but where should such power lie? If we wish for a society rooted in liberty, then there exist a necessary reclaiming of the commons. Full commitment to liberty demands both the individual and the collective.

Kevin Carson has just turned in his latest study, his eighteenth study for C4SS, surveying the Kropotkinian anarchism of Colin Ward. We expect to publish this study by the end of December.

The Communism of Everyday Life

We were finally able to publish Kevin Carson’s anticipated review of David Graeber’s Debt: The First 5,000 Years this month. It complements nicely last month’s Debt… review, Debt: The Possibilities Ignored, by William Gillis.

David Graeber is one of the social theorists, along with Pyotr Kropotkin, James C. Scott, Elinor Ostrom and Colin Ward, that offers invaluable insights into how a stateless society is likely to look and feel. Graeber also offers us important historical and analytical tools for identifying weak points in the state’s hold over our lives and drawing attention to those existing aspects of our lives that offer a bulwark against the state and possibilities for expanding liberty. As Kevin Carson summarizes:

If we look at things in another few decades, I think, I think we will see a world in which surviving states, corporations and other hierarchical institutions are much weaker and much smaller, the major portion of social life will be coordinated by self-organized, horizontal institutions like local markets, p2p networks and social commons, and average people have a degree of control over the circumstances of their daily lives unprecedented since the hunter-gather era or the pre-state agrarian village.

Graeber’s book, and the view of human nature presented in it, is a tribute to the fact that — in the words of the Inuit hunter’s declaration — we are human; and because we are human we help each other. We have done this since our hunter-gather origins, long before the rise of states, and states — despite their pretensions of the contrary — have acted largely to suppress this human tendency or subvert it, in the interest of making us easier for one parasitic ruling class after another to exploit.

Jester’s for the Warfare State

Ryan Calhoun‘s article, Jon Stewart, Jester for the Warfare State, struck a chord, positively and negatively, with audiences that see him as an important critique against the absurdity of state power and those that see him as running interference for the status quo against radical levelling alternatives to the state altogether.

Stewart is a Fool. He will apologize to the King and his Court for disrespecting their most holy of political processes and go back to smashing pies in people’s faces as if that makes him different. He is in reality an integral part of the mechanism which maintains the legitimacy of the warfare state. His opinions differ in only boring, trivial minutia from your average Neocon. He must apologize because he realizes he doesn’t just mock the system but himself. He will never have to apologize for his comments on the draft. He will never have to apologize for his worship of Harry Truman. Frankly, as a fan of comedy and honesty, I wouldn’t want him to. Stewart has his beliefs and I want him to be open about them. I want to know who the warmongers are and who the fools are. I know now, like I never knew before, that he is a jester for murderers. Analysis of his comedy above that level is an insult to Carlin and to every revolutionary mind that made American comedy more than just a late night TV gag.

Privatization as a Means for Disaster Capitalism

Kevin Carson’s Detroit, Disaster Capitalism and the Enclosure of the Water Commons offers us a powerful look at the false promises of “privatizing” our way towards liberty. He summarizes the “privatization cycle” as a means for Disaster Capitalists to subsidize and expand modern day enclosures of common pool resources.

The typical “privatization cycle” occurs as follows:

First, a basic infrastructure is created at taxpayer expense, either funded directly by taxpayer revenues or by bonds that will be repaid by the taxpayers. When it’s a country outside the US — especially a Third World country — foreign aid or World Bank loans may also help fund the project.

The infrastructure’s main purpose is usually to provide below-cost water or electric utilities, transportation, etc., to big business interests. In the Third World, that means foreign aid and World Bank loans to build the local power, water and transportation infrastructure needed to make Western capital investments (like offshored production) profitable. In California, the whole corporate agribusiness sector depends on massively subsidized water from government-funded dams. And as we will see below, large-scale business and industrial water consumers in Detroit have received preferential treatment like forbearance on tens of thousands of dollars in past-due water bills, while ordinary household ratepayers in poor neighborhoods are treated without mercy.

Second, Disaster Capitalists (to use Naomi Klein’s term) seize on opportunities presented by US-sponsored coups (like Pinochet and Yeltsin), economic meltdowns (the European periphery and Detroit) and military regime change (the US invasion of Iraq) to coerce governments into selling off that debt-financed infrastructure to global capital. And the Disaster Capitalist toolkit includes using such debt (either to bondholders or to foreign lenders), and fiscal insolvency from debt, in exactly the same way as debt peonage or debt to a company store — to blackmail government entities into “privatizing” their infrastructure to “private” (but politically connected) corporations or to domestic kleptocrats. The purchase price is a sweetheart deal, pennies on the dollar, because of the purchasing corporations’ insider ties to the political authorities selling off the goods.

Third, governments frequently spend more in capital investments to make the “privatized” infrastructure salable than they realize from the sale of it.

Fourth, the first item on the agenda of the corporation acquiring the newly “privatized” infrastructure is typically asset-stripping — jacking up rates, using the revenues as a cash cow, and simultaneously starving it of needed maintenance expenditures. The asset-stripping frequently yields more in returns, in a short time, than the company paid for the infrastructure.

