I just saw the trailer for the new Death Race movie. It looks freaking awesome!
I’ve seen Death Race 2000 and thought it was kind of shitty, but it will always be a classic. It looks like there are no pedestrian bonuses in the remake, but more shooting. Jason Statham should be good in his usual role as criminal and/or man with car.
Looks like fun.
I used to prefer the label “libertarian” to that of “anarchist” because I felt that “libertarian” implied being for the positive good of liberty, while “anarchist” implied simply being against government. This is true to an extent as there are several types of anarchism, but anarchism is more than an anti-position.
Anarchy ought to be regarded a positive state of liberty in which all types of coercion are considered illegitimate, harmful, and to be fought against. It is more than saying “there should be no government.” It is saying that “humans ought to be free.” The disagreements among anarchists largely seem to revolve around what kind of society the latter statement requires, and what constitutes an infringement on liberty. I believe that a state of market anarchism in which individualist entrepreneurs voluntarily trade with each other and with collectives best approaches the libertarian ideal. I also believe that the course of revolution will not exactly follow party lines, and that therefore efforts must be made to address different ideologies.
Strategically, orienting myself around the anarchist rather than libertarian label helps me clarify positions. For example, as chair of the Rutgers Libertarians I always tried to keep a big tent approach (though not the circus tent approach of letting every clown who mentions freedom define our position). It was sometimes difficult to be specific on issues like the existence of a government military or government regulations for government “property,” as I tried to present a minarchist-anarchist consensus or brief list of viewpoints. I feel this consensus approach led somewhat to a lack of direction in my own political thinking. Rather than spin intellectual wheels, it is simpler to say as an anarchist that government has no legitimate property and that the military is a fancy bunch of uniformed thugs financed by stolen money and organized to enforce state interests against their opponents. Clarified ideas lead to clear statements and action.
It can also be said that the libertarian label implies an opposition to certain government action (ie those that initiate force) but implies no specific solution. Rather than simply saying “government shouldn’t do that,” anarchy is a specific alternative. In this way it can be said that “libertarianism” is actually an anti-position while “anarchism” is a positive program. Regardless, all labels are useful at some time because they define positions, but one should focus on the ideas behind that label and not just the name.
I still usually describe myself first as “libertarian” because that is the direction I came from (i.e. I followed the zero-aggression principle to its logical conclusions) and because doing so makes it slightly harder for posers like Barr to connect statist positions I oppose with libertarianism. However, thinking as an anarchist helps me be a more consistent and effective advocate of liberty.
For further reading:
The Death of Politics by Karl Hess
Praxeologically defining market by Brad Spangler
A lot of films referred to as “bad movies” are actually a lot of fun. Surf Nazis Must Die is a prime example of shitty entertainment. But what I’m talking about in this post are movies that really were a waste of my time.
Tremors 3
Yeah, the first two Tremors movies were kinda dumb, but they were entertaining. In the first, giant worms eat people, animals, and cars. In the second, the worms give birth to smaller, faster, land-roving monsters. In the third, the monsters can propel themselves through the air by igniting gas from their rectums, giving them the name “ass blasters.” I’m not kidding. Even Burt Gummer, the recurring survivalist character, couldn’t save this one. They seem to have made a fourth Tremors movie. I’m not rushing to see it.
The Passion of the Christ
I almost forgot about this one, but it was the first to come to mind when I needed a sixth movie to make the title alliterative. It basically shows Jesus getting tortured with a few flashbacks thrown in. The Passion is as ridiculous as Christianity and will hopefully go away much sooner.
Cube
A bunch of strangers find themselves inside a giant complex of nearly identical cubes with no idea how they got there. As the plot unfolds, the flaws of the characters are revealed and are probably supposed to signify something more than the writers’ personal problems. It is suggested that in some way we may all be responsible for the cube. I can only hope that I am not partially to blame for movies this shitty.
Saw
It made a lot of money, spawned sequels, and was crap. If you like to see people suffer for any reason other than being the bad guy in the movie, you might like this one. It also helps if you like twists that are only twists because they are totally illogical, or believe a medical doctor wouldn’t be able to tell that a guy laying a few feet from him for hours isn’t dead.
The Patriot
I’m not talking about the historically playful and overdramatic Mel Gibson shoot-em-up. That was actually pretty cool. Thankfully forgotten is a Stephen Segal movie of the same name that came out two years earlier. A stereotypical militia leader (fat, white, hairy, ignorant, and murderous) unleashes a virus in some town, which Segal’s character finds out can be cured by a certain flower petal. The best way they think to distribute the cure to the population turns out to be dropping loose flower petals onto the town from aircraft.
Hero
Jet Li normally kicks ass in movies, but in this one he listens to the king he is supposed to kill praise himself, then walks outside to be executed. I didn’t know a movie could make me so angry. Maybe I should just accept that it’s heroic to believe kings who say they kill and rule so other people can live peacefully (i.e. almost all of them). Maybe someone can make a movie about Stalin with this theme. He did have such a photogenic mustache.
Recently the governor of Illinois proposed the use of military helicopters to fight gang violence in Chicago. Not much earlier, DC announced that the local standing army would block off certain neighborhoods and check people entering to decide if they belong there.
