Several states have recently considered passing laws allowing legal discrimination against LGBT people. These laws are based on the notion of religious freedom. What is the proper left-libertarian response to these laws? The answer is advocacy of direct action. If the laws pass, we left-libertarians should engage in sit-ins analogous to what the Civil Rights Movement carried out. This could lead to the desegregation of businesses and put social pressure on owners to allow LGBT people to be served. Sheldon Richman provides us with history attesting to its usefulness:

As I’ve written elsewhere, lunch counters throughout the American south were being desegregated years before passage of the 1964 Act. How so? Through sit-ins, boycotts, and other kinds of nonviolent, nongovernmental confrontational social action. (Read moving accounts here and here.)

Sheldon provides additional evidence of the practicality of this approach in another piece:

Even earlier, during the 1950s, David Beito and Linda Royster Beito report in Black Maverick, black entrepreneur T.R.M. Howard led a boycott of national gasoline companies that forced their franchisees to allow blacks to use the restrooms from which they had long been barred.

These bills make an Orwellian use of terms like freedom. The ability to exclude people for irrational and arbitrary reasons is not an instance of liberty. Libertarians will earn the wrath of decent LGBT people everywhere without offering a solution other than state force to the problem of discrimination. We have a chance to show that our individualist principles apply to persecuted minorities as much as non-minorities. It’s not something to botch.

What about the issues of private property rights and trespass? One way to approach that question is through contextual or dialectical libertarian methodology. Private property rights are contextual and relate to occupancy or use. They are one value among others to consider in assessing the morality of an action. In the context of bigots irrationally excluding people from spaces otherwise open to the public, the value of private property rights is trumped by the need for social inclusion. This doesn’t sanction state force, but it does sanction non-violent protest. Civil Rights protesters were even entitled to use defensive force against the thugs who used violence against them for conducting sit-ins. The same would apply to contemporary LGBT protesters.

I am not saying private property rights are always trumped by other concerns. Your right to the product of your labor is not trumped by the state’s need for revenue. I am saying that morality demands trade offs sometimes. This means that some things relevant to liberty are more important than private property rights. Let us consider this as one of those instances.

Translations for this article:

• Portuguese, Tragam de volta as táticas do movimento pelos direitos civis.

Durante los últimos días, una serie de acontecimientos al azar aparentemente no relacionados parecieron querer enseñarme una lección común. El 21 de enero se informó (“¿Opuesto al Fracking? Podrías Ser un Terrorista“, PopularResistance.org) que los servicios policiales canadienses y estadounidenses – Servicio de Inteligencia del Canadá (CSIS), la Policía Montada, el FBI, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional de los Estados Unidos, y la policía provincial, estatal y local – han estado trabajando en estrecha colaboración con Enbridge, TransCanada y otras compañías de energía que participan en proyectos de construcción de ductos para mantener a destacados activistas anti-fracking bajo vigilancia como posibles “terroristas”. Scotland Yard ha llevado a cabo una vigilancia similar de “radicales” en los movimientos de derechos de los animales, antiguerra, anticapitalista y anti-OGM.

El mismo día, en los EE.UU. (“¿Así que ahora Seguridad Nacional puede detener a los sospechosos de piratear películas?” IO9, 21 de enero), el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional arrestó a un hombre por usar un Google Glass en un cine de Ohio, deteniéndolo durante tres horas – a pesar de que tenía la función de “grabar” apagada.

Finalmente, el 3 de febrero, Truth-Out.org reportó una demanda para revocar la Ley Antiterrorista para Empresas de Productos de Origen Animal, una ley de EE.UU. que trata actos anteriormente considerados delitos menores de desobediencia civil como la liberación de animales en granjas industriales – o incluso traspasar o filmar de manera encubierta sin permiso – como actos de terrorismo (“¿Es Liberar a un Pato un Acto de Terrorismo?“). Para poner las cosas en contexto, téngase en cuenta que a pesar de que el FBI en 2004 designó a los activistas ambientalistas y de derechos de los animales como la principal amenaza interna de terrorismo, nadie ha sido herido jamás por ninguna de las acciones de protesta de estos movimientos.

Toda la legislación de alto nivel para la “lucha contra el terrorismo” aprobada después del 9/11 fue justificada en su momento por la urgente necesidad de que nadie pudiese jamás volver a estrellar un avión contra un rascacielos, esparcir ántrax por ahí o hacer estallar una “bomba sucia” en una ciudad importante. Supuestamente se trataba de poderes extraordinarios otorgados sólo para contrarrestar peligros extraordinarios, que nunca serían utilizados por las fuerzas del orden contra delitos comunes. Pero, ¿cuándo es que el estado haya alguna vez prometido eso y cumplido su palabra? Las Leyes de Espionaje y Sedición aprobadas durante la Primera Guerra Mundial fueron acompañadas de aseveraciones similares de que no se utilizarían para suprimir el disenso ordinario y el debate político – y terminaron siendo utilizadas como justificación de arrestos masivos de personajes públicos críticos de la guerra, miembros de la I.W.W, y del Partido Socialista.

Así están las cosas. La Ley “USA PATRIOT” y una gran cantidad de agencias de seguridad como el CSIS, el RCMP, el FBI y el DHS están siendo utilizados para proteger las ganancias de las industrias de combustibles fósiles, la industria del cine y la agroindustria corporativa contra el debate, el escarnio público, o las protestas. ¿Tratar las protestas que interrumpen la jornada comercial como “terrorismo”? Si la Ley “USA PATRIOT” hubiese sido aprobada hace un par de generaciones, supongo que los plantones en los mostradores de restaurantes y los boicots de autobuses habrían sido clasificados como “terrorismo”.

El fin último de todas las leyes del estado y del aparato que exige su cumplimiento, independientemente de las aparentes justificaciones de esta o aquella ley, es la defensa de los intereses del sistema y los que lo controlan. Cualquier ley aprobada por el estado, y cualquier funcionario armado, uniformado y empleado por el estado para hacerla cumplir, interpretará el concepto de justicia de manera que sirva a los intereses del sistema de poder.

Artículo original publicado por Kevin Carson el 10 de febrero de 2014.

Traducido del inglés por Carlos Clemente.

On the early summer morning of July 28, 2012, Megan Rice, Greg Boertje-Obed and Michael Walli, the Oak Ridge Three, hiked down a wooded ridge to the Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. At the complex the hikers cut their way through three fences using bolt cutters, stealthily moved past guard dogs and then made their way past a sign noting that trespassers could be met with deadly force.

Inside the compound they made their way to a facility charged with processing much of the nation’s weapons grade uranium (enough to manufacture 10,000 nuclear bombs) and then splashed human blood on the building. The three spent over two hours within the compound, painting biblical slogans of peace around the facility. No one had any clue; it would be hours until the Oak Ridge Three were in custody.

Rice, an 84-year-old nun, and fellow peace activists Boertje-Obed and Walli have all been sentenced to prison for their actions. This case has garnered a lot of attention. The United States congress has held special hearings over the protest because it raised a number of questions about how the United States government manages nuclear weapons and high-grade materials. Furthermore, the activists illuminated how poorly private security corporations protect high-grade sites such as nuclear power plants.

The protest has also given rise to a strong showing of solidarity among fellow peace activists, the no nukes movement and other sympathetic supporters. The three have received thousands of letters of support from around the world – including the Union of Concerned Scientists.

On February 18th, Rice was sentenced to 35 months behind bars. Her comrades, Greg Boertje-Obed and Walli both received a sentence of 62 months.

Knoxville, Tennessee criminal defense attorney Chris Irwin represented the activist Michael Walli in the courtroom. Chris is a well-known criminal defense lawyer in the city – he is also a well-known, respected vocal political activist, community organizer and anarchist. When not in the courtroom, Chris can usually be found in the Appalachian coalfields – advocating the region move beyond coal. He has been taking the Tennessee Valley Authority and coal companies to task throughout the region for decades.

I first met Chris in the fall of 2010 when I started volunteering with the local environmental group United Mountain Defense. It has been rather enjoyable doing field work in the Cumberland mountains while talking politics with the enthusiastic activist attorney over the years.

When I heard that Chris was representing Michael Walli I was not surprised at all. The trial has been months in the making and I have stayed in contact with Chris throughout the proceedings – hoping for an interview the moment he could make information available to the public. On February 21st, a spring like day in the Tennessee valley, I got the interview. I sat down with the bearded attorney over a chocolate stout and barley wine outside of Suttree’s high gravity beer tavern in downtown Knoxville.

Our conversation (audio link here) explores the case, the defendant’s faith and the prison industrial complex. Chris notes how he managed the case as a lawyer and an anarchist. We also get insight as to who the Oak Ridge Three are – how their Christianity fueled their protest, about how they feel the legal system holds no power over them and how they have faith in a higher court. We also learn about their lives and how their beliefs inspire many inside and outside the courtroom. Furthermore, Chris and I discuss anarchism, state power and self governance – one cannot help but imagine the possibility of a peaceful, more secure, libertarian alternative to the nation-state: The stateless society.

Grant: When you first heard about the details of this case and knew you were going to be on it, as a lawyer, what went through your mind?

Chris: You mean my first legal opinion?

Grant: Yeah.

Chris: This is Bullshit. That’s my legal terminology. This is bullshit.