And fifth — as Nicholas Hildyard pointed out in “The Myth of the Minimalist State: Free Market Ambiguities” (Corner House Briefing 05, March 1998) — far from operating as a “free market” actor, the newly “privatized” utility or other infrastructure usually operates within a web of state subsidies and protections that more or less guarantee it a profit.

The Production of Uncertainty

Grant Mincy describes the terrifying process of community disempowerment and manufactured consent through the dual monocropping effects of uncertainty and narrative control in his On the Horizon: Quiescence and the Production of Uncertainty.

Quiescence is often used to portray the legitimacy of systems of power and domination. The state seeks social and economic stability and utilizes power to ensure such stability. Because of this, systems of power and domination are maintained not because of their legitimacy, but because of quiescence itself. This is the very nature of power: Maintain the existing order by further centralization.

***

The tools of uncertainty manufacture consent. From disasters such as the TVA ash spill, the BP Horizon incident, or any industrial disaster, the public arena is dismissed while government/industry scientists, state agencies and the corporate sector dominate the discussion. This allows systems of power and domination, as explained by Button, to both define and control the distribution and interpretation of knowledge, while community members are made to feel as if they are arbitrators of uncertainty. Furthermore, Sociologist Max Weber notes that power systems wish to increase the superiority of the professionally informed by keeping knowledge and intention a secret. This allows the elite to hide knowledge and keep their actions protected from criticism. The control of the discussion governs what is understood about disasters — manufactured uncertainty produces quiescence.

Please Support Today!

All of this work is only sustainable through your support. If you think the various political and economic debates around the world are enhanced by the addition of left libertarian market anarchist, freed market anti-capitalist or laissez faire socialist solutions, challenges, provocations or participation, please, donate $5 today. Keep C4SS going and growing.

ALL the best!

Uber: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Cheryl and I had our first Uber experience yesterday and thought I’d report on it. The experience itself was first-rate. Things went just as widely reported — but better. I wanted a ride from my home to the tobacco shop that I frequent, about seven miles away. I launched the app on my phone, which immediately located me via GPS. I entered the destination, and in a split second I was informed that a car was three minutes away and that the estimated fare would be $18-$22. Two points about the fare: 1) I’m told this is what the regulated monopoly taxicab company would have charged; 2) I knew that the ride would be free because Uber is giving away its service until it gets clearance from the city government. (That’s another story.)

When I tapped “request a ride,” a window popped up with a picture of the driver, his first name, the make and model of his car, and the license-tag number. Then a map appeared with an automobile icon, enabling me to see the driver’s progress toward my home. Another tap gave me the option of calling or texting the driver. I could also cancel the ride.

In minutes the car turned the corner and stopped outside my door.

I entered a perfectly clean automobile. The driver had placed a bottle of water and some candy in the backseat console. He was friendly and happy to engage in conversation at my prompting. I discussed Uber with him (he said he is quite pleased with his situation), and I was pleasantly surprised by his knowledge of basic economics and political economy, especially regarding how the local government was looking for ways to regulate Uber.

Cheryl and I arrived at our destination in about 10 minutes thoroughly satisfied with the experience. As I expected, the app asked me to rate the driver. (I know he was asked to rate me.) I gave him the maximum five stars. (If a driver’s average falls below a 4.2, Uber “deactivates” him.”)

The return trip was similarly pleasant. (However, the two-door Volkswagen GTI was not as comfortable as the earlier four-door Volkswagen Jetta, and there was no water.) Again, the driver was able to talk about Uber in terms of economics and monopolistic rent-seeking by the taxi monopoly. I was impressed. I gave him the highest rating also.

Now to some concerns.

I’ve been vaguely aware of leftist complaints about Uber, but had not looked into them closely. I regret not having done so. My friend and left-libertarian colleague Kevin Carson has voiced some of these grievances, and I should have known better than not to have paid closer attention.

Anyway, the clue that I had something to look into was a small signed hanging from the mirror of my second driver. The sign, with Uber logo, stated:

While tips are not required, they are appreciated.

I was surprised by this. I had understood — exactly why, I’m not sure — that tipping was taken care of. The app says nothing about it; there is no option to add X% for the driver. I also understood (or thought I did) that the Uber ride was to be a cashless and cardless experience. A rider does not pay the driver directly, either by credit card or cash. The app takes care of that. My drivers didn’t even realize that I would not be charged for my rides. They had no reason to know this because I would not have paid them directly in any case. (Uber, so I understand, pays the drivers their 80 percent of the fare even when the ride is free to the customer. Uber, then, is forgoing the 20 percent it would have made.)

I decided not to ask the driver if the sign raising the issue of tipping is an official Uber sign. I suspect it is not. How could it be when the company’s website says:

Being Uber means there is no need to tip drivers with any of our services.

I also saw an email apparently from Uber to drivers saying that they should not ask for or accept tips.

In other words, the sign is an indication that at least some Uber drivers are trying to communicate with riders against the wishes of the company. Is this part of the driver resistance I’ve been reading about?