Social control of this level is the logical consequence of giving the state responsibility over the lives of individuals. Both cities are notorious for their outright handgun bans, making them national leaders in taking responsibility for safety away from individuals. The increasing police state mentality in the US affects them most noticeably. Unwilling to release their hold on the population, the only solutions they can conceive are those that project more government force into the situation. Predictably, one state program leads to another that addresses the problems the former created, and other factors will be blamed for this supposed necessity.
Urban violence seems to present a challenge for agorism, as those who participate in state-banned economic activity are often engaging in violence that usually cannot be justified by libertarian principles. Between these red market coercive enterprises and state crackdowns, counter-economic ventures may have little room to grow. But challenges often present opportunities. Counter-economic agencies could protect people from gang violence. Such agencies would help the local economy by their involvement in it and their protection of peaceable trade and movement. They should recruit locally to get firm ties with the community and local knowledge that is best attained by spending time in an area. And of course, the Zero Aggression Principle must be adhered to.
I’ve been working on more of the same lately, but there are some things going on.
I’m trying to broaden my work to include more non-political stuff.
I am working on solutions to political problems, which you can now view on the LeftLibertarian2 Yahoo group.
A New Jersey Alliance of the Libertarian Left might emerge this summer. Email me if you are interested – darianworden-at-gmail-dot-com.
I’m now selling ad space on my blog and main page. Starting at $10 for a month. Really cheap.
And of course I am trying to sell my work – note the Bring a Gun to School Day ad on the sidebar.
I had two short stories on my hard drive that really weren’t helping me by sitting there unpublished. I just made them available on my fiction page. No payment is required to download them but I’d really appreciate a PayPal’ed tip for my efforts. If I get enough revenue from this I will probably write and post more.
Today is not a day to celebrate nationalism. Today is a day to celebrate revolution. Though separation from Britain was declared, and therefore the nation began, on July 2, 1776, it was on the Fourth that the Declaration of Independence was adopted. The day to celebrate the founding of a new government was two days ago. Today is for celebrating the principles found in a declaration of human liberty.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…”
The legitimacy of political power was held as something to question. Whether or not we would institute new government, or would capitalize Creator, the most important political document of this continent holds revolution as a sacred right. Discarding tyranny is actually considered a duty:
“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
The social and philosophical implications of the Revolution are often downplayed. Yes, a military campaign successfully separated one people from another, but the effects were deeper. The questioning of power, and the building of a new world had a profound influence on politics in the West. Though it took decades for the rights of certain people to be recognized, the doctrine of individual liberty was given a kickstart during the Revolutionary era. The success of the war proved that revolution was possible and that seeking liberty was desirable. A century of revolutions commenced.
Later radicals worked in the environment of revolution that had been prepared by the 1776 Americans. Benjamin Tucker said “The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that ‘the best government is that which governs least,’ and that which governs least is no government at all.” The 1770’s revolution in political thought paved the way for further attacks on power and privilege.
Events since 1776 have shown that any form of government is destructive to the security of rights. The people retain the right to alter or abolish it.
Taxation without representation is a common reason given to schoolkids for the Revolution. Who is really represented in congress these days? Powerful interests. Even if they were the only ones directly taxed, the burden of payment would be passed onto the customers who do business with them in their privileged position. Taxation actually encourages poor representation. Money is taken regardless of performance.
Are there complaints found in the Declaration of Independence that have relevance today?
“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
“He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”
It might sound strange for the first complaint of revolutionaries to be the refusal to pass laws. But remember that when sovereignty is claimed over a people, the sovereign ought to have a responsibility to take care of them. Sovereigns are always quick to claim responsibility, but they always end up simply hindering the ability of the people to be responsible for themselves.
“(…)He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.”
Today’s governments establish unsustainable situations and then act to confine people to those who claim control of them. A dynamic economy requires free movement of people.
“(…)He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
“For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
“For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;”
The recent case of NYPD officers getting away with murdering Sean Bell is only a particularly visible example of the abuses that the standing army known as law enforcement agencies commit with few consequences.
“For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;”
Barriers to trade, as well as government-managed trade, prevent the international market from being free.
“For imposing taxes on us without our consent;”
There it is! Taxation without consent. How many people really want taxes to be raised? The money generally goes to cronies, corruption, and tyrannical enforcement.
“For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;”
The criminal justice system is a machine for punishment and profit. Jury power, a traditional check on government abuse, has all but been discarded.
“(…)For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;”
Habeas Corpus anyone?
“(…)He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.”
Weapons laws that make it harder for people to protect themselves are enforced by armed agencies with no legal responsibility to protect you. They usually arrive too late to help crime victims anyway.
As we see, “A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
The Declaration, of course, had to satisfy the many conflicting interests of the different founders. For a more radical 1776 attitude, we can look at Thomas Paine’s wonderful Common Sense. If you haven’t read this essay in its entirety I suggest you do so.
Paine attacks the mystique of the “crowned ruffians” as he called them:
“England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones, yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It certainly hath no divinity in it.”
This was a revolutionary rejection of an institution considered critical for social harmony.
Just as monarchy may have once seemed a good idea, republicanism seemed a good idea in Paine’s time. However the advancements and lessons of history have made the republican ideal obsolete. It is time to abolish government and provide new guards for future security.
Today I celebrate the liberty I have and consider the sacrifices of those who have worked for it. But I realize that liberty is not something a person passively receives. It must be taken for oneself.
“O! Ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth!” – T Paine