An 82-year-old nun got into the heart of the American nuclear arms production complex and I am having to represent this nun? What the Hell are these people [state officials] thinking?

… I knew people that worked there [Y-12 Nuclear Facility] and we had always been told for decades, “look – whether you believe these are mobile death camps or you think that we need them for our national defense, they are secure. This is the Fort Knox of security.” In a couple of hours everyone around here found out that was a fucking lie. We have been lied to. We were lied to by the state. There is even a joke, “What does Y-12 and the Tennessee defensive line have in common? Neither can keep an 82-year-old nun from penetrating their defenses.”

But this is un-arguably one of the most deadly plants or areas, not only on Earth, but in the history of the planet. There has probably never been anyplace more deadly and it was just mind boggingly crazy. Not only that they [the Oak Ridge Three] were able to do it, but that they brought the full force of the state against this nun and not a single person went to jail who accepted millions to secure this area.

And I know why! It’s because in World War II they had over 1,000 armed soldiers on that facility – just to secure it. They believed that’s what was necessary. They had maybe three [security guards] active during all of this. And it is because … private corporations who are supposed to be quote, “handling the security” [at Y-12] it’s about the bottom line. It’s cheaper to have cameras that don’t work, motion detectors that are ignored and fences than it is boots on the ground. Boots on the ground you have to pay for health insurance, pensions, salaries, and for a private corporation the tendency is always going to be to cut cost, cut corners, make it as cheap as possible.

…The other thing that came across my mind is that it’s dangerous to tell the emperor that he has no clothes. You know? They pointed out that the emperor has no clothes and that was the result.

Grant: You are also an open anarchist, I don’t know how long you have been an anarchist, but –

Chris: … Since I was eight.

Grant: Since you were eight? OK – so, since you were eight years old you have been an anarchist. So then as an anarchist when you heard about this what ran through your head?

Chris: My perspective as an anarchist is that whenever you centralize power special interests hijack it and the greatest atrocities in history are the product of centralized power. The very production of nuclear weapons would not be possible without large, centralized, nation-states. The resources it takes to make such stupid ass deadly weapons you can’t do on a community basis. I am familiar with how, whenever you centralize power – be it religious, philosophical, in the media – special interests are always going to hijack it. But, I had never seen this aspect of the danger of the large nation-state. Statistically you’re safer having Hannibal Lecter move in next door to you and salt away a few boy scouts than having a nation-state living next door.

The greatest serial killers in history are the nation states. I use the term anarchist … I believe Henry David Thoreau said, “That which governs best, governs least.” From my training as an attorney, I went in as a lawyer from law school and I had bought the party line in my 20’s, “fuck the founding fathers, fuck the constitution, they were a bunch of slave holding bastards – blah, blah, blah,” but then I took a class on constitutional law and I read. I read what Thomas Paine wrote and realized that not trusting large centralized governments, there’s nothing more American than that…

For me it’s further evidence that large centralized power not only leads to atrocities, but then the institutions sell out to the lowest bidder, Private corporations – and they do a terrible, terrible job. If those [the Oak Ridge Three] had actually been hostiles that had gone in – we might actually be living in a giant crater right now. Seriously, if you had a detonation there it could probably crack the Earth’s mantle and wipe out all life on the face of the planet. You’re dealing with an amazing amount of weaponry. But, the scientist there, or the people in charge are like, “Oh, there was no chance. They couldn’t have detonated. They couldn’t have gotten anything.” But, these are the same people who told us that the facility was secure and safe.

Grant: And an 82-year-old nun and her comrades were able to break in. That kind of gets into the next question I want to ask. So we have heard the story. They used bolt cutters, came in.

Chris: Which they didn’t need.

Grant: Which they didn’t need?

Chris: Well, they needed them on the inner fences but the outer fence was just shot full of holes.

Grant: Oh, really?

Chris: A reporter went out and they [Y-12] didn’t even find where they had gotten in. They had gotten in [Y-12 officials] in the wrong location – they had to be told where this gap was. [Y-12 for months had the wrong location. The reporter found the correct one, then wrote about it.]

Grant: Oh, wow.

Chris: It had been tied back together with yarn.

Grant: So, I guess that is it – is there anything about the action that they [the Oak Ridge Three] did that we don’t know about? That wasn’t reported in the media so far or that we know the details of?

Chris: The media didn’t report it at all. They [the Oak Ridge Three] had a picnic. They had a bloody damn picnic. They got in, they had time to eat bread, they had time to sing, they had time to spray biblical graffiti on the side of the wall and then they got bored. Finally, they basically walked up to this one security guard that was on his cell phone in his SUV and he then realized what was going on.

Grant: They walked up to a security guard?

Chris: Well he was there, he pulled up and they walked up to him and immediately began singing.

Grant: Oh my God!

Chris: If you really research it you can kind of get the idea of what happened. It’s just so fucking shocking and my favorite quote was when it was pointed out how fucked up that fence was on the outer perimeter, the security at Y-12 said: “Oh that’s not really a fence,” and quote, “We consider it a border marker.” The truth of it is, is that it’s a fence. It’s supposed to be a fence. It looks like a fence and it is in terrible condition – it’s shot full of holes.

What I hate to say as an environmentalist is what they need to do is – they have all these trees that give perfect cover all the way to the top of the hill – they need to clear-cut those. They need to have a clear line of sight to the top. But they’re not taking the security there seriously, they’re still not.

Grant: How did these three come together? How did they know each other? What was their planning strategy? Did it go according to plan? Was this easier than they thought? How did the whole thing come together to begin with?

Chris: Well, they’re still my clients and I still owe them an obligation of protecting them.

Grant: Okay.

Chris: And not disclosing too much because some of this could go get appealed. What I can say is what’s in the public record. They’re a member of a group called “Plowshare.”

Grant: Okay.

Chris: [Plowshare] engages in direct action all across the world. I am not a Christian scholar but I believe it comes from a quote in Isaiah, “They shall turn spears into pruning hooks and swords into plowshares.” They [the Oak Ridge Three] have this crazy idea that “thou shall not kill.”

Tolstoy had the same thing – if you want to look at an anarchist it would be along the same lines. Tolstoy became an anarchist through his Christianity. He believed “thou shall not kill” was something you cannot compromise. So, as such, you can have nothing to do with governments – all governments kill. He didn’t like the term anarchist, but he was. And they [the Oak Ridge Three] are kind of similar.

[The Oak Ridge Three] believe, not only that they should read the gospels of Jesus, but they should act the gospels. Their basis is really their Christianity but they are also influenced by Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau and other classic non-violent, direct actionists.

Grant: Are they anarchists? The Oak Ridge Three?

Chris: No, I wouldn’t know how to categorize them. It is interesting the backgrounds. Many people don’t realize Mr. Walli served two tours in Vietnam and was [a]decorated vet. He was on the Cambodian border twice. Once during Kent State, where he first saw people die, at least 50 people die. He knew first hand the results of the state and warfare…

It’s three different individuals as well, but in terms of militarization and the rhetoric that comes out of their mouths is ten times more militant than nine out of ten of the kids with an A sticker and patches that they wear around… I don’t know though, I would have to ask.

Grant: Okay, cool. So why did they do it? Was it to call attention to nuclear arms? Was it to call attention to war in general?

Chris: Both, and again, they believe thou shall not kill is something you can’t compromise on. [The Oak Ridge Three] view, those [nuclear weapons], basically, as mobile death camps. In World War II they brought the people to camps and in some weird twisted obscenity of consumer convenience culture, now we have figured out how to bring the death camps to the people. And they [the Oak Ridge Three] believe in a life dedicated to service – they can’t do that anymore.

They believe they’re Christians in the truest sense of the word… I just read the gospels for the first time… I came at it as an anarchist and as an organizer. I realized a couple of things. The reason Jesus got assassinated was … it looked like he was putting together a private army in the desert. I mean, most of his miracles revolve around logistics – water into wine. My favorite one is when had to feed all these people and they’re coming into a town. He sent two of his boys in and said “look, find the second guy that comes from the well in the town and tell him look, we’re gonna have our private army come into your town. We would like a room on the second floor and food waiting for us.” So, of course, what do you do when a private army is coming into your town? Sure enough, on the second floor, there’s food and they’re like, “This is a f’in miracle.”

… Jesus was an organizer first and foremost and he was becoming a threat to the status quo – to the rabbis. So they used the Roman military to take him out because they knew that the religious establishment couldn’t do it.

I think he gets a bad rap, just because of how he has been misused. I think if Jesus was around today, on the streets, well, he would probably be on death row or in the prison pretty quickly. They [the Oak Ridge Three] would be with him. They have seen through all the bull shit and the stuff that has accumulated…

I think that those three are closer to being true Christians than the pope…

Grant: Cool. So again, a lot of planning had to go into this obviously. You don’t just do an action like this. So, why did they pick when they did it? Why did they go that day?

Chris: I used to know… They had a reason… It had something to do with the date or time, but it didn’t come up in trial… So I don’t remember.

Grant: Okay, cool. In custody, how were they treated?

Chris: Sister Rice is pissed off! They all got a good look at the industrial prison complex and she dedicated about half her allocution during sentencing [she went on for about an hour and a half and about half of that was about prison] about the prison industrial complex. About the private prison systems – about how she was glad about how she had gotten a PhD in prisons. That the prisons were overcrowded, packed with non-violent offenders.