Further investigation informed me that tipping is quite a controversy surrounding Uber. Company statements tell riders that there is no need to tip because the tip is included in the fare. But some drivers, commenting at various forums, and others contend that this can’t be true. Drivers say that their company pay statements do not indicate that part of the fare is a tip. My receipts indicate no tip. Moreover, if the tip is really included in the fare, that would mean the company skims 20 percent off drivers’ tips. That’s not how tips work.

So why is the company discouraging tipping by telling riders the tip is already included in the fare? What’s the motive? On a moral level, it’s not right for Uber to mislead riders, with the effect of depriving drivers of tips they would have collected. Uber says drivers make a good living (some dispute this) without tips, but that’s irrelevant. Falsely telling riders that explicit tipping is redundant or unnecessary is wrong and harmful to the drivers.

When I reported my favorable experience on Twitter, someone identifying himself as an Uber driver responded:

we strive to provide the very best level of service to our riders! Glad you had a pleasant experience:)

But when I asked about the tipping controversy, he said:

there is no need to tip! We never want are [sic] riders to feel obligated to do so. We do appreciate tips tho:D

Then he followed up:

the fuss is because Uber lied to the riders saying the tip was included when it wasn’t.Now they just say it’s not required.

Lied to the riders. This is wrong, yes, even from a libertarian standpoint. I still wonder what the motive is.

I hope driver and customer pressure will push Uber to change the policy and change the app so that riders can add a tip that would go entirely to the drivers. I’ve read that the app offered by Lyft, a competing service, permits this. (Lyft has not come to my area yet.)

But I will add this: there is no right answer to whether a firm or industry should create the expectation of explicit tipping, as opposed to some other system, such as bonuses for high ratings. After all, tipping is not inscribed in the natural law. This is an issue for the competitive market process to determine through the free actions of consumers and producers. The key here is to truly free the market. No privileges. No regulations.

Controversy has also swirled around Uber’s abrupt fare-cutting, which of course reduces drivers’ incomes, regardless of how much it pleases riders. The company assured drivers that the increased volume of business would make up for the lower per-ride return, but some say that this has not happened.

Uber has the right to set its fares, of course, but the issue raises the question of whether drivers would be better off in some kind of peer-to-peer arrangement rather than essentially being wage-laborers for Uber. I know that they are independent contractors, but their status is not very different from that of a staff employee. They have no say, for example, in the fare structure or other matters. True, drivers don’t have to work for Uber, but that doesn’t mean they have no right to use peaceful pressure — and to organize — to change the company’s policies. Calling drivers “micro-entrepreneurs” does not make up for the company’s treatment. (I realize there are other labor controversies, but I’ll have to get to them another time.)

Let’s hope the grievances against and publicity about Uber accomplish two things: 1) pressure the company to make the changes suggested here, and 2) more fundamentally, stimulate the search for an alternative arrangement in which drivers truly work for themselves while being part of a self-governed network that exploits the wonderful technology that makes such fantastic services available to consumers.

PS: I am increasingly annoyed by an attitude of some libertarians with respect to Uber and other firms that amounts to this:

Thou shalt not speak ill of any business. If you dislike something a company does, patronize a competitor or do without the service or good. But otherwise shut up.

What are the grounds for believing libertarianism forbids criticism of the labor or other practices of particular firms? Rights violations are not the only offenses against persons worth talking about. (Must we re-litigate this issue?) Even if we lived in a freed market, criticism and badmouth publicity would be a perfectly proper part of the market process. But it’s especially proper in the corporate state.

I say all this qua libertarian. I am promarket, not probusiness, dammit.

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist and Chess Review 57

Laurence M. Vance discusses why he could never be elected to office.

Noam Chomsky discusses how the U.S. is the world’s leading terrorist state.

Ivan Eland discusses whether Obama is the worst president in American history.

John Glaser discusses a book on government led humanitarian action.

Justin Raimondo discusses electoral politics and foreign policy.

Ted Galen Carpenter and Christopher A. Preble discuss ending the War on Drugs in Afghanistan.

Deborah E. Lipstadt discusses the use of Nazi war criminals by the U.S. government.

Kathy Kelly discusses the situation in Afghanistan.

Tom Engelhardt discusses escalation.

Aaron Ross Powell discusses the immorality of voting.

Bruce Fein discusses the pyrrhic victory resulting from the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Michael Brenner discusses the CIA in Texas.

James M. Lindsay discusses 10 histories of the Cold War worth reading.

Louise Richardson discusses James Risen’s book, Pay Any Price.

James M. Lindsay discusses 10 memoirs of the Cold War worth reading.

Justin Raimondo discusses whether we have a foreign policy.

The Market Radical discusses the use of terror in politics.

Gary Leupp discusses Hagel’s Syria memo.

Joshua Sperber discusses the midterms.

Michael S. Rozeff discusses the War on Terror.

Kevin Carson discusses the Bundy Ranch standoff.

Dan Sanchez discusses civilization preceding the state.

Sheldon Richman discusses election 2014.

David S. D’Amato discusses monopoly privilege and individual rights.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses the midterms and foreign policy.

Laurence M. Vance discusses recent marijuana decriminalization successes..

