Power to the People?

The Draft issue has raised its ugly head, yet again.  I was looking at old protest footage from the early 70s with an audio track of Lennon’s “Power to the People”.  Inspiring.   Compare that time with our time today.

The left was the spearhead the 60’s movement.  When Abbie Hoffman organized youth rallies to burn their draft cards, they were chanting phrases like “hell no, we won’t go”.  The protest wasn’t against the draft, per se; it was against the war and the military industrial complex. 

In the early 80s after the LP collapsed under the weight of debt from the Clark/Koch campaign, my college friends in Delaware decided to keep building the “movement.”  We came across an anti-draft pamphlet written by Jeffrey Hummel (compatriot of Murray Rothbard), made a new cover with the SLS logo on it (Students for a Libertarian Society… a play on the 60’s “SDS” anti-draft movement), and photocopied hundreds on a school copier and passed them out all over the U of D campus.

Thinking back, the argument we put out wasn’t “hell no, we won’t go”, but that “the draft violates the 13^th Amendment”.  We held a few small rallies against Reagan’s draft registration.  We argued that the draft, as all compulsory service, was the foundation for “statism”, blah blah, blah—you get the picture.

Point is that the left burned draft cards in protest to the war and the military industrial complex, and modern C4L rallies of Ron Paul scream to our youth about the Constitution and the merits of Anarchy.  So does the entire right wing, when it suits them.

The radical left was always for a draft—and not just for military service.  It is seen as a way to make military service “fair” and not just for poor people.  It is the citizen army concept that pre-dates Das Kapital by 2000 years.  Nixon took away their thunder by declaring the AVF, All-Volunteer Force, which serves the military industrial complex just fine.

A recent email by Alan Grayson, whom I consider a true patriot, outlines the logic of the radical left and causes me to question their vision.  Yes, it makes sense that 2 trillion spent on wars could fund a new CCC in all its modern, multi-branded forms.  However, taking the model of Bureaucracy to its logical conclusion, in my opinion, is no better vision than that of the neo-libertarian anarchists of today.

I remain against compulsory service, and I remain against any draft.  But more importantly, I remain against the wars and the military industrial complex that has blighted our planet and enslaved our people.  Government should protect the people.  The only “national interest” is the people under protection of our sovereignty, not the private ventures of capital and ambition.

As with Ron Paul, I’ll go so far with Alan Grayson to include stopping the wars and ending the military industrial complex.  I’ll even go further and praise Grayson for his stand on the public option and for single-payer Medicare for all.  But recruiting 2 million workers for the Peace Corp, and the This Corp and That Corp, all those new uniforms!  Sorry, too “Starship Troopers” for me.

You want to bring jobs back to the US?  Raise tariffs to 35%.  Bam; done.

You want alternative energy to thrive?  It would happen naturally as America was cut off from oil.  After all, that’s what the wars are really about, aren’t they?  Add our military budget to our energy consumption and you have a good idea what oil is REALLY costing America.

Yes, I want fairness in the current income tax code.  Instead of “tax credits” which benefit the wealthy and force middle class investment into narrow directions such as “real estate” or “education”, a single deduction of $40,000 for all citizens would be much more “fair”, with a linear rate after that.  Thus, a person making $50,000 would pay x% of $10,000.  No write-offs for depreciation or tax havens.

Simple and fair.  And I haven’t discussed the Currency issue yet J

Yes, I’m with Grayson on the Banks issue too.  I’d like to be on Ron Paul’s side, since I would also like to “end the fed”, but any serious look at his proposals to do so are just wrong, wrong, wrong.  Grayson wants to regulate the banks, and I’d like nothing more than to haul their CEO’s into public court, committee hearings be damned!

Then again, Alan Grayson isn’t campaigning on every college campus in America.  Ron Paul is.  Who will lead the rebellion of America?  Whose policies will rise to the top?

Look around and see.  Look at the Middle East today, look at the Mediterranean Basin, from Algeria to Israel to Greece to Spain.  Look at Indonesia, and South America, Mexico.  Look at what corporate and banking interests have done to our world.

Egypt still has no democracy as of this writing.  It is being run by a junta, financed by outside “national interests”.  The people rise against corruption and are left with what?  Somalia?  The very Libertopia that Ron Paul ultimately advocates?  It is that world, not Grayson's, that will come to pass over America and across the Earth.

Unless we stop them, here at the heart of darkness, America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_CmkfdPQyg

Arguing with Anarchists

You took my jacket!  Give it back!

  What?