… They were in Blount County too, a cess pool jail really- overcrowded, sticky floors. Federal custody is typically better than state- more resources better jails and stuff. They spent some of their time in Ocilla, Georgia and that’s better conditions, you know, as far as being an animal stuck in a cage for a truly non-non violent offense.

Characterize it as the prison industrial complex- they’re just the slave ships of our century, but we don’t have a corresponding abolitionist movement that we had during the slave periods. Their [the Oak Ridge Three] perspective is more educated than, again, as most anarchist and their rhetoric is more radical. They really, especially sister Rice, … hate the sheer waste and destructive impact of the prison industrial complex. She educated the judge and everyone in the courtroom.

Here is a woman whose issue is Y-12 and nuclear weapons, she saw wrong while she was in jail, and dedicated half of what she was saying so the media and others would hear whats also going on in the prisons.

This [protest] wasn’t just a single act- this is just overall part of a life service and radicalism. They’re consistent. It shows that it is more a broad philosophy than just a single shot activist that got a good idea one night. Their philosophy shows, and how they treat injustice across the board – not simply money robbed from the poor through militarism, but also whats happening in prisons.

Michael Wallis serves food to the homeless, helps out soup kitchens, integrating former prisoners back into society. I mean their whole lives are dedicated, every aspect, to service to this philosophy. It was reflected in their outlook and how they worked and advocated for people while in custody.

You read Alexander Berkman’s  autobiography? Everyone’s read Emma Goldman’s autobiography but they don’t realize hers kind of started where his starts. She got to have this cool life traveling around the country and speaking and all this stuff. They put him in the tombs for 22 years and tried to kill him. He continued his life to service and was just as radical and militant as she was while he was in this Hell hole catacombs defending other prisoners, refusing to rat, earning respect … They’re [the Oak Ridge Three] like rocks. They don’t bend, they don’t fold- they maintain consistency. These people have that same kind of classical anarchist consistency.

Grant: How about in the courtroom itself? How were they portrayed by the prosecution? As their defense attorney how did you try to combat that? Were these people smeared as people who advocate violence or anything like that?

Chris: No, that wouldn’t have floated at all. The prosecutor did his job. I mean he acknowledged he was Catholic too and this is a Catholic nun that he is putting away. He acknowledged that they were non-violent. He tried to focus that they were misdirected, misguided and then focused on the elements of the offense – did they have an intent to interfere with the national security of the United States? Did they damage or contaminate? He focused on the elements and used that to prove his case.

And then they [the Oak Ridge Three] didn’t deny for a second what they did. Hell, while they were out on bond they did interviews about what they did. They did it on television, they did it on radio – so he didn’t really need to demonize them. Theodore [the prosecutor], he is conflicted, but he did his job.

Grant: Cool. So that is it then. So, why are they asking for the max penalty? Or at least miss Rice is.

Chris: Well, the maximum is 30 years.

Grant: Right, well, she is asking for life in prison – why make that request?

Chris: Because they’re willing to be martyrs for their cause. They believe it doesn’t matter. They’re not in prison, you know? They are just in a cell that humans put them in.

Propaganda by the deed. She [Rice] meant it. She was like, ” You can’t .”… She is a being of light. They are uncompromising on principle and philosophy and that is really rare in this society. That’s their position.

They wanted to communicate and they saw also that people who engage in non-violent civil disobedience were watching what was happening. They were saying, “No, we’re not going to back down – we are principled human beings and the state, all they can do is take our lives. That’s all you’ve got – the worst you can do is take our lives and incarcerate these bodies we have.” For those who are truly embraced in the philosophy that’s no threat at all. It was no threat to her. She didn’t care. She was like, “Alright, I’m what, 85 now?”  She’s like, “Yeah, put me away for life.”

Ten years sentence is probably life.

All three did not repent an ounce of what they did.

Grant: Right.

Chris: Made me proud to represent them.

Grant: Yea, I guess that is another question about the [cross talk] that might be about my final question. I mean, they weren’t repentant at all- which is great.

Chris: They said they would do it again if they released them.

Grant: So how was that? How was that reaction? Sitting from the outside, when a judge who just gives a sentence and then to have somebody say, you know, “That’s not enough,” or, “I’ll go do it again.” How does something like that go over in a court system like that? What was the reaction in the courtroom?

Chris: Well, I can tell you what my reaction is…

After I had argued for about two hours and then for my clients to basically be like, “All you can do, judge, is put us away for the rest of our lives. You have no power here. We consider ourselves to have a higher ruling from a higher court” – made me sweat blood a little bit. As an attorney my job is to get them the least amount of time possible and cost them as little money as possible – as an activist, even then, it was outside of everybody’s range of experience.

The legal system is a well oiled, life gobbling machine and having somebody say, “You got no power – put us away, give us more time” takes it out of the realm of that machine. They don’t know how to deal with it. It played into the deterrence argument.

Grant: What is that? Deterrence?

Chris: That’s one of the seven factors your suppose to look at in sentencing, is deterrence. And I wish now I had argued during, “There is no deterrence, here, your honor, you’re not going to deter them. We shouldn’t even be talking about that.” …

Grant: Whats this deterrence again? What exactly is that?

Chris: Keep other activists and keep them [the defendants] from doing it again.

Grant: Okay.

Chris: He kind of dumped the keep them from doing it again and just used it to show other activists not to do this… You never see that.

You have gangsta’s that talk about it. But, you know, I’ve represented Bloods, vice lords, Crips, MS-13’s, crack dealers, meth addicts, prostitution’s, shooters- you know, across the board and they talk: “Fuck the police” and blah, blah, blah. But at the end of the day most of them cooperate. They are all humble and are like “please, your honor” – they don’t want to be in these Hell holes.

It’s interesting to see a octogenarian, you know, show more true gangsta than your average Blood or Crip.

It was inspiring. It was definitely inspiring. I’m gonna get the transcript for the whole trial eventually and just to read it again…

Grant: So, I’ll ask you a final wrap up question but I guess the next few are on a more personal note – how did you come about the legal profession? So as an anarchist what led you into the legal profession and then from there, criminal defense? I kind of imagine that they [cross talk]

Chris: Well I got arrested so many times from civil disobedience that I had to sit through my court proceedings and usually they put us at the end of the docket. So I had to sit through everyone else’s court proceedings… I sat through it all and I was like, “You know, I could do that.” I like to argue, and then, I realized too I’m a dinosaur. You know? I mean, active anarchist organizers that are my age? [I can count on one hand radicals that started when I did that are still organizing.] We have a higher turnover rate than McDonald’s in this business.

My wife and I at the time were in our late 20’s. We sat down and we wrote down every reason we saw our activist people checking out. Often times it just came down to that dumpster diving and couch surfing is okay in your 20’s and stuff, but eventually, people- its a human thing- want a little bit more security, want a little more comfort.

You know, the classical anarchists all had straight jobs. Emma Goldman was a nurse. Some made shoes, some attorneys- unless you were born rich Russian nobility, which I wasn’t. I lost my job I had on 9/11. I was cleaning the outside of sky scrapers and my wife wanted to stay here and I wanted to go back to school just to hide out for a while. I was all, “Well, I’ll just go to law school.”

And law school is really like reading the rule box of society, you know? It’s reading the cereal box. I wanted new tools too. I had exhausted all the tactics I used up until then. First I get access to people. Then I learned some funky stuff…

Also my job as a criminal defense attorney is to take as much money from corporations as possible and keep people out of prison for bull shit victimless crimes. I’m okay with that.

Thoreau said that most men led lives of quiet desperation. I had no idea until I interviewed my first 100 clients what a relative life of privilege I’d lead as an environmentalist anarchist. I had no idea the amount of rape, children sexual abuse and how many people are just doing drugs to try and kill that part of their brain that [remembered what] happened when they were kids. It was brutally disillusioning but I believe illusions interfere with an ability to lead a good life so I embraced that.

Also, defense attorneys, we’re the ones that tell the state, “You can’t go further.There is a line here you can’t go further than.” I like being on the front lines. I like being able to hear and see exactly where the state is encroaching…

Also I noticed, I stopped a strip mine for a year and half. I used to lock myself by my neck to bulldozers and gates and I’ve organized protests against strip mines and we’ve shut them down for an hour. Where, with just pushing paper back and forth, I shut down a strip mine for over a year- …

I came into the system with no illusions. When I talk to my clients I give them clearly the anarchist wrap. I am like, “Look, if you have any illusions that this is about justice fairness or rationality you need to get rid of that. This is about money and time. The state wants your ass and I am trying to save that for you.”

Whats pathetic is 98% of my clients go, “Ha, yeah, I knew that”…

… being in the guts of what is going on has radicalized me.

Photo Credit:

www.paxchristiusa.org – … Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance (OREPA), and the speaking of truth by our three friends in the empire’s court was, for me, an infusion of hope!