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses Obama’s failed presidency.

Nicola Nasser discusses the endgame of U.S. strategy against ISIS.

Anand and Carlsen draw their first game of the World Chess Championship.

Carlsen beats Anand in the second game.

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist And Chess Review 56

Sheldon Richman discusses Jon Stewart.

Glenn Greenwald discusses how many Muslim countries the U.S. has bombed since 1980.

Wendy McElroy discuses Robert LeFevre.

George H. Smith discusses David Hume on justice.

Justin Raimondo discusses the midterm elections and militarism.

Doug Bandow discusses the GOP taking of the Senate and war.

John Philpot discusses Palestine, Syria, and Iraq.

Uri Avnery discusses ISIS and Israel.

Jason Leopold discusses the Senate report on CIA interrogation.

Anthony D. Romero discusses a Gitmo cover up court.

Patrick Cockburn discusses life under ISIS.

Jeffrey A. Tucker discusses democracy and the unelected part of government.

Peter Van Buren discusses Iraq War 3.0

Laurence M. Vance discusses Veteran’s Day.

Sheldon Richman discusses Uber.

Ivan Eland discusses the strategy being used to battle ISIS.

Dan Glazebrook discusses the lessons of Libya.

Joseph Salerno discusses war making and class conflict.

Wendy McElroy discusses war propaganda and court journalists.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses interventionism in Iraq.

Robert Parry discusses the neocon plan for more war.

Steve Breyman discusses Obama and the convention against torture.

Judith Bello discusses drone warfare.

Richard M. Ebeling dicusses Gordon Tullock.

Uri Avnery discusses the police shooting of an Arab.

Christopher Brauchli discusses deja vu in foreign policy.

Justin Raimondo discusses Iraq.

Linn Washington Jr. discusses Nixon’s war on pot.

New Book by Tom Knapp

KN@PPSTER's Big Freakin' Book of StuffHey, everyone … if you follow C4SS more than casually, you’ve probably noticed that I work here (Senior Fellow, Senior News Analyst, English Media Coordinator). You may or may not know that I’ve been an Internet political writer for about 20 years, starting in 1995. Yeah, it’s really been that long. And it having been that long seems like a good point at which to publish a collection. Not a “best of” collection, exactly, but a sampling of material starting in during my “libertarian, but one of those conservative-constitutionalist leaning types” and ending here at “fire-breathing left market anarchist.” Just the stuff I found interesting and thought worth sharing.

KN@PPSTER’s Big Freakin’ Book of Stuff weighs in at about 400 pages in trade paperback format. You can download it 100% completely free in PDF format by doing a “right-click/save as” on this here linky-looking text. If you decide you like it enough to pay a little something for it, that’s great … and I’d prefer you send that money to the Center for a Stateless Society.

If you’d like it in EPUB or MOBI formats, it’s available for $1.99 from FastPencil. The dead tree paperback version is also from FastPencil and priced at $13.99. Just click on the cover graphic over there on your right to order.

The Weekly Libertarian Leftist And Chess Review 55

Lucy Steigerwald discusses how Federal agencies do whatever they want.

Steve Horowitz discusses income inequality and cronyism.

Alex Kane discusses the use of the word terrorism.

Sheldon Richman discusses the prohibition and regulation of intoxicating liquors.

Nathan Goodman discusses how fear helps the expansion of state power.

Thomas L. Knapp discusses voting or not voting and complaining.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses separation of economy and state.

Ismael Hossein-Zadeh discusses ISIS as useful enemy.

Gary Leupp discusses the continued presence of the neocons.

John Feffer discusses a rebellion in the ranks of NATO.

Uri Avnery discusses Netanyahu

Gabriele vom Bruck discusses the Houthi advance on Yemen’s capital.

Ron Jacobs discusses the media and the paranoid state.

Christopher Brauchli discusses Blackwater.

John Stanton discusses fascism American style.

John Grant discusses Thomas Friedman.

Cesar Chelala discusses bringing peace and books to Colombia.

George H. Smith discusses David Hume.

J. Arthur Bloom discusses how the Koch Brothers are more anti-war than The Center for American Progress.

Wendy McElroy discusses Ebola and free markets.

Sandy Ikeda discusses the power of no.

Kelly Vlahos discusses COIN doctrine and John Nagl.

Eric Margolis discusses the 4th British defeat in Afghanistan.

Ryan McMaken discusses the corporatist Olympics.

Patrick Cockburn discusses the Libyan aftermath.

Michael S. Rozeff discusses the War on Terror.

David Swanson discusses electoral choices.

Richard M. Ebeling discusses Bejnamin Constant.

The Weekly Abolitionist: Prisons and the Myth of Democratic Legitimacy

It’s election day in the USA. The mass incarceration nation is deciding which political opportunists will rule. On the state and local level, citizens are casting their votes on ballot initiatives that will determine the structure, specifics, or application of state coercion. Some of these ballot initiatives probably deserve support from prison abolitionists, specifically initiatives to reign in the disastrous war on drugs. Other initiatives create new prohibitions and restrictions on human liberty, and ought to be opposed.