My jacket.  You stole it.  Give it back.
 
   I didn't take your jacket.

Yes you did.  Now give it back, or I'll come to your house and start taking stuff.

  I have two friends, Smith and Wesson, say you won't.

Well, my gang is bigger than your gang.  Give me back my jacket now, or else!

Herein lies the absurdity of the NIF Principle, the "non-initiation of force" argument that claims to be at the pinnacle of neo-libertarian thought.

Obviously, this is where the "minarchists" come in, claiming that government should have a limited role in resolving just this situation.  There is no principle of minarchism though that would prevent such a government from being unjust in resolving the dispute listed above.

Some point to the DRO idea (I have no idea what that stands for, but it's basically a mercenary insurance company) and say that common people would "join" their protection company.  So, how's that different from every other petty monarchy or street gang throughout human history?

I had the opportunity in 1985 to ask Murray Rothbard a question.  I asked that, since he believed that everything should be privatized, including courts and military, shouldn't we, as the Libertarian Party, start resolving other issues on how we would address things like habeus corpus, bans on torture, etc.?

And at that point, aren't we discussing a Social Contract?  i.e. Government?

Most people read the NIF principle and think, at first, that it means we don't advocate political violence.  Of course, anarchists strongly believe in the ability to retaliate, to use force after it has been initiated.  So, any excuse for violence is justified if you can argue that the other person started it.

Taking their argument to the next level, anarcho-folks argue that the State is, by it's nature, the initiation of force.  By that logic, it's no-holds barred on what to do about it, and violent revolution becomes some fantasy.

Sorry kids, I'm not in your club.  Government should protect people without violating their rights.  It can be done, too, without this touchstone of ideological BS.

And don't think I didn't forget:  I want my jacket back!

Liberty or Pie? An Esoteric Rant Against the Austrians

Veterans support Ron Paul.  There is no question.  End the Wars.

But Ron Paul is certainly no Phil Ochs.  He has a deep ideological position on economic theory.  At the core of that theory is Austrian Economics as taught by the Mises Institute.

Do we care?  Ron Paul has no more ability to win the Republican primary than Eugene McCarthy could have won at the Democratic convention of 1968 in Chicago.  What will his followers do?

We run into RP fans every day; well, at least I do.  Facebook, Youtube and elsewhere is packed with standardized ideology rooted to the Mises Institute and the Lew Rockwell blog.

There has been a web of conservative "think tanks" that have resonated on the frequencies of national discourse:  Cato, AFP, FreedomWorks, Heritage Foundation, you name it.  It goes even deeper into the fringe "recruiting" areas of right-wing radio.

This is why I try to be tolerant of Ron Paul fans.  They want to go outside and change the world.  That's a good thing.

However, I am concerned.  I'm concerned that the economic policies he reflects are the dangerous, right-wing policies of "anarcho-capitalism", the very definition of Plutocracy.

That's right:  Plutocracy.  Not "Liberty" as they claim to own the term.

Any cursory review of corruption in government today points to a near absolute control of our legislatures by, let's say, "corporations".  Money rules.  America has the best government money can buy, and we are being led to Serfdom by it.

While conservatives believe that reducing regulation and taxation is good, the Austrians believe that ending them would be better.  They see the State as the tool of serfdom, and argue that true freedom can only mean "every man a king".

Owners of the Republican Party are currently using this logic.  And they have so thoroughly corrupted our nation's governments, top to bottom, that public support for government itself is waning.  So too throughout the world, and for that matter, Obama.

The street soldiers of the Ron Paul campaign are rightfully concerned.  They know things are coming down to something big.  And they all march and celebrate.  They go outside and speak the message:  a Libertarian message.

The message?  End the Wars and End the War on Drugs.  That's what people are hearing, and that's enough for many to say "Ron Paul 2012".

Sounds good.  Count me in!

Then there is the second, deeper layer of activism that calls for an End to Welfare, an End to Taxes and an End to the State itself.  "R-LOVE-UTION!!!"

What?  On second thought, count me out.

At the very top of this ideological pyramid, that's where the "web of conservative think tanks" resides, like some Greek Gods of Reason.  They really, really piss me off.

The Austrian School is simply wrong on many important issues.  I say "wrong" because I believe that plutocracy is wrong, and that government should protect the people.  I'm a libertarian because I believe government can protect the people without violating their rights.

In fact, I think that government should be concerned with more than just civil protection and infrastructure, but also with social welfare.  There is nothing evil in this position.  It isn't socialism.  It isn't statism.  It isn't heresy.