CIA Director John Brennan paid a visit to the University of Oklahoma Wednesday night, and a contingent of Students for a Stateless Society, Young Americans for Liberty and local Young Socialists met him on their home turf. Protesters chanted, “No more drone war,” handed out fliers describing their opposition to the appearance of the so-called “patriot” on their campus, and sang Les Miserables’ “Do You Hear The People Sing” as Brennan exited the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzBp8NIZ4LY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ4gzkFeTOc

Uma cobertura jornalística mais razoável do colapso do Mt.Gox, um dos maiores mercados de Bitcoin, seria mais ou menos assim:

“Uau! Um dos maiores mercados de Bitcoin da internet acaba de desaparecer e, em vez de entrar em colapso, o Bitcoin ainda é comercializado por cerca de US$ 500! Que moeda robusta e resistente! Que história de sucesso! Uau! Uau!”

Sanidade no jornalismo? Nem tanta. Em vez dela, nós vemos as figuras de sempre falando as mesmas bobagens que diziam desde que souberam da existência do Bitcoin: “O futuro do bitcoin é incerto“.

Eu duvido.

Mesmo se o valor do Bitcoin cair a zero amanhã ou depois, ele ainda terá sido um sucesso estrondoso: uma prova de que uma moeda não-governamental, peer-to-peer, auto-organizada e sem autoridade central pode ser feita.

Sim, alguns especuladores (“compre na baixa, venda na alta”) foram prejudicados com a oscilação dos seus “investimentos” em Bitcoin. Por outro lado, alguns se tornaram bastante ricos. E o Bitcoin não foi feito para ser um investimento, mas um meio de troca.

Sim, algumas pessoas que consideraram o Bitcoin como meio de troca também foram prejudicadas, de duas maneiras. Os governos roubaram quantidades significativas de Bitcoin — por exemplo, dos consumidores do Silk Road — e hackers também o fizeram. Contudo, por algum motivo, não consigo sintonizar a cobertura indignada da CNN de como o futuro do dólar americano (de que o próprio emissor, o governo dos EUA, rouba grandes quantidades através de impostos e da inflação) e dos cartões de crédito e débito (o roubo de Bitcoin é bastante irrisório comparado à fraude de cartões) são “incertos”.

Claro, o Bitcoin de fato pode se tornar irrelevante, substituído por criptomoedas mais fortes, sólidas e anônimas. Litcoin. Dogecoin. O Zerocoin, que está em desenvolvimento. Eu não consigo nem começar a prever qual criptomoeda passará a ser, eventualmente, o “padrão” ou um dos meios de troca digitais “mais confiáveis”.

O que eu sou capaz de prever com confiança é que as criptomoedas vieram para ficar.

Por que? Porque funcionam. Elas se prestam a várias funções importantes. Não apenas protegem os usuários de roubos privados e governamentais, mas também viabilizam os “micropagamentos” — extremamente importantes no comércio pela internet de itens de baixo valor —, tornando as fronteiras economicamente supérfluas.

Os próprios veículos da mídia poderiam pesquisar de forma independente o Bitcoin e outras criptomoedas, ao invés de tentar espalhar o pânico de maneira conveniente para o estado. Os jornais há anos se queixam de que a internet prejudicou seus negócios. Eles já até adotaram um modelo de “micropagamentos agregados” (vendas de publicidade a preços muito baixos, por impressão ou clique) para encontrarem um alento financeiro. Abrir-se ao pagamento em criptomoedas, em vez de estabelecer muros de cobrança em dolar que poucas pessoas estão dispostas a pagar, parece ser o caminho mais lógico em seus planos de recuperação econômica.

Os únicos que têm algo a temer com o Bitcoin e seus derivados são os governos (que dependem de sua capacidade de cobrar impostos) e a classe política (inclusive os parasitas pseudo-“privados”, que vivem do seu acesso privilegiado ao dinheiro estatal). E eles devem ter medo. Porque o tempo deles está acabando.

Traduzido do inglês para o português por Erick Vasconcelos.

No creo que nadie se sorprenda por esto, pero Reporteros sin Fronteras bajó a los Estados Unidos 14 lugares en su Clasificación Mundial de la Libertad de Prensa en comparación con el año pasado – desde el 32vo al 46vo.

Citando el abuso de la administración Obama de la Ley de Espionaje para hostigar a los periodistas y las fuentes, el encarcelamiento del denunciante del ejército de los EE.UU. Chelsea Manning, las amenazas de arresto e incluso asesinato al denunciante del NSA Edward Snowden, el acoso a los periodistas que lo asistían informando al público, y la amenaza de 105 años de prisión al periodista Barrett Brown por publicar un enlace en una página web, RSF designa a los EE.UU. como uno de los dos “gigantes del Nuevo Mundo que no dan el ejemplo” (el otro es Brasil).

Estas críticas son razonables y justas, pero RSF se equivoca al afirmar que los EE.UU. “por mucho tiempo fue la encarnación de una democracia establecida en la que reinaban las libertades civiles”. De hecho, el gobierno de EE.UU. tiene una larga y sórdida trayectoria de persecución de periodistas que se remonta casi a su fundación.

Sea el procesamiento penal de escritores por “difamar” al segundo y tercer presidentes de los Estados Unidos, la censura en tiempo de guerra (no sólo de información militar importante, si es que eso fuese una excusa razonable, sino explícitamente para garantizar el seguimiento de las líneas de política del régimen), el “comstockerismo” moral, o el acoso y persecución penal de cualquier persona que revelara verdades incómodas en momentos inoportunos, el estado norteamericano siempre ha tratado a las “libertades civiles” como meras conveniencias a ser suprimidas en cualquier momento que se conviertan en inconveniencias.

La verdadera cuestión planteada por la caída continua de EE.UU. en la clasificación de RSF es esta: ¿Por qué será que ese país ha encontrado durante los últimos años que la libertad de prensa es menos últil para sus objetivos, llevándolo a suprimirla cada vez más de lo habitual?.

O para ponerlo en contexto: ¿Por qué es que entre los estados gerencialistas autoritarios que emergieron en el mundo durante la primera mitad del siglo XX los EE.UU. estuvieron más dispuestos a aceptar más libertad de prensa como cuestión de rutina que Mussolini, Hitler, Franco o Stalin… y qué ha cambiado últimamente para que redujera su disposición a tolerar a los periodistas y sus fuentes?.

La respuesta es que mientras que los otros cuatro dictadores llegaron al poder a través de la violencia política abierta y se consideraban (con razón) acosados desde el comienzo de sus reinados, el estado de seguridad nacional de EE.UU. evolucionó más lentamente y con menos disidencia. Sus instituciones no fueron derrocadas; se adaptaron. Las ilusiones de consenso y consentimiento cuidadosamente custodiadas durante la mayor parte de la historia del estado se han conservado relativamente intactas, transmitidas desde la prácticamente apócrifa “vieja república” al “New Deal”, y de ahí a la “Gran Sociedad”, “La Mañana en America”, y la república bananera ​pos-9/11.

¿Por qué no dejar que los pájaros canten? Están enjaulados, la puerta bien trancada, y cuando el ruido se hace muy molesto, como ocurre de vez en cuando, el Estado puede tirar un paño oscuro sobre la jaula para ganar unas horas de paz y tranquilidad.

Pero Julian Assange le sacó de encima el paño a la jaula, Chelsea Manning rompió la tranca de la puerta, y Edward Snowden voló lejos del nido. A Barrett Brown le recortaron las alas y le pusieron un bozal en el pico; pero es demasiado tarde. Barack Obama, Keith Alexander y Mike Rogers no pueden llamar a una conferencia de prensa últimamente sin que Glenn Greenwald se abalace en público dejando caer una carga apestosa sobre sus cabezas.

La “libertad de prensa” está siendo abandonada porque ahora amenaza al estado americano. Esas ilusiones de consenso y consentimiento fueron muy útiles a los políticos estadounidenses por mucho tiempo, pero ahora se están disolviendo y exponiendo al gobierno estadounidense como un instrumento de fuerza bruta igual que todos los demás.

Podemos tener libertad – libertad de prensa, libertad de expresión, libertad de todo tipo imaginable – o podemos tener un gobierno político. No podemos tener las dos cosas a la vez.

Artículo original publicado por Thomas L. Knapp el 12 de febrero de 2014.

Traducido del inglés por Carlos Clemente.

The recent failure of United Auto Workers’ attempt to unionize the Chattanooga Volkswagen plant has become political fodder for Tennessee Republicans. In a recent interview, US Senator Bob Corker claimed the UAW is looking at VW workers as “a dollar bill” to further its union agenda. When questioned about his role in halting worker organization at the plant, a delighted Corker told CNBC he’s not surprised by union backlash because “a hit dog hollers.”

Corker noted in the interview he had been “assured” that a rejection of unionization would reward labor by sending new work to the plant. Crafty jargon from another Big Government conservative. Not only was this statement denied by VW, but now, because there is no union, the private company very well may halt expansion in the south.

The Chattanooga confrontation boils down to nothing but politics. Tennessee is already a “Right to Work” state, so if workers decided to join the UAW no employee would have had to join the union. Non-union workers at the plant would have avoided union dues (but received the benefits negotiated on their behalf by organized labor). There was no threat to conservative “Right to Work” laws, but Tennessee Republicans still meddled in the affairs of a private institution — because they loathe organized labor.