But I think it’s worth looking beyond ballot initiatives and the particulars of this election cycle, and instead examining how elections intersect with the prison state. One obvious intersection is felon disenfranchisement. According to the Sentencing Project, “an estimated 5.85 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of laws that prohibit voting by people with felony convictions.” There are major racial disparities in this disenfranchisement, “resulting in 1 of every 13 African Americans unable to vote.” These disparities are exacerbated by what the Prison Policy Initiative calls prison-based gerrymandering. In many states, prisoners are counted on the census not for the communities or regions they have been forcibly taken from, but for the community in which the prison is located. This dilutes the voting power of black communities and other communities torn apart by mass incarceration. Moreover, it increases the voting power of communities that receive concentrated economic benefits from prisons, such as communities where prison guards live.

The result is that those most directly harmed by the state have no vote on how it is operated. Those who spend their lives not interacting in the voluntary sphere of communities and markets but under the constant power of the state’s prison guards get no vote regarding the government that controls the prisons. Those who have had their friends, family, and community members taken from them and locked in cages have their voting power diluted through prison based gerrymandering. And when prisoners are released, they typically remain disenfranchised. While the violence of the law has taken years of their life from them, and licensing laws restrict them from entering many professions based on their criminal records, they have no vote on the government that forcefully impacts their life. Clearly, the government does not operate with the consent of those who are most brutally governed by it.

My friend Ørn Hansen points out that this ought to seriously undermine arguments about every American having a duty to vote, writing:

Before you call people out for not voting or you call people stupid or worthless or privileged for not voting, remember that some of us people are legally prohibited from voting because of legal issues. Your system is a sham and cuts out a large portion of people from it because they have been convicted of certain crimes or because they don’t have certain forms of ID. Maybe that’s why we don’t trust your system: because they don’t want to hear from us.

The system excludes people from participating in its elections, and then the system’s sycophantic lapdogs blame and shame them for not participating in the state’s grotesque decision making rituals. Of course, it’s worth noting that even if everyone ruled by the U.S. government were permitted to vote, there would be no duty to vote, as Jason Brennan explains.

Just as mass incarceration impacts how electoral processes work, electoral processes have played a key role in the rise of mass incarceration. As the federal government gained control over sentencing policy and other criminal justice issues, crime became a key election issue. According to the National Research Council,  “The two parties embarked on periodic “bidding wars” to ratchet up penalties for drugs and other offenses. Wresting control of the crime issue became a central tenet of up-and-coming leaders of the Democratic Party represented by the center-right Democratic Leadership Council, most notably “New Democrat” Bill Clinton.”  These frenzies of punitive power tend to reach a boiling point in the lead up to elections. The National Research Council’s report notes that “the U.S. House and U.S. Senate have been far more likely to enact stiffer mandatory minimum sentence legislation in the weeks prior to an election. Because of the nation’s system of frequent legislative elections, dispersed governmental powers, and election of judges and prosecutors, policy makers tend to be susceptible to public alarms about crime and drugs and vulnerable to pressures from the public and political opponents to quickly enact tough legislation.”  Electoral politics likewise tends to make prosecutors and judges behave in more punitive ways. “In the United States, most prosecutors are elected, as are most judges (except those who are nominated through a political process). Therefore, they are typically mindful of the political environment in which they function. Judges in competitive electoral environments in the United States tend to mete out harsher sentences.”

So democratic participation in elections in a sense gave us mass incarceration, a policy that has disenfranchised and excluded many from participating in electoral democracy. Yet this disenfranchisement is one of the least destructive impacts of  mass incarceration. Rape, torture, murder, the caging and abuse of children, forcible denial of basic health care, the rich and well-connected stealing from the poor, and countless other atrocities mark the true costs of the carceral state. No election, no public opinion poll, no amount of political participation can make this just or acceptable. Even if all the prisoners and their families were given full voting rights, Lysander Spooner‘s words would ring true: “A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves because permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible.”

Investing in Anarchy

If left libertarians, individualist anarchists, mutualists, radical libertarians, and the like, ever needed to spontaneously order, this is the time. The Alliance of the Libertarian Left and the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) are seeking your help.

From November 13-16th in San Diego, California, the Libertalia Project will be hosting its annual Libertopia Festival. The weekend is aimed at creating a temporary, free community where people interested in the ideas of liberty can come together to learn, educate, network, and create. Now in its 5th year, Libertopia has become one of the biggest yearly gatherings of libertarians and anarchists.

Which is why the Alliance of the Libertarian Left (ALL), a project of the Molinari Institute, and a coalition of various left-leaning libertarians, is trying to get to Libertopia. ALL publishes books, magazines, and pamphlets, as well as op-eds syndicated to mainstream media outlets around the world, to spread the message of free markets without capitalist domination, and voluntary social order without the state.

$400 will get ALL a booth at Libertopia 2014 and give left libertarianism a voice at the festival. The opportunity to engage this year’s Libertopia attendees on the ideas of radical market anarchism and left libertarianism is priceless in the fight against statism.