On the contrary, the root "moral" argument of the Mises Institute is invalid.  The Non-Initiation of Force (NIF) principle is at the core of the Rothbardian, Lew Rockwell theory of Libertopia (which I see more as either Somalia or Bahrain).

The nullifcation of the NIF principle is in the rights of land ownership.   Land claims are held by force, so the anarcho-capitalist claim of "allodial title" to land is absurd.  Your claim is just your claim, and it's backed by a gun.  Some Indian walks by and what, you shoot him?  That's your big plan?  Fail.

Oh yes, in defense of Property you would allow for a "minimal state", a limited government to secure pesky issues like land title (and those damned Indians).  Bottom line "anarcho-dude", you're owned on this issue.

And who wants to hear that chatter on the FB feed anyway?  I certainly don't.

I try to hold back.  But to those annoying types who keep posting "liberty stuff" about ending Social Security and Medicare and mimic virtually every radical Republican talking point on economic issues, they need to be confronted.

I need to make it clear that (1) I'm a libertarian, and (2) that government should protect the people.  Sure, let's end the Fed, but let's do it right.  Gold standard and unregulated banking isn't Liberty, it's the foundation of plutocracy-- for some, serfdom for the rest.

Democracy isn't granted; it is demanded.  It is the corruption of government that must end,  not the government itself.  We need a functioning social contract endorsed by the general population.  We need to reclaim our sovereignty.  Anarchy IS NOT AN OPTION. 

The people need to win back their control of government, to BE the government.  We need to organize to do that, and not follow some cult leader into the abyss of right-wing ideology.

We need issues settled:  currency, taxation, civil protection, infrastructure and social welfare.  Let's settle them before we move down that merry road of civil breakdown.

Government should protect the people; and if we cannot protect the people, then serfdom is our lot.

My motto is LIBERTY.
or PIE... haven't decided yet.

"Tea Party and the New Bolshevism"

The world today is rising in revolution. It will wash on our shores, and when the flood collapses the confidence of the US Government, a new order will rise.

In order to compare the Tea Party and Bolshevism, it is first important that these terms be defined.  I am referring to the marketing side of these movements, and not to the participation side.

It is presumed here that (1) both movements were well financed, (2) they will both follow a flag, and that (3) any “new order” will be born of “citizens” (in the Heinlein sense), loyal to the Founders.

I should note that I’m not making comparison with either the American Revolution nor the rise of Nazi Germany as they are so overplayed and really not as interesting.

The Tea Party is a fiction created as any pop star is created. You have money, then you have friends. Millions of dollars into really glossy brochures, buttons and signs, get in the Keysey bus and ride across America singing “Born to be Wild”… this can create an impact.

And mega millions were dumped into this media blitz that has persisted for 2 years. Who pays for the ride? The same people that paid for Bolshevism on the docks of St. Petersburg. Well, not the same-same people, but you get my point.

Consider what’s happening throughout the world, at the same time this little parade show is going on here in the US. If you think the IMF and EU are having problems, how long before the virus reaches the system core? And who will come out on top in the end?

The secret is in the propaganda that they have been selling to us, the principles and rhetoric of ‘conservatism’. This includes the rhetoric of ‘anarchism’, ‘anarcho-capitalism’, and other cult beliefs. The programmes they have written will become the lexicon of the new order, just as bolshevism established ownership of the USSR.

This is not about religion. In fact, the uprisings throughout the world have nothing to do with religion, a far cry from the wars of the Middle Ages. The Tea Party, however, has a big God component, and has been dominated by the old religious right since its inception.

The Tea Party will not lead the uprisings in America. It will simply organize. I am betting that they will develop this idea in 2012, and if the country breaks into rebellion, it will maintain nationwide authority of….

The same people that provided the enthusiasm, the Hope, the call to arms, and put the Bolsheviks in power.. Banking Interests! It is no small consideration that Gold Standard is at the core of conservative economic theory, and that it serves the interests of Wealth.

The Bolsheviks put in power a Socialist Republic, with State control over all aspects of the economy. What sort of Republic would a corporate takeover of the US look like? Whatever the fantasy model is, you can bet it will have control over all aspects of the economy.

Now, the levels of conservative rhetoric go from Theocracy to Anarchy. Those ideas are more similar IMO than they are separate, but that’s another topic. Do you think any part of this babbling we hear day by day (of which I’m a part) about government is going to matter when America looks like Egypt does today?