This has big implications for labor organizing in Tennessee. I am a Tennessean and a card-carrying member of United Campus Workers – Communication Workers of America (UCW-CWA), Tennessee’s higher education union. Tennessee Republicans do not believe I have the right to free association or to negotiate the conditions of my labor, and they will use their political clout to ensure I can’t. Let’s examine just what this means.

I am not endorsing the UAW or even the UCW-CWA. Big union, just as big business and big government, has its issues. However, I am endorsing voluntary association.

If workers come together to negotiate contracts with their employers that is nothing but the libertarian principle of freedom of association. If the bargaining process yields a voluntary contract between management and labor then what we have is yet another example of free association. This is simply co-operation in the work place. It is big government laws that tip the scale in favor of one group over another that are the problem. In Tennessee, “Right to Work” laws benefit capital at the expense of labor.

Republicans, by flexing their big government muscle, seek restrictions on voluntary transactions within a private company. They work to crush the very principle of free association. Regardless of how workers want to organize it is none of their business.

In liberty, freedom of association and voluntary contracts are the rule. The libertarian is not concerned with the rights of government — conservative or liberal, federal or state. The libertarian is concerned with individual rights — including the right to organize. Government laws restrict competition in the market and they restrict democracy on the shop floor. Without big government, labor would be liberated — free to smash government imposed privilege. Without big government, and moving beyond bossism, unions would once again dedicate their efforts to advancing the working class. It is government’s failure to respect voluntary contract, to leave the market alone, that is the real story of Chattanooga.

The solution is to smash the structures of big government that privilege one class over another in the first place. It’s not about politics or your next election, folks, it’s about free association.

The Libertarian Alliance blog posted my piece on why libertarians are not conservatives. It wasn’t received very well. The poster of the article argued thusly:

Note: In my view, this is a silly article. The author does to conservatism just what the more brain dead conservatives do to libertarianism – that is, to pick out one strand from a cluster of movements, and to take that as representative of the whole. There are conservative objections to war and to moral regulation. Indeed, the moral regulation of the Victorian Age was mostly brought in by “liberals” against Tory opposition. And the most prominent calls for a negotiated end to the Great War came from within the Tory aristocracy. As for point 3), there are conservative defenses of tradition that are not at all incompatible with libertarianism. I give this one out of five on the grounds that the author got her spelling right. SIG

I admit to lumping all conservatives together, but what I described has gone under the label of conservative. As for defenses of tradition being compatible with libertarianism; I disagree with this. The essence of libertarianism is individualism and individual rights. This conflicts with obedience to inherited collectivist traditional social norms. Independent judgment and reason tend to undermine traditionalism.

The conservative’s tendency to favor the preservation of established institutions will also come into conflict with the libertarian. All institutions are subject to rational examination and change in a free society. This can’t be reconciled with a conservative defense of tradition or inherited institutions. Tradition also tends to require coercion or ostracism to maintain. Both of which are tools for controlling people. This is not to say that coercion and ostracism are always unjustified, but they are preferably used for something other than the continuation of existing social norms.

Another way in which tradition and libertarianism are at odds is historical. History is replete with examples of tyranny and unfree societies. There is a dearth of relative freedom throughout history, so it’s strange to look to what has come before for inspiration.

Tradition is not favorable to liberty. It cannot substitute for a rational delineation of rights. The social norms that most human beings have embraced are simply not conducive to liberty. We error in relying on them. Murray Rothbard provides a fine conclusion to this post below:

“Come join us, come realize that to break once and for all with statism is to break once and for all with the Right-wing. We stand ready to welcome you.” ~ Murray Rothbard

Sane news coverage of Bitcoin exchange Mt.Gox‘s collapse would look something like this:

“Wow! The Internet’s largest Bitcoin exchange just vanished into thin air … and instead of collapsing, Bitcoin is still trading at about $500! What a robust, resilient currency! What a success story! Wow! Wow!”

Sanity in news coverage? Well, not so much. Instead we have the usual suspects running the same smack they’ve run since they first noticed Bitcoin: “Bitcoin future in doubt.”

I doubt it.

In fact, if Bitcoin falls to zero in perceived value today or tomorrow, it will still have been a smashing success: Proof of concept that a non-government, peer-to-peer, self-organizing currency with no central authority can be done.

Yes, some speculators (“buy low, sell high”) have been hurt in the ups and downs of Bitcoin as an “investment.” On the other hand, some have become quite wealthy. And Bitcoin isn’t supposed to BE an “investment.” It’s supposed to be a medium of exchange.

And yes, some people who have treated Bitcoin as the medium of exchange it’s supposed to be have been hurt also, in two ways. Governments have stolen significant quantities of Bitcoin from e.g. Silk Road customers, and hackers have also stolen quite a bit. Yet for some reason I’m missing the breathless CNN coverage of how the futures of the US dollar (which its issuer, the US government, steals huge stacks of via taxation and inflation) and of credit/debit cards (Bitcoin theft is small potatoes compared to card fraud) are “in doubt.”

And yes, Bitcoin proper could fade away into irrelevance as better, stronger, sounder, more easily anonymized cryptocurrencies replace it. Litecoin. Dogecoin. The upcoming Zerocoin. I can’t even begin to predict which cryptocurrency will eventually become “the standard” or one of a few “most trusted” digital media of exchange.

What I CAN confidently predict is that cryptocurrencies are here to stay.

Why? Because they work. They serve several vital functions: Not just protecting their users from government and private thievery, but also making “micropayments” — the holy grail of Internet commerce in very cheap things — feasible and making borders economically superfluous.

Oddly, the mainstream media outlets themselves would be wise to look into Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies instead of indulging their state-approved Chicken Little-ism. Newspapers have been bellyaching for years about how hard the Internet has hit their bottom lines. They’ve already turned to one “aggregated micropayment” scheme (sales of advertising at very low per-impression or per-click prices) for partial relief. Breaking out content for micropayment in cryptocurrencies, instead of erecting high-dollar-threshold “paywalls” that few people are willing to climb might be the logical next step in their economic recovery plans.

The only entities and organizations with anything to fear from Bitcoin and its offspring are governments (which rely on the ability to tax) and the political class (including pseudo-“private” parasites who make their livings sucking off the tax teat). And they SHOULD be afraid. Their day is coming to an end.

Translations for this article:

• Portuguese, O futuro do Bitcoin é “incerto”? Eu duvido.
• Italian, Il Futuro di Bitcoin “in Dubbio”? Ne Dubito.

Davvero nessuno se lo aspettava? Secondo Reporter Senza Frontiere, gli Stati Uniti sono scesi di 14 posizioni rispetto all’anno scorso – dalla 32ª alla 46ª a livello mondiale – nella Classifica Mondiale della Libertà di Stampa 2014.

Citando il modo in cui l’amministrazione Obama ha abusato della legge sullo spionaggio per vessare giornalisti e fonti informative, la detenzione dell’informatore militare Chelsea Manning, la minaccia di arresto e addirittura di uccisione rivolte all’informatore NSA Edward Snowden, la persecuzione dei giornalisti che lo hanno assistito nel suo lavoro di informare il pubblico, e la minaccia di una condanna a 105 anni di carcere rivolta al giornalista Barrett Brown per aver pubblicato un link su un sito web; citando tutto ciò, Reporter Senza Frontiere indica gli Stati Uniti come uno dei “Giganteschi cattivi esempi a livello mondiale” (l’altro è il Brasile).

Queste critiche sono ragionevoli e giuste, ma Reporter Senza Frontiere sbaglia quando dice che gli Stati Uniti “sono stati per tanto tempo un esempio di democrazia compiuta in cui le libertà civili regnano supreme”. In realtà, il governo americano ha una lunga e sordida storia di persecuzioni rivolte ai giornalisti, che risale quasi alla sua fondazione.

Dalle accuse di essere criminali rivolte ai giornalisti per aver “diffamato” il secondo e terzo presidente, alla censura di guerra (non solo riguardo le informazioni militari, se questa può considerarsi una scusa valida, ma anche per assicurare l’adesione alle linee politiche del regime), alle leggi moralistiche di Comstock, alla caccia e persecuzione di chiunque rivelasse verità imbarazzanti nei momenti meno opportuni, lo stato americano ha sempre trattato le “libertà civili” come una mera comodità, da sopprimere ogniqualvolta diventavano scomode.

La vera domanda sollevata dal continuo scivolamento degli Stati Uniti in fondo alla classifica di RSF è: Perché in questi ultimi anni gli Stati Uniti pensano che la libertà di stampa sia meno congeniale ai suoi obiettivi rispetto al passato, e perché si muovono per sopprimerla?

Ovvero, considerata nel suo contesto: Perché nella prima metà del ventesimo secolo, quando emergevano stati autoritari in tutto il mondo, gli Stati Uniti sentirono il bisogno di garantire come cosa ovvia una maggiore libertà di stampa dei vari Mussolini, Hitler, Franco o Stalin… e cosa è cambiato negli ultimi anni se è calata la tolleranza verso giornalisti e informatori?

La risposta è che mentre i primi quattro arrivarono al potere con l’uso aperto della violenza e si sentirono (a ragione) sotto attacco fin dagli inizi, lo stato di sicurezza americano si è evoluto più lentamente e con meno dissenso. Non ci fu rovesciamento delle istituzioni; solo un adattamento. L’illusione del consenso e dell’accordo, nutrita con cura per gran parte della storia nazionale, passò relativamente intatta dalla “vecchia repubblica” al “New Deal” alla “Great Society” a “Morning in America” per giungere alla repubblica delle banane post-undici settembre.