In a separate, but equally important, event, C4SS, also a project of the Molinari Institute, and a left-wing market anarchist think tank is trying to become a sponsor of the 2015 International Students For Liberty Conference (ISFLC) from February 13-15 in Washington, DC. ISFLC is the year’s premier libertarian gathering, bringing together over 2000 libertarians last year alone.

Students For Liberty, and it’s annual International conference, are leading the way in the modern libertarian student movement – providing it’s hundreds of members with resources for libertarian activism and spreading the message of liberty to the thousands more in SFL’s global network. It’s no surprise, then, that C4SS is trying to sponsor this wonderful event.

C4SS utilizes academic studies, book reviews, op-eds, and social media to put left market anarchist ideas at the forefront of libertarianism and to eventually bring about a world where individuals are liberated from oppressive states, structural poverty, and social injustice. In only 8 years, C4SS has substantially grown into a successful think tank, making big waves among the modern libertarian movement, especially the students.

$500 gets C4SS sponsorship at ISFLC and each sponsor is guaranteed at least a table in the exhibit hall, 2 attendee registrations, and a listing in the program and webpage. Getting a significant market anarchist presence at the year’s biggest libertarian event is crucial to spreading these ideas and making anarchism a substantial, unafraid, and robust part of the liberty movement, instead of a timid minority.

While C4SS and ALL are barely a decade old, they have already achieved massive success with spreading left libertarian anarchist views. The market anarchist community is bigger and more vibrant than ever with our ideas spreading to other libertarians like wild fire. This fire needs to keep going and more wood needs to be piled on.

That’s where you come in.

Both the Alliance of the Libertarian Left and the Center for a Stateless Society are extremely close to affording sponsorship at Libertopia and ISFLC respectively but there is more to go. If you find these ideas worth exploring and you want a more diverse, intellectually stimulating libertarian community — whether you are a left market anarchist or you’re a conservative minarchist or you’re an anarcho-communist or anything in between — please share this post and donate if you can.

Every penny counts when we’re building the new world in the shell of the old

Fund the revolution at Libertopia!

Fund the revolution at the International Students For Liberty Conference!

English Language Media Coordinator Update, October 2014

Well, I feel kind of dumb. For some reason it completely escaped my notice that a month had ended and that it was time for me to post our English language media numbers for October (I finally noticed when I went to record a new submission to newspapers and saw that I still had last month’s sitting there in the text file I use for such things.

So, here we go:

In October, I made 31,534 submissions of op-eds to 2,597 publications worldwide. That number is lower than usual — we’ve been fairly regularly topping 40,000 monthly submissions — because content creation slowed down a little this month and because more of our content was US-centric instead of stuff I could submit as relevant worldwide. I expect we’ll be back above the 40k mark this month and next.

In October, I identified 47 “pickups” of C4SS material in English language publications worldwide including “mainstream media” and select high-readership/prestigious media. We’ve been running in the neighborhood of 50 pickups per month, so this number isn’t surprising. My goal for 2015 is to get us into the 100 pickups per month range.

Some highlights:

How are we doing? Well, I mostly focus on “external media” metrics, and I try to be a stern self-taskmaster. We continue to get market anarchist material published in mass media, but I want more, more, more. What I usually don’t pay a whole lot of attention to is how well we are known and how welcome we are in the American libertarian movement. But I have a couple of data points on that to share.

In late 2013, I attended the Students For Liberty southeast US regional conference at the University of Florida in Gainesville. C4SS Senior Fellow Charles Johnson, aka Rad Geek, ran an ALL Distro table to sell left-libertarian literature. The reception was friendly, but few people seemed to know who we were or what we were about.

On October 25th of this year, Charles and I were joined at the same event by C4SS Fellow Cory Massimino. Same kind of table, same kind of literature … but this time everyone seemed to know at least a little about C4SS / left-libertarianism / market anarchism, and most people seemed interested in finding out more (anecdotally it looked to me like we had one of the busiest tables there).

Also anecdotally, the right-libertarian response to C4SS specifically and left-libertarianism / market anarchism in general seems to have greatly increased in tempo over the past year. We’re finding ourselves engaged — both in terms of agreement and positive mention on one hand and disagreement/attacks on the other — far more frequently and by more and more prominent writers.

So, I think we’re accomplishing things on a number of fronts. And I appreciate your support for our work!

Yours in liberty,
Tom Knapp
English Language Media Coordinator
Center for a Stateless Society

The Weekly Libertarian And Chess Review 54

Nozomi Hayase discusses political prisoners.

Justin Raimondo discusses Rand Paul’s recent speech on foreign policy.

Murray Polner discusses the military draft.

Patrick Cockburn discusses the Sunni-Shiite battle in the Middle East.

Eric Margolis discusses foreign policy. His

Jacob Sullum discusses attempts to ban marijuana edibles and flavored e-cigs.

Jesse Walker discusses an interview with the North Carolina Libertarian Party Senate Candidate, Sean Haugh.

Alex Henderson discusses 9 events that led to an emerging police state.

Brandon Loran Maxwell discusses his odd libertarian journey.

Charles C. W. Cooke discusses whether black people have equal gun rights.

Maya Schenwar discusses mandatory rehab as a component of the War on Drugs.