Actually, I’d like to think it does. I’d like to think that we’re smart enough as common people to think for ourselves, to figure out what’s right and wrong, and to agree to certain ideas of social order. We don’t need Dr. Strangelove to save our society after a collapse.

And we don’t need the Tea Party to guide us into the next phase of civilization.

Unions: The Real Issue

There is a lot of hatred toward unions.  Libertarians have a difficult time dealing with the issue and are easily lured into conservative thinking here.  Is the issue wages?  Budget constraints?  Working conditions?

There is one single function that unions serve to their members:  protection from wrongful termination.  An employer can fire, at-will, any person they hire unless they have a union contract.  The right of collective bargaining is the only protection these workers have.

I am not in a union.  Most people aren't.  Most people don't have this protection.  The ability of business owners and government managers to use termination as a means of intimidation cannot be understated.  The freedom of speech ends when your boss tells you to shut up, stop your political activities, or to support a particular agenda.

All of which has happened to me in my lifetime.

This threat is not possible in a union shop.  It is the primary reason that the civil service unions are under attack today.  The ability of a governor to terminate, without cause, civil service employees for their private or political activites is by-definition "tyranny".

The argument that union employees cannot be fired is simply not true.  Any reasonable cause can lead to the termination or suspension of any employee.  An unreasonable cause, however, is not so much a threat to a union employee as it is to the rest of us who are not unionized.

I have always found this condition of our society something that should be changed.  I cannot help but wonder if there is any true freedom when our livlihoods can so easily be threatened.

Honestly, I don't care so much about unions as I do about what they represent to their employees:  protection from unjust termination.  I would hope that in a better world, such protections would extend to each person, high and low.  It is something to consider.

In the military, soldiers are subjected to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  In that code rests the ability of the command chain to discipline individual troops.  Also in that code are some protections to limit the abuse of this judicial process for corrupt purposes.

A typical worker in our society has no such protections.  The only consolation prize they get is 6 months of unemployment benefits in exchange for the possibility of being secretly blacklisted.

"In the space below, please list your previous employers..."

The bottom line:  I stand with unions, including civil service unions, in their right to collectively bargain.  Yes, I recognize that government unions bargain, not against the profitability of a company, but against the taxing power of government.  But this is another issue entirely. 

I would never support a political party that sought to strip away protections against wrongful termination.  I would hope to support a party that would extend this protection to everybody.

Intimidation is not liberty.  Fear is not freedom.  A good businessman would recognize this.

Five Essential Reasons I Oppose Ron Paul

There are many good arguments for ignoring or even opposing Ron Paul on grounds that he is a Republican, and that supporting Paul is to support, indirectly, the modern Republican gang.

But this isn't my reason for opposing Ron Paul. I oppose him on policy. Not tiny little issues like DOMA or Abortion or this-and-that. These are core policy issues that drive me to oppose him openly, verbally, and with every fiber of my being.

And I'm a Libertarian.


1. Civil Liberty.

Ron Paul says he is for civil liberty. This is not true. He believes in privatization of everything, and that private businesses have a right to discriminate for any reason whatsoever. If roads were privatized, the "road company" could deny access to travel for any reason. This is not civil liberty.

I am all for a reasonable discussion about private employment rights.  They certainly don't exist today.  And it's the lack of such protections that made ideas like Unions and Affirmative Action important parts of our history.  It would be nice not to need unions or affirmative action.  Paul would like to simply get rid of any protections whatsoever.  This is not civil liberty.

It is good that he argues against prohibition. It is good that he argues against arrest for non-violent actions. This doesn't means he stands for civil liberty.


2. Monetary Reform.

Ron Paul says he wants to "End the Fed". He says nothing about ending fractional reserve lending (banking privilege, aka "fraud"), or ending the privatization of currency that exists NOW under the central banking system. He just wants to end the federal bank and let state banks do what they want.

He also claims that a gold standard is prescribed in the US Constitution. It is not. In fact, a gold standard is arguably NOT constitutional. William Jennings Bryan tried to oppose the central banks prior to 1913. Ron Paul is certainly no Bryan.

Real monetary reform is an important issue for me, rooted to American history and our national struggle, our world struggle, against enslavement to central banks.  I will not allow him and the Austrian School to crucify mankind on a cross of gold.

(Edit, 2013:  This was posted before I had heard of MMT, which I'm following now)


3. Social Welfare.

Ron Paul says he wants to end Medicare and Social Security, all activities that aren't authorized by the constitution (in his mind). This is crap, and his followers mimick this drivel on every facebook and youtube post in America.