Perché non lasciare che le cornacchie strillino? Sono in gabbia, lo sportello e ben chiuso e se, come a volte capita, il chiasso diventa irritante, lo stato può sempre buttare un drappo nero sulla gabbia e ricavare qualche ora di pace e silenzio.

Il fatto è che Julian Assange ha strappato il drappo dalla gabbia, Chelsea Manning ha spalancato lo sportello e Edward Snowden è volato fuori dalla stia. Barrett Brown ha le ali tarpate e il becco chiuso, ma è troppo poco e troppo tardi. Da qualche tempo a questa parte, Barack Obama, Keith Alexander e Mike Rogers non possono indire una conferenza stampa senza che arrivi Glenn Greenwald per riversare sulle loro teste qualche porcheria davanti a tutti.

La “libertà di stampa” non è più di moda perché minaccia lo stato americano. L’illusione del consenso e dell’accordo hanno reso un lungo e buon servizio ai politici americani, ma oggi questa illusione si sta dissolvendo e quello che sta venendo fuori è la verità di un governo americano come strumento di forza, come tutti gli altri.

Possiamo avere la libertà – libertà di stampa, libertà di parola, libertà di qualunque genere – oppure possiamo avere un governo politico. Non possiamo avere entrambi.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Initial thoughts on “Informing the News”

I recently picked up a copy of Harvard journalism professor Thomas E. Patterson’s latest book, “Informing the News: The Need for Knowledge-Based Journalism.” One of the things that immediately interested me about the work was its thesis, that the cure for journalism’s current “crisis of confidence,” as Patterson refers to it, lies not in the hands of independent and citizen journalists, but in the currently-existing journalist class reinventing itself in the image of “knowledge-based journalism.”

The other thing that spurred me to buy the book was that Patterson devoted an entire chapter of this book to what he refers to as the knowledge problem. By name alone, this should be immediately familiar to anyone who reads C4SS or Austrian economics. Patterson isn’t referring to Hayek’s main thesis in his 1945 essay, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” but that thesis does shine through in areas.

“Journalists are asked to make too many judgments under conditions of too little time and too much uncertainty for the news to be the last word,” Patterson writes, preceding a quote by early-20th century journalist Thomas Lippmann. “’When we expect [the press] to supply a body of truth, we employ a misleading standard of judgment. We misunderstand the limited nature of news [and] the illimitable complexity of society.’”

Compare to Hayek in “The Use of Knowledge In Society”:

The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form, but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.

Patterson goes on to explain how, in his view, journalists are nearly the only professionals whose field does not sit on a substantive knowledge base, which he defines as “established patterns and regularities organized around conceptual frameworks or theories.”

He writes, “Knowledge is more than mere information or conventional understandings. It is systematic information.”

Journalists’ knowledge deficit does not appear to be a major concern within their profession. […] Yet the public has a sense of it. In a Freedom Forum study, journalist Robert Haiman found that although the public ‘respects the professional and technical skills [of] journalists,’ it feels that journalists ‘don’t have an authoritative understanding of the complicated world they have to explain to the public.’ […] ‘When it comes to a subject of more than average complexity, the truth in news often comes from outside of journalism. The news media, Lippmann argued, ‘can normally record only what has been recorded for it by the working of institutions. Everything else is argument and opinion.’

Again, from Hayek:

All economic activity is in this sense planning; and in any society in which many people collaborate, this planning, whoever does it, will in some measure have to be based on knowledge which, in the first instance, is not given to the planner but to somebody else, which somehow will have to be convayed to the planner. The various ways in which the knowledge on which people base their plans is communicated to them is the crucial problem for any theory explaining the economic process. […] The answer to this question is closely connected with that other question which arises here, that of who is to do the planning.

In my initial skimming-through of Patterson’s book, I found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with his overarching thesis. He’s right, insofar as there is a need for a journalism that can more succinctly serve the public with news that is more accurate and less prone to misinformation. But where he and we seem to disagree is that his answer to this problem lies in maintaining the current centralized structure of news media (despite the knowledge problems it inherently creates), rather than exploring the possibilities of a journalist class that includes as many people as possible sharing information in a stigmergic fashion.

“A estupidez, ela dói!” É só uma figura de linguagem, claro, mas, às vezes, a frase é quase literalmente verdadeira. A carta de amor de Bob Garfield ao estado (“I Luv Big Gov“, publicado em Slate em 15 de fevereiro) chega muito perto. Direitistas convictos são mais fáceis de se lidar. São pessoas que gostam das coisas terríveis que o governo faz porque são pessoas terríveis. Sabem que o governo é um grupo de criminosos uniformizados especializados no uso da força e no assassinato de pessoas e se regozijam com esse fato, porque veem o mundo por lentes hobbesianas, onde vigora a lei da selva. Aqueles indivíduos da centro esquerda, porém, tentam encaixar o mundo em suas concepções positivas e róseas e a experiência é de revirar o estômago.

O pior é que Garfield, como a maioria dos centro-esquerdistas, é incapaz de perceber a proximidade da relação entre o que ele considera as partes “boas” do governo (a aquisição da Louisiana, a “proteção contra o terrorismo” etc) e o que ele chama de “erros” (um século de defesa da escravidão, os golpes de estado orquestrados pela CIA etc).

Garfield elogia o governo por “acabar com a escravidão” ao mesmo tempo em que afirma que sua defesa anterior do escravagismo é algo pelo qual ele não deve responder. A defesa da escravidão, porém, era inerente ao arranjo constitucional original e teria persistido indefinidamente se não ocorresse uma série de acidentes improváveis. A abolição foi resultado exclusivo desses acidentes. Os democratas, em 1860, eram um partido esmagadoramente pró-escravidão e continuariam sendo até onde se podia prever. Eles só perderam porque os fanáticos pró-escravidão mais insanos tiveram um racha com a maioria mais moderada e deram a eleição presidencial para Lincoln. E mesmo com a vitória de Lincoln, a maioria democrata no Congresso era garantia e, na prática, faria com que Lincoln se limitasse a um mandado sem possibilidade de reeleição e empurraria o Partido Republicano para o rodapé dos livros de história, não fossem os fanáticos do extremo sul dos EUA estúpidos ao ponto de iniciar um movimento de secessão e dar aos republicanos a maioria do governo. O governo dos Estados Unidos nos anos 1850 era um grande protetor do regime escravocrata, tendo fortes leis contra a fuga de escravos, a censura de propaganda abolicionista pelo correio e uma mordaça contra debates sobre o assunto no Senado. Assim ele teria continuado, se não fossem os impulsos suicidas das próprias forças pró-escravidão.

Igualmente, é absolutamente estarrecedor que Garfield não perceba a conexão entre a “boa” aquisição da Louisiana, o “erro” que foi a escravidão e o “erro” que foi o Caminho das Lágrimas, a campanha de limpeza étnica promovida no país contra os nativos norte-americanos. O interesse primordial que Jefferson promovia com a compra da Louisiana era o dos agricultores do Velho Sudoeste, que desejavam navegar no rio Mississippi e precisavam de uma saída segura por Nova Orleans para suas exportações agrícolas (por exemplo, de algodão). Exatamente os mesmos agricultores cuja gana pelas terras das cinco tribos civilizadas Andrew Jackson mais tarde acomodaria.

Quanto à “garantia da expansão para o oeste”, por onde começo? Sinceramente, eu não deveria nem ter que chamar a atenção para esse fato, mas havia pessoas que de fato já viviam no território da Louisiana. E os rendimentos da venda foram usados por Napoleão para financiar o massacre em larga escala dos escravos que lutavam por sua liberdade no Haiti.

Garfield, como a maioria ingênua dos social-democratas (chamados “liberais” nos Estados Unidos), elogia medidas governamentais “progressistas” tomadas inteiramente para servir aos interesses de plutocratas e de grandes empresas, como o “pagamento das dívidas da Guerra Revolucionária”, executado por Hamilton. Historiadores de esquerda como Charles Beard e Merrill Jensen têm algo a dizer a respeito da cobrança de impostos de pequenos fazendeiros para pagar as dívidas de guerra por seu valor nominal, no momento em que os ricos especuladores que as portavam as haviam comprado por um valor depreciado, a alguns pence por libra.

A “progressista” Ferrovia Transcontinental talvez tenha sido o maior programa corporativista da história americana, realizado não só através da emissão de dívidas do governo, mas também com a concessão de terras às ferrovias numa área equivalente ao tamanho da França. O crescimento da economia corporativista no final do século 19 e a integração da energia elétrica em fábricas de produção em massa gigantescas – em contraposição a um modelo descentralizado em distritos, como teria ocorrido sem as intervenções – foi resultado direto dos subsídios ao transporte de longas distâncias.