Rory Fanning and Nick Turse discuss thanking the troops.

Henry Farrell discusses the liberal defenders of the national security state.

Laurence M. Vance discusses individualism and foreign policy.

Sheldon Richman discusses the IRS and income tax.

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair discus racism as government policy.

Julian Adorney discusses the many types of taxation on the poor.

Cesar Chelala discusses human rights and democracy.

Nick Coughlin discusses the left-right paradigm.

Doug Bandow discusses the neocon moment.

Ivan Eland discusses remote threats.

Chris Floyd discusses the moral blindness of leading liberals.

David Swanson discusses the use of depleted uranium.

Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero discusses the CIA, the Contras, and drugs.

John Chuckman discusses terror.

Anthony Gregory discusses libertarian class analysis.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses the national security state’s partnership with unsavory folks.

Richard M. Ebeling discusses Israel Kirzner.

Magnus Carlsen beats Maxime Vachier-Lagrave.

Magnus Carlsen defeats Alexander Riazantsev.

Missing Comma: Looking Toward The Future

Hi everyone! This will be the last Missing Comma post of 2014. I’m pushing a lot of things back so that I can get my backlog of op-eds – which I’ve had since last September – out of the way. Once I’m done with those commentaries, however, I’m making Missing Comma my top priority. 2015 is going to be an amazing year.

But before I talk about what I’ve got planned, I want to make a personal plea. If you listen to public radio, you’ve doubtless already heard the “F”-word – Fundraising. It’s that time of year where every media organization not connected to a larger entity is asking its readers, viewers, listeners and other sense-data collectors for money to help the work along. C4SS is a completely member-run, reader-supported media organization. Unlike public media, or the Nation, or Reason, or any other of the dozens of media orgs that get support from massive foundations and advertisers, the Center for a Stateless Society survives month to month thanks to small donations. We don’t even get money from the Koch Brothers, and they supposedly give money to everyone!

In 2014, your donations helped C4SS expand its translation programs, keep a Tor node up and running, pay writers, start a podcast channel, and appear at major libertarian student conferences all over the place. (We’ve currently got two crowdfunding campaigns going to get C4SS to Libertopia in a couple of weeks and the International Students For Liberty Conference in early 2015, which you can help directly here and here.) We’d like to do so much more in 2015.

For just $5 a month, you can help C4SS keep doing this kind of work and more. For just $5 a month, you can help us bring market anarchism to wider and wider audiences, increasing the possibilities for a liberated future.

As for Missing Comma? Well, in order to help C4SS expand its other projects, this blog series aims to utilize a self-funding model in 2015. We’ll be setting up a Patreon account closer to January, but we’ve already got a list of tiered perks started:

  • $5 a month gets you hand-designed step-by-step guides to hack the media, from starting your own news blog to podcasting.
  • $10 a month gets you an honorary producer credit on the Missing Comma podcast, to be relaunched in January, plus above.
  • $25 a month gets you one Missing Comma t-shirt (design forthcoming), plus all of the above.

Your support will help us – and C4SS – have a fighting chance against major media outlets who would have you believe there’s nothing more important than the two-party political horse race and the view from nowhere. With your support, Missing Comma will be able to put out daily content, expand our social media presence and pay contributors. No matter what, we’re committed to teasing out the relationship between anarchy and journalism.

Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you in January.

It’s Time for Forgetting

October 28 marks the 50th anniversary of one of the most classic and revered political speeches in American history. Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” roused the American people and was a crucial moment in his ascendance to the conservative leader he became. That’s why it’s crucial that we forget it.

A popular conservative news site writes, “we would do well to also remember the choice he made that became the spark, spirit and driving force of his vision for the country.” Ah don’t the rhetoric and buzzwords fill you with a sense of patriotism? If it doesn’t you probably hate America…or something.

Contrary to the right-wingers ahistorical love affair with the Reagan presidency, he didn’t, “build his politics around a profound respect for the honest, hardworking men and women who made America work”…whatever that means. He was a big government, war-mongering, statist with little concern for anyone not entrenched in his administration.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times. He tripled the federal budget deficit. Overall federal spending ballooned. He bailed out the absurdly regressive social security program. He doubled the size of the department of education, increased farm programs by 140%, and more that doubled foreign aid. Perhaps worst of all, he funded the rise of Osama bin Laden.

What kind of small government hero is this?

Why are so-called “limited government conservatives” praising one of the most statist presidents in recent memory? Perhaps it’s because they are simply ignoring history and buying into the propaganda. On the other hand, it might be that conservatism isn’t actually all that dedicated to freedom and liberty like it says it is. Maybe it’s all just rhetoric. Maybe the conservatives are just as tyrannical and statist as liberals. Just maybe.

Writing in response to Reagan’s fetish for military spending, that has plagued the Republican Party since, Murray Rothbard wrote, “How can we reconcile the plea for individual liberty, the free market, and the minimizing of government with the call for global confrontation and increased power to the FBI and the Pentagon?”

The answer is we can’t. There is no reconciliation. It’s the conservative contradiction.

