Sheldon Richman’s outstanding “Capitalism Versus the Free Market” lecture can be viewed online courtesy of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
The talk very effectively explains crucial economic and political history and theory. It will positively contribute to any viewer’s understanding and advocacy of liberty.
I recently read Antony Beevor’s The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. It’s a worthwhile read for anyone interested in this period of history. It brings together the political, military, and social history of the war and places it in context with the era’s European politics. This is a complex task, and Beevor succeeds. Helpful maps and pictures are included.
The Battle For Spain includes the roles of the Durruti Column and the CNT-FAI, but since they are woven into the rest of narrative, this might not be the best book for a specifically anarchist study. It certainly will provide a solid basis for understanding the war. The only objection to the work I can think of at the moment is that people new to the history might have trouble keeping up with the acronyms and names, but it shouldn’t be too difficult to remember their context.
My latest commentary can be viewed at Center For a Stateless Society.
When people focus too much on icons of the past – like a famous Tea Party – the lessons that history contains become obscured. People who believe they are against government power can be led into supporting more power if they don’t look for alternatives to rulers…(read more)
ALLiance Journal recently posted a Utah Phillips quote on class relations. I like that Phillips clarifies that class is based not on income but on whether or not one controls his workplace – the struggle is less about wealth than it is about the freedom to produce it. However, the distinction he makes would seem to place the self-employed outside of the working class. Also, as an old quote, it does not specifically say how to categorize the vast numbers of managers who have command, but not ownership of a workplace but still answer to a boss. The work done in drawing out an Agorist Class Theory might be a useful complement here.
Reason Magazine’s article Class War is certainly a worthwhile read concerning government employees’ privileges that the rest of us are forced to pay for. But I wish it spelled out the differences between unions that operate through government force and unionism in general. By focusing on the damage done by certain unions, the article might leave the inexperienced reader with the impression that any time workers organize they are seeking advantages they don’t deserve at the expense of the general public. And while I certainly don’t want cops or bureaucrats making money, a lengthy article called “class war” that does not address privileged business interests is a little misleading on the nature of current power relations.
Of course, as someone who does not idealize the “free society envisioned by the Founders” as Greenhut does, the inability of the state to keep providing what it has promised is less of a crisis than it is a strategic factor. How can we encourage defections toward a consensual society, and thwart those who want authoritarian privilege to continue?
Whether labeled public or private, rich or poor, the important question for me is “What are you doing in your life, in your situation, to advance the liberty of all individuals?” Subvert authority at every opportunity.
Says Wikipedia:
The Blyskawica (Lightning) was a submachine gun produced by the Armia Krajowa, or Home Army, a Polish resistance movement fighting the Germans in occupied Poland. A successful construction, it was most probably the only weapon designed and mass produced covertly in occupied Europe.
Ignorance plus arrogance equals fail:
Calling an anti-constitution advocate a Libertarian is Sophistry and muddies the water for the sake of,…What? Sorry to those who want otherwise, but the label is taken, find another.
Long Title: “Why The Law of Equal Liberty is a better starting point for libertarian thought than The Zero Aggression Principle (a rough draft & exploration)”
One could use the Zero Aggression Principle (AKA Non-Aggression Principle) to determine acceptable action, but its language confuses issues and leads to harmful associations. The Law of Equal Liberty (AKA Formula of Equal Freedom), described by Herbert Spencer in the mid 19th century, seems a better way to formulate the requirements and boundaries of liberty.
The exact wording of the Zero Aggression Principle differs among its proponents, but L. Neil Smith describes it like this:
no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever
Admittedly, I have read very little of Herbert Spencer (whom Roderick Long often defends from defamation). Clarence Lee Swartz’s 1927 work What is Mutualism didn’t convince me to go mutualist, but it did make me more favorable toward Spencer’s formulation of liberty. On Page 21 of the Invisible Molotov version, Swartz bases liberty on Spencer’s formula, which he describes thusly:
That every man may claim the fullest liberty to do as he wills compatible with the possession of like liberty by every other man.
The Law of Equal Liberty is otherwise written as:
Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of every other man.
Here is why I think the Law of Equal Liberty (LEL) is more useful in acting for liberty than is the Zero Agression Principle (ZAP).
1) ZAP requires defining force in a way that does not mean physical force, but instead coercion. Pushing a person out of harm’s way does not violate his liberty if he does not want to be harmed. Shooting a terrorist who hasn’t hurt anyone yet but threatens to is likely acceptable because the terrorist is attempting to coerce – even though the first act of physical force would be by the person who shot him in defense. So saying that you oppose the initiation of force means you have some explaining to do. With the LEL it is clearer that you may do as you will to stop a person from doing something that is incompatible with the liberty of others.