A Lei da Propriedade Rural (em inglês, Homestead Act) não foi um “programa de redistribuição de terras”. Os reais donos das terras ocidentais – isto é, a porção efetivamente vaga de terras que não era ocupada pelos povos nativos – teriam sido os pequenos fazendeiros que as cultivaram sem a permissão de ninguém. Ao invés disso, o governo americano tomou as terras do estado mexicano na cessão de Guadalupe-Hidalgo e permitiu seletivamente que os colonos se estabelecessem em algumas partes dela, mantendo o resto das terras como reserva para rodovias ou para arrendar a preços camaradas para os lobbies das madeireiras, mineradoras, empresas de petróleo e pecuária. Finalmente, a política de terras do governo americano, quando efetivamente permitia a apropriação de terras, simplesmente chancelava o que já aconteceria de qualquer maneira e cobrava uma imposto sobre isso. A maior parte da distribuição de terras foi um programa de assistência a indústrias extrativistas.

A referência à cumplicidade do HSBC com “a lavagem de dinheiro perpetrada pelos cartéis de drogas” é especialmente cômica. Sabem quem mais tem interesse no dinheiro lavado pelos cartéis? A CIA, que o utiliza para operações secretas ao redor do mundo, como o financiamento de grupos de extermínio na América Central.

A justaposição da “proteção contra o terrorismo” e “erros” como os golpes de estado orquestrados pela CIA é particularmente risível. Se não fosse pelo suporte dos EUA a golpes de estado, a ditaduras militares e a grupos de extermínio em todo o mundo – todas ações para proteger as corporações globais das interferências locais – e não fosse o governo americano o maior aliado e financiador do regime de apartheid que ocupa a Palestina desde 1948, não haveria qualquer terrorista de que se defender.

O governo não “protege a população dos monopólios”. Ele cria monopólios ao restringir legalmente a concorrência. Foram projetos de infraestrutura subsidiada como o sistema de ferrovias, de aviação civil (criado inteiramente com recursos estatais) e de rodovias que permitiram que as empresas externalizassem seus gastos de transporte de longas distâncias e custos de atacado, consolidando-se em escala nacional. Foram as leis de “propriedade intelectual” que permitiram que as corporações cartelizassem suas indústrias através da troca e da combinação de patentes (como fizeram a GE e a Westinghouse) e são as patentes e marcas registradas que, atualmente, permitem que corporações transnacionais mantenham controle sobre bens produzidos em manufaturas exploratórias e cobrem 200 dólares por tênis que custam US$ 5 para serem produzidos no Vietnã.

Em um ponto, contudo, Garfield fala uma verdade – que infelizmente ele pensar ser uma coisa boa. Ele se refere ao papel do governo em promover aquilo que ele falsamente chama de “livre iniciativa”, ao fornecer infraestrutura subsidiada e socializar o custo de reprodução de recursos humanos para corporações que pagam salários ridículos. Sim, o governo realmente faz isso. Mas patrocinar a dominação das grandes empresas é um problema.

E quanto a todas as redes de proteção social? Tratam-se de medidas secundárias, muito menores, tomadas para compensar as quantidades absurdas de dinheiro que a classe corporativa extrai dos trabalhadores e consumidores através de seus rendimentos monopolísticos subvencionados pelo estado. As grandes corporações e a plutocracia extraem a riqueza dos trabalhadores, consumidores e pagadores de impostos numa escala sem precedentes, tudo com a ajuda direta e participação do governo dos Estados Unidos – que, então, toma uma pequena parcela dos espólios e repassa uma pequena parte para impedir que a fome e a miséria cheguem a níveis politicamente desestabilizadores e que ameacem a sobrevivência do capítalismo corporativo. Ufa, obrigado, Tio Sam!

O estado é o comitê executivo da classe dominante. Tudo que ele faz de bom para as pessoas comuns é efeito colateral de todo o mal que causa ou é, na verdade, uma tentativa de consertar parcialmente os problemas criados pela promoção dos interesses das grandes corporações que o controlam. Os social-democratas não entendem isso. Já esquerdistas verdadeiros, como os libertários de esquerda, entendem.

Traduzido do inglês para o português por Erick Vasconcelos.

Uno de los periódicos más leídos de Brasil, O Estado de São Paulo, publicó recientemente un par de artículos sobre el 50 aniversario del golpe de estado que instauró un régimen militar en Brasil. Uno de ellos, escrito por un general del ejército (“A árvore boa“, por Rômulo Bini Pereira), ha tenido alguna repercusión debido a su positiva y hasta un tanto acaramelada evaluación de los llamados “años de plomo”. El uso de la frase “revolución democrática” para referirse al golpe militar de 1964 resultó particularmente chocante.

Chocante, pero no soprprendente — los defensores de la dictadura militar siempre han usado la palabra “revolución” por sus connotaciones positivas, y no son los únicos que lo han hecho. De hecho, los libros de historia durante los 21 años del régimen siempre hablaban de la Revolución Democrática de 1964, y ha habido una resistencia de larga data en contra de esta cooptación lingüística de la palabra “revolución” por fuerzas políticas que claramente no tienen nada que ver con ningún tipo de cambio real.

En la misma línea, durante los febriles disturbios en Venezuela contra el gobierno de Nicolás Maduro, el régimen ha acusado a la oposición de “demonizar la revolución”. El meme ha alcanzado al resto de América Latina, y es bastante fácil encontrar denuncias de los reaccionarios anti-Maduro y cartas de amor a la “Revolución Bolivariana”. Es un viejo tema entre los gobiernos socialistas que han alcanzado el poder en el mundo. Cuba ha celebrado su “revolución” continua durante 50 años. La de Venezuela sigue llevándose a cabo desde 1998, y ya con sus dulces dieciséis años cumplidos, sigue siendo subversiva y antisistema.

Es comprensible que los defensores de regímenes claramente opresivos y explotadores quieran vestir a sus ídolos con ropas revolucionarias. Al fin y al cabo, el orden actual está vinculado a todos los problemas sociales que actualmente afectan a la sociedad, y las revoluciones sólo pueden significar la subversión y potencial resolución de estas cuestiones. Así, incluso conservadores obvios como Rômulo Bini Pereira encuentran conveniente etiquetar su forma preferida de gobierno como “revolucionaria”.

Para la izquierda estatista, sin embargo, es un mito fundacional. La izquierda era originalmente el partido del cambio, de la transformación, en contra de las cadenas del Antiguo Régimen. Los corporativistas y socialdemócratas que integran la izquierda estatista hoy en día mantienen ese sentimiento de rebeldía, pero lo enmarcan en una retórica pro-gobierno.

En Brasil, el Partido de los Trabajadores (PT) ha gobernado el país durante 12 años, y sus partidarios de izquierda han tratado de difundir la narrativa de que han sido rebeldes y perseguidos todo el tiempo. Hace unos meses, políticos del PT condenados por corrupción lograron distorsionar tanto el relato de los hechos que prácticamente proclamaron ser presos políticos de sus aliados.

En Venezuela, incluso con el régimen acercándose a dos décadas de gobierno, los chavistas y sus secuaces siguen reclamando ser víctimas de una agenda antirevolucionaria. Y la izquierda estatista latinoamericano no escatima en sus intentos de minimizar la violencia sufrida por la población venezolana, respaldando la versión de que todo se trata de un movimiento orquestado por la élite en contra del progreso social.

Pero eso es una posición esquizofrénica. Regímenes de décadas de antigüedad no pueden ser revolucionarios. El gobierno venezolano (y lo mismo ocurre con muchos otros gobiernos de “izquierda” en América Latina) no es más que la misma vieja oligarquía con nuevas consignas.

La izquierda tiene que decidirse entre mantener su autoimagen rockera o aceptar su disposición a idolatrar el estado. O los izquierdistas se convierten en libertarios de pleno derecho dispuestos a cuestionar el poder de cualquier signo, o salen del armario para admitir ser amantes de la autoridad. No pueden pretender ser las dos cosas a la vez.

Los manifestantes venezolanos sin duda agradecerían a los estatistas revolucionarios que dejaran de justificar los gases lacrimógenos y balazos de goma con que los atacan.

Artículo original publicado por Erick Vasconcelos el 24 de febrero de 2014.

Traducido del inglés por Carlos Clemente.

Anche se forse senza rendersene conto, Amanda Knox, la cittadina americana condannata per omicidio dalle autorità italiane, ha fornito un esempio istruttivo sul significato del privilegio.

Nel 2009 la Knox fu accusata di aver ucciso Meredith Kercher, una studentessa britannica con cui condivideva l’alloggio durante gli studi all’estero. Nel 2011, prima dell’assoluzione in seguito ad appello, la corte costituzionale italiana ordinò il rifacimento del processo. In seguito a ciò, la Knox fu trovata nuovamente colpevole.

Fin dall’inizio, indagini e processo sono stati segnati dalla frenesia dei media. Generalmente parlando, ci sono due partiti opposti: Quelli che pensano che le indagini e il processo siano un’ingiustizia alimentata da anti-americanismo e misoginia, e quelli che pensano che l’oltraggio in sé sia una forma di sessismo al contrario che ignora le prove.

È lo stato italiano che ne fa una vittima e una zoccola? È il pubblico americano che la mette su un piedistallo e le tributa un trattamento speciale per il suo temperamento? È l’una e l’altra cosa?

C’è un’altra storia che non viene detta: Il privilegio influisce sulla giustizia non solo in America, ma particolarmente in America.

In un’intervista a The Guardian il giorno del verdetto, la Knox ha spiegato come dall’inizio del processo la sua vita sia cambiata e come questo abbia influito sulle sue certezze.