Of course, we can’t be that surprised modern conservatives ignore this contradiction and buy into the “war on terror” rhetoric and other such statist nonsense. After all, they are caught up in the game of politics. But how on Earth do libertarians get caught up in the Reagan fetishizing?!

In an attempt to find common ground or work with the right, libertarians have often fallen into the trap of Reagan worship; somehow spinning a few select quotes into evidence that Reagan was a libertarian. Does the above track record look remotely libertarian to you? If you have the slightest knowledge of the work of Spooner, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and others you’ll quickly realize the Reagan presidency was the total opposite of libertarianism. It ought to be frowned upon by any principled libertarian.

Fusionism is a strategy doomed to fail. Libertarians aren’t just “republicans who smoke pot.” Libertarianism is a radical, principled, anti-political, anti-conservative ideology. While conservatism glorifies tradition, stagnation, and the past, libertarianism embraces dynamism, tolerance, an open culture, and innovation. Rightly understood, it belongs on the left, like its classically liberal forerunners.

Trying to claim Reagan as one of ours, or trying to moderate our radical-ness to appeal to the right leads to the disintegration of truly libertarian principles. We would not do well to remember Reagan’s speech. It’s imperative that we completely forget it, the entire Reagan presidency, and conservatism as a whole if we want a free future.

The Weekly Abolitionist: Sex Work and the Police State

This weekend I had the pleasure of attending Students For Liberty’s New Orleans Regional Conference. It was a delightful event, featuring a talk by C4SS’s own Roderick Long along with many other radical, principled, and insightful speakers.

One of the most interesting presentations was by Maggie McNeill, a retired sex worker who blogs at The Honest Courtesan. Her talk debunked a variety of common myths surrounding sex work, and made a compelling case for decriminalizing prostitution. Moreover, she argued that the criminalization of sex work undermines everyone’s liberties, even for people who never intend to buy or sell sex, and that the “War on Whores” is beginning to take the place of the War on Drugs.

Increasing enforcement of anti-prostitution and anti-trafficking laws enables the state to target the same people they’ve targeted under drug prohibition, McNeill argued. She explains that when young people join gangs, one of their roles is bringing in revenue. Men largely do this by selling drugs, while women often do this by selling sex. Thus, the War on Drugs enables the police to arrest and incarcerate young men of color for selling drugs. In the case of prostitution, however, the men in the gang can be arrested and indicted as “traffickers” or “pimps.” In both cases, McNeill argues, young men of color are criminalized.

Another similarity between prostitution prohibition and drug prohibition is the way they empower police to detain, search, and arrest people for utterly absurd reasons. In some cities, police arrest women for prostitution simply for possessing condoms. Yes, the desire to have safe sex is considered evidence of prostitution, especially if you’re a transgender woman of color. In my home state of Utah, police can arrest someone basically for “acting sexy.” When Andrew McCullough and I argued before the Utah State Legislature that this law was overly broad and would criminalize perfectly legal speech, especially that of strippers, the bill’s proponents adamantly denied this. However, our view was grounded in direct quotes from the bill’s text, while the bill’s proponents never referenced the bill’s text and instead indulged in paternalistic fear mongering about prostitution. The bill was sponsored by Democrat Jennifer Seelig and argued for by Chris Burbank, a police chief who is praised for his liberal approach by ordinarily skeptical commentators like Radley Balko.

Anti-prostitution laws often get support from liberals, progressives, and even some leftists, largely because they are promoted in the name of protecting women and stopping sex trafficking. Just as prison abolitionists invoke the name and the moral appeal of the struggle to abolish chattel slavery, anti-prostitution activists cast their work as a struggle against slavery and name their movement for increased police state power after abolitionism. One anti-prostitution group calls themselves “Demand Abolition,” for example. Conflating prostitution with slavery has a long history. The early 20th Century movement against so-called “white slavery” was used to criminalize people of color and lay the groundwork for the surveillance state, Thaddeus Russell argues.

Today, pro-criminalization radical feminists smear opponents of criminalization as misogynists. Amnesty International has been repeatedly attacked for supporting the decriminalization of prostitution, for example. Feminist support for criminalizing consensual sex acts and enabling racist, misogynistic, and transphobic police repression represents a disturbing theme that Angela Keaton explored in her talk at the NOLA Conference: the co-option of liberation movements by the state. Keaton pointed to Gay Inc’s silence on the plight of Chelsea Manning, the push to allow gays and lesbians to serve in the imperialist armed forces, and the Feminist Majority Foundation’s support for war in Afghanistan (against the wishes of feminists in Afghanistan). Other examples include the push for hate crimes laws and the carceral feminist positions on both domestic violence and prostitution.

Presentations at the NOLA Conference by Maggie McNeill, Thaddeus Russell, and Angela Keaton all touched on this crucial issue in various ways. I’m glad young libertarians were introduced to serious and radical thinking on issues of social oppression, as well as critiques of the co-option of liberation movements to serve the interests of the state. There are still more SFL regional conferences happening this fall. Check here to see if there’s one coming up in your area.

Anarchy and Democracy
Fighting Fascism
Markets Not Capitalism
The Anatomy of Escape
Organization Theory