2) ZAP must be stretched if it can apply to using force against those who have initiated force in the past, or have stated their intentions and shown the ability to initiate force. Does a state of “force initiation” exist once coercion has been used until restitution is made? I do not see this problem with LEL.
3) Using force against an individual who you haven’t seen use force but is a member of a deadly organization is agreeable to liberty and to individualism, but it would seem to violate ZAP. It is likely that many members of Nazi death squads didn’t personally shoot unarmed people (see Ordinary Men) but one could not expect a resistance fighter to make the distinction. An individual can choose to identify as a member of a harmful organization, and if he can be reasonably expected to know that the organization is a threat to others then force can be used against him.
4) Anti-segregationist sit-ins on private property and Bash Back disruptions of church services can be said to initiate force by occupying property that doesn’t belong to individuals who have initiated force. But the targets of these actions have violated liberty by joining with a system based on physical oppression. It is unreasonable to think that someone can help people murder then be immune from the consequences on his property as if it were “base” in a game. Thinking in this way requires drawing lines between what is and is not acceptable, but hard work is no excuse for failing to adopt good principles.
From a LEL standpoint, those who bolster oppression by creating spaces where some people are regarded as inferior to others (and therefore thought of as acceptable targets for violence) are assisting the violation of people’s liberty. One could call their activity aggression, but it again seems that you would need to redefine the way most people think of aggression, and I don’t see why this is necessary when a better principle exists.
5) The Law of Equal Liberty uses more positive language (“claim the fullest liberty to do as he wills”), while ZAP has more restrictive connotations (“no one has the right, under any circumstances”). The libertarian project can be thought of as the creation of a world in which liberty is maximized. The LEL is more compatible with this mentality.
6) The ZAP suggests a defensive posture resembling that of conservatism, but the LEL suggests equality.
Both 5 and 6 might contribute to the right-wing flavor that the American free-market libertarian movement often has. Those who start with the desire for ultimate freedom limited only by the equal freedom of others might be less attracted to ZAP than to LEL. Those who start with the desire to set the rules that must be dogmatically adhered to might be more attracted to ZAP than LEL.
The ZAP may also be responsible for the perception among free-market libertarians that all politics is about using force to restrict behavior. The ZAP addresses only the use of force, and therefore every discussion of upholding liberty becomes a question of using force. For example, authoritarianism in the workplace that does not use physical force can be said to prevent a person from doing as he wills (talking back to bosses, influencing the conditions of work, etc). The ZAP does not address this, but LEL would seem to imply the utility of some kind of proportional means of opposition (bolstering worker power through unionism, establishing competing business models, etc). Thus LEL promotes a more complete and realistic view of maximizing liberty.
The Zero Aggression Principle is seemingly more precise than the Law of Equal Liberty. But it is only precise once the definition of terms like “aggression” and “force” are agreed upon. The meaning of liberty, doing as one wills without infringing on the ability of others to do so, is implied in the Law of Equal Liberty.
I think it is useful to have principles that succinctly point the path to liberty. As noted in the lengthy title of the post, this is a rough draft and exploration. Feedback might result in revised versions.
The Win:
Bosco’s Alliance of the Libertarian Left Anthem. In this entirely factual and not-at-all sarcastic video, Comrade Bosco presents a moving tribute to our struggles without once rhyming anything with ALL. The song doesn’t actually say what ALL stands for either. That’s conspiratorial.
The Fail:
Detroit Checkpoint Charlie. While touring Detroit, the Motorhome Diaries Crew made a wrong turn. No big deal, right? Not according to the border guards of Canada and the United States. No U-Turn was allowed without a complete Authoritarian Figurative Cock Measurement Ritual. Even more fail-filled are the excuses presented for this behavior: “Did you know that 18 of the 19 9.11 terrorists had lived in the Detroit area?!” September 11 might be good for the security-industrial complex’s business, but the reality is that the government makes attacks on Americans more likely while making it harder for Americans to defend themselves.
At least a picture containing a dangerous amount of win came out of the situation.
1) People calling themselves a “state” establish boundaries for their claims, usually through violence.
2) Resources are stolen from productive individuals to fortify these boundaries.
3) People try to move across these boundaries (sometimes to land they accessed freely before the state forbid it).
4) Those privileged by state power are concerned by the unauthorized movement of humans, and more violence is used against people trying to cross boundaries.
Like this video I found on Feta Cheese and Falafel, in which Israeli authorities wage chemical warfare on people who get in their way.
See also On Borders.
WWII Partisan, carrying Soviet Model 1938 Carbine