“Sono una persona marchiata. Chi non è marchiato non può capire. È come non sapere più dove sono. Qual è il mio ruolo nella società?”

La seconda frase è particolarmente importante. Cosa significa “non essere marchiato”? Questa è la condizione di chi è privilegiato.

Il privilegio si manifesta in diversi modi, ma l’esperienza che produce è sempre la stessa: non essere notati. È più o meno come non notare che non si ha un mal di testa o non notare che non si possiede una mano. In realtà, però, significa non notare il fatto che non si è discriminati, regolarmente, per qualcosa che non si può controllare.

Un altro aspetto del privilegio è la propensione a non credere nella sua esistenza. Chi solitamente non è discriminato, trova difficile credere che altri possano esserlo. Questo porta molti a mettere in questione l’onestà o la salute mentale di chi dice di essere discriminato sulla base del colore della pelle, il sesso, l’orientamento sessuale, l’espressione del proprio genere e altro. O mentono oppure hanno le fantasie.

Un articolo del Guardian del 2011 parla del sospetto che circonda le minoranze e di come la misoginia abbia influenzato il modo in cui la polizia italiana indagò sul caso. L’articolista spiega come gesti e azioni, come baciare il proprio ragazzo o mostrarsi felice, furono usati per determinare la sua colpevolezza. Dice:

“Alla radice del sessismo e del razzismo c’è la tendenza a ipersemplificare la mentalità e le ragioni dell’altro.”

Immaginare i pensieri e i sentimenti reali di una persona osservandola attraverso le lenti di un’opinione predeterminata è la definizione di pregiudizio. L’uso del pregiudizio nella giustizia criminale è chiaramente un problema, e un problema troppo diffuso.

Quello che la Knox sta vivendo è realtà quotidiana per molti negli Stati Uniti, il paese con il più alto tasso di detenzioni al mondo. Le denunce di violenza sessuale contro le donne sono regolarmente trattate con superficialità dalla polizia; uno studio di Human Rights Watch ha rivelato come il 40% delle denunce di stupro non sono oggetto di documentazioni o indagini adeguate. Le persone di colore finiscono dietro le sbarre in proporzione maggiore rispetto ai bianchi: rappresentano il 30% degli arresti ma il 60% della popolazione carceraria.

L’avvocato americano Alan Dershowitz è uno dei critici più duri del tifo sfrenato per Amanda Knox.

“Il sistema giudiziario americano tratta i poveri e le minoranze molto peggio di quanto non faccia l’Italia, perciò non abbiamo proprio alcuna ragione per elevarci e dire agli altri paesi che il loro sistema è ingiusto. Sulla base [delle prove contro la Knox], se non fosse una ragazza attraente – se fosse una persona ordinaria – accusata sulla base di queste prove, qui in America sarebbe stata condannata all’ergastolo o, peggio, alla pena di morte.”

Da notare che, se Dershowitz colpisce nel segno con la prima frase, con la seconda si contraddice. In un’altra intervista ha detto: “A conti fatti, è molto probabile che abbia commesso il fatto, ma non ci sono abbastanza elementi per provarlo oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio.” E si sentì anche in dovere di aggiungere che non avrebbe voluto che suo figlio uscisse con lei. Non è chiaro a chi stesse rispondendo.

La dannazione della Knox è arrivata per mano dello stato italiano. Negli Stati Uniti, se il razzismo è un problema radicato nella cultura e nei comportamenti, le sue manifestazioni sistematicamente più gravi passano attraverso il sistema giudiziario.

Chi dice di essere oltraggiato dal trattamento riservato ad Amanda Knox dovrebbe riflettere sulla natura del privilegio e sull’influenza e il controllo che questo esercita sul complesso industriale carcerario americano. C’è molto da fare.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

The natural question that emerges when one brings up prison abolition is: what would we do about violent crime and similar rights violations? I have several answers to this question.

The first is that I don’t fully know. A free society would involve a diversity of institutions emerging and a market discovery process going on along with various decentralized democratic community experiments, so there’s not going to be one philosopher or economist that predicts in full what’s likely to happen.

That said, I have a pretty strong preference towards moving from criminal law towards civil or tort law, and away from punishment towards restitution.The advantage of civil law over criminal law is that the goal is compensating the victims of crimes and abuses and having that payment serve as a way of holding perpetrators of abuse accountable. This means that addressing harm is the key issue, rather than simply punishing those who violate the commands of the state. Economist and legal scholar David Friedman has done lots of great work on what a society based on purely civil law might look like. For example, I highly recommend this video, where he discusses abolishing criminal law.

The next point is that we see some examples of what prison abolitionist approaches to crime might look like already, because marginalized communities are actively oppressed by and underserved by the criminal justice system. People of color, transgender people, sex workers, immigrants, and sexual assault survivors are all often poorly served or actively oppressed by the criminal justice system. As such, many of them have built up alternatives to the system for dealing with the abuse and violence they suffer. One good example of this is the Audre Lorde Project’s Safe OUTside the System Collective in New York. Victoria Law discusses a few more such examples in her video Resisting Gender Violence Without Cops or Prisons. Still more examples are discussed in Rose City Copwatch’s zine Alternatives to the Police.

The state’s prisons and police do not effectively deal with violence and abuse – they perpetrate violence and abuse. As Dean Spade puts it, “The prison is the serial killer, the prison is the serial rapist.” Recent reports of rampant sexual violence against inmates in prisons like Alabama’s Tutwiler Prison for Women highlight this horrible truth. We must seek to abolish this systemic aggression. But those of us who seek to abolish the state’s systemic violence should also consider how to craft better institutions to defend from the violence the state purports to protect us from.

Com os 50 anos da instalação do regime militar no Brasil, o Estadão recentemnte publicou alguns artigos que falavam sobre as circunstâncias políticas da época. Um deles, escrito por um general do exército brasileiro (“A árvore boa“, de Rômulo Bini Pereira), repercutiu por sua análise positiva e rósea dos anos de chumbo. Particularmente, chamou a atenção seu uso reiterado da frase “Revolução Democrática” para se referir ao golpe que ocorreu em 1964.

Não surpreende – os defensores da ditadura militar sempre fizeram questão de utilizar a expressão “revolução” por suas conotações positivas e eles não estão sozinhos. De fato, os livros de história usados na época da ditadura todos faziam questão de falar na Revolução Democrática e há um longo histórico de combate dessa cooptação linguística pelos opositores do regime.

Analogamente, a Venezuela atualmente ferve com protestos dos opositores do governo chavista de Nicolás Maduro, que os acusa de “demonizar a revolução”. O meme chegou ao resto da América Latina e é possível facilmente encontrar denúncias aos reacionários anti-Maduro e cartas de amor à “revolução bolivariana”. O tema é antigo nos governos socialistas que chegaram ao poder em várias partes do mundo. Cuba há mais de 50 anos celebra sua “revolução”, que aparentemente nunca termina. A da Venezuela acontece desde 1998 e, mesmo chegando em seu 16º ano, continua subversiva e anti-establishment.

É sintomático que defensores de regimes claramente opressores e exploratórios queiram vestir seus ídolos em roupas revolucionárias. A ordem estabelecida, afinal, é associada a todas os problemas sociais que já existem e revoluções só podem significar a subversão e a potencial solução desses problemas. Daí até mesmo óbvios conservadores como Rômulo Bini Pereira rotulam seu regime preferido como revolucionário.

Para a esquerda estatista, porém, trata-se de um mito fundador. A esquerda originalmente era o partido da mudança, da transformação, contra as amarras do antigo regime. Os estatistas que compõem os grupos corporativistas e social-democratas atualmente mantêm sua estética de rebelião, mas a encaixam num molde pró-governo e chapa branca.

No Brasil, mesmo com o PT no governo há quase 12 anos, a esquerda que o apoia consegue nos empurrar a narrativa de que seu domínio foi uma história de perseguição e rebelião. Há pouco tempo, os condenados por corrupção do Mensalão conseguiram a proeza de distorcer a narrativa a ponto de serem considerados presos políticos por sua base de aliados.

Na Venezuela, mesmo com o regime se aproximando das duas décadas, os chavistas e seus comparsas continuam a se fazerem de vítimas de um complô anti-revolucionário. E a esquerda pró-estado latino-americana faz questão de minimizar a violência contra a população venezuelana e de se agarrar à versão de que tudo não passa de um movimento orquestrado por golpistas da elite contrários às pretensas conquistas sociais do regime.

Mas essa é uma posição esquizofrênica da esquerda. Regimes de décadas de idade claramente não são revolucionários e, particularmente, o regime venezuelano (e o mesmo vale para outros regimes “de esquerda” da América Latina) não passa do mesmo domínio oligárquico com novos slogans.

Ou a esquerda mantém sua imagem punk rock ou abraça de fato sua vontade de idolatrar o estado. Ou seja: ou os esquerdistas se transformam libertários e questionam de fato todas as estruturas de poder ou simplesmente saem do armário e se assumem pelegos por vocação.

Não é possível ter as duas coisas. Os manifestantes venezuelanos certamente agradeceriam se os revolucionários estatistas parassem de justificar as bombas de gás lacrimogêneo e as balas de borracha que os atingem.