The only argument against social welfare is taxation.  Resolve the tax issue and there's no reason not to include social welfare (i.e. safety net or whatever) into public policy.

Never mind endless arguments over USC Article 1 Section 8.  Never mind trying arguing that, by definition, Medicare isn't "socialism".  They will not budge, and raise their bible in hand as if they are the only ones privy to the Holy Word. Idiots.


4. Foreign Policy.

Ron Paul says we should never involve ourselve in foreign affairs. He's the conservative who wants to adopt an isolationist foreign policy. While I agree to a large extent, it is a very naive view to think that the US has spread the plague of world poverty and oppression.

There are sound reasons to intervene in the "affairs" of other nations.  This should not be done by volunteers as it has with the IRA or in the Spanish Civil War.  It should not be done by corporations hiring death squads in El Salvador or Columbia.  We should not be a nation of mercenaries.

And I will not trade "End the Wars" for "End Welfare". They are two completely different issues. If people can't see that, they are probably Ron Paul supporters.


5. States Rights and the Constitution.

This "Revolution", the R-Love-ution, that Paul is building is not the 1776 version; it's the 1861 version. The oppression of a State is no different than the oppression of a Federal government. And in cases where States are in the wrong, it is the responsibility for the other states, through the Nation, to resolve the problem.

Rights are universal, to all human beings. Sovereignty is of the Nation, not the individual States. The South may be rising again, but I will be on the side of Union.

----------

These are not simple policy differences that I should simply ignore in exchange for some higher "message" or "movement". These are core issues that affect the millions of people being oppressed by bad government.

Government is not evil; corruption is. When government is controlled by plutocrats, by a covert aristocracy, by corporations or banking interests, then it is corrupted.

I am convinced that the whole of Ron Paul's C4L movement exists to pull young and poor people into the Republican fold, to offer pie in the sky (like ending military intervention and legalizing pot) in exchange for moral, grassroots support of deregulating and removing taxes from the richest 1% of Americans (i.e. Republican policies).

Libertarians need to get their heads out of their asses and understand truly who they're supporting and what they're doing. In my opinion, these Ron Paul supporters are fighting for the wrong people. They're certainly not fighting for me.

“Eternal Vigilance: How to Coup a National Libertarian Party”

This idea came to mind back in 1985 when I tried to stress, at the time, the fragility of the national LP organization design. The whole party was based on a charter, and in that charter laid the key to its own undoing.

If you control the delegate count at the national convention, you control the LP. Some issues take 2/3 vote. The national “Statement of Principles” requires a 7/8 vote. It all depends on what you want to do, how far you want to go.

Controlling the delegate count means controlling state parties. The delegate count is huge… way more than actually attend, so control of a minority of state parties is all that’s necessary to control the LNC and its affairs.

In 1985, I put a price tag of $100,000 to take over the national Libertarian party. Today, an easy million would do the trick. “Small pataytas” in the world of politics.

The key flaw is in the definition of “membership”. The LP isn’t set up like a normal political party. It’s set up like a local Lions Club. Membership dues doesn’t carry with it any other loyalty whatsoever. There are plenty of Republicans in the national LP, even in high level positions.

Take the Pennsylvania LP for example: “Membership” is still based on dues, and has nothing to do with actually registering to vote as a Libertarian. While 39,000 people are listed as registered libertarians in PA, only a few hundred are dues-paying members, many not registered or even residents of the state!

Let’s say I’m some rich guy wanting the national LP nomination, and let’s assume for a moment that I’m a dishonest man. (“Assume away”, as Zero Mostel said in The Producers). I would have to control the delegate count to accommodate a majority on the floor of the national Convention, and get people to fill those seats there and voting.

I think buses would be a good feature. Something like what Dick Armey or Sarah Palin has. You know…

The national LP today survives on its own insignificance. If the national LP were to have any real significance whatsoever in national policy making (other than being a lackey for the Republican party), it would quickly be purchased on Wall Street from a company like Montana Management.

This is not a prospectus! It is a warning to my fellow Libertarian activists that we are vulnerable. When we cast off sound policies of democracy over public policy, when we allow plutocracy to rule our political affairs, we are servants to the lenders.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty? I’m down with that. Let’s take a good look at the true, real-life, actual “alternative” we are presenting to the People, and take some ideas from our founders on the merits of a democratic republic over central authority.

I hope fellow members of my Pennsylvania LP (and across the US) take note of this issue and consider more closely the issue of "membership" and the broader issue of "democracy".