The Campaign for Liberty

Ron Paul attempted to get the four leading third party candidates together at a joint press conference. The concept was that there were certain principles that all four were supposed to agree upon, although for different reasons, and most importantly the principle that third parties should be heard.

Unfortunately Bob Barr did not show, snubbing Ron Paul’s effort. If he had been there the message of the Campaign for Liberty would be unmistakable. The candidates that did show also received criticism for doing so. Chuck Baldwin is criticized for sharing a stage with Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. Alan Maass of the Socialist Worker newsletter objected to Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader for sharing a stage with Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin supporter are sniping at Barr supporters over who is better fit to carry Ron Paul’s torch into the general election.

That is not the message Ron Paul was trying to send.

The message is not that supporters of one candidate should vote for the other candidates. The message is not that the four invited candidates are equally good. The message is actually pretty clear, and would be more so had Barr done the right thing and attended this joint press conference.

The message is as follows:

Take any average American voter. Take stock of what he wants of the government, what he wants a politician to do. It is more likely that said voter will find one of those four candidates to be in greater agreement than said voter would be with Barack Obama or John McCain. The four candidates on the stage collectively represent the different poles of political opinion in their four different directions than Obama or McCain can hope to.

The message continues:

Third party voters shouldn’t vote against their conscience by supporting a candidate with whom they truly disagree. They should vote for a candidate for whom they truly agree. The obligation third party supporters have towards each other is assistance in getting the candidates on the ballot so that the American people can have a choice. Third party supporters are not required to vote for each others candidates or donate to each others parties. They should assist in every other way.

Given that message, there is no reason at all for supporters of the fourth candidate to fight, beyond the fact that Barr apparently does not fully support the four points:

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

The Lesson of 9/12/2001

As the anniversary of 9/11 arrives and then leaves, people reflect on the lessons of 9/11. What specifically are those lessons? "There are people out there who wish to do us harm" is an oft used answer, and an accurate one. "That we should defend ourselves from them" is the same. "That there are consequences to our policies in the Middle East that result in people wanting to do us harm" is not a common answer to the question, although it should be.

Some of the lessons of 9/11 were learned. Others were mis-learned, which caused people to exacerbate the policies that led to the attack in the first place. Objecting to those policies has caused people to say "Have you learned nothing from 9/11? Do you want the terrorists to win?" That is not the lesson of 9/11.

The lessons of 9/11 are important. So are the lessons of 9/12.

What are the lessons of 9/12? That life goes on. The earth continued its spin on its axis as it continued to orbit the sun. People continued to wake up in the morning, go to work, come home in the evening, and then go back to bed. Life goes on.

Another lesson of 9/12 is that because life goes on, we have time to calm down and make rational decisions based upon traumatic events that happened in the past. For some it takes longer to get over trauma than others, but in all cases passions subside and thought can take over.

Taking the time to recover so that we can think clearly instead of simply reacting emotionally, we can come up with ways to make ourselves safer from terrorists. Learning the lessons of "blowback" would be a great place to start. It is not "blaming the US" or "wanting the terrorists to win" (both emotional responses) to change any actions of ours that might have caused or contributed to 9/11.

Few people have learned the lessons of 9/12. The existence of the War on Terror and the Department of Homeland Security are a testament to some people never leaving that day. For them life did not go on, they are stuck in one moment. They never learned that it is possible to move on and think clearly about what happened.

It is time for everyone to learn the lessons of 9/12. It is time to get rid of the DHS and end the War on Terror, because it is no longer 9/11/2001. It hasn’t been 9/11/2001 in a very long time.

Bugger the TSA part 2

The TSA Blog has answered some of the questions put to them from Bugger the TSA, but their answers and subsequent actions have raised more questions. So for those who wish to force answers, here are additional questions that can be used.

1. The Blog Team has stated that those who refuse to show ID will not be allowed access to the terminals. TSOs who write comments have stated otherwise. Who is correct?

2. Given the new ID requirement, you have stated that your name won't pe but on a terrorist watch list if you forget your ID. Will it be put there if you politely refuse to show ID?

3. Is a person who politely refuses to show ID more dangerous than someone who forgot his ID?

4. If someone is barred for politely refusing to show ID, and someone else is allowed access for claiming to have forgotten ID when that someone else hasn't, isn't that a censoring of political opinions?

5. Is there a single authoritative list of rules that passengers must obey to quickly and efficiently get through the TSA checkpoints? (Thanks to blogger Phil)

6. Please reconcile the mandatory showing of ID with C.F.R. 49 § 1540.5. (Thanks to blogger Trollkiller)

7. How can someone find out if he's on the watch list? What is the procedure to be taken off the watch list or the no fly list?

8. How do the "on the spot" fines align with the Administrative Procedures Act? How does doubling of the fines for those who ask how to context fines align with the Administrative Procedures Act?

9. Why does the TSA care if a domestic passenger (not an overseas passenger) is carrying a large amount of cash?

10. Given that the TSA is supposed to guard access to the sterile areas of the airport, what is the legal basis for having passive MMW technology installed in other areas of the airport? Why are those monitoring the screens not sheltered from public view?

Democracy is not a Panacea

Over the course of the 20th Century and leading into the 21st Century there has been a goal in mind over much of the world to expand democracy, to spread democracy, to make the world safe for democracy.

This is done because it is imagined that if more countries were democratic, more countries would be like the Western Democracies.

The point that is being missed is that form is not function. Just because a country is a democracy does not mean that the country is a liberal democracy. Take, for example Iraq. There are three religious/ethnic groups in Iraq, the largest being the Shiites in southern Iraq. The Shiites are a majority.

It has been predicted by some that if actual democracy were instituted in Iraq, the Shiites would vote to violate the rights of the Sunni and the Kurds, because they are a majority. This would be a "sectarian democracy", and not a liberal democracy. This may not necessarily be the case, but it is a possibility founded on the basic demographics of the country in question. It is the reason why some call for a partitioning of Iraq, to guarantee each population group the ability to not be dominated by the others.

People seem to think that "democracy" automatically means "liberal democracy". They forget that "democracy" is the form, and that "liberal" is the function. It is the "liberal" in "liberal democracy" that provides the restrained government instituted to protect the rights of the people.

In terms of respecting the rights of the people, what is the effective difference between a liberal democracy and a liberal monarchy? One could argue that democracy gives people checks on the government should the government decide to move in an illiberal direction, whereas there are no checks if the king should decide so. The problem is what would be the check if the public decided to move the democratic government in an illiberal direction? Proponents of democracy do not have an answer for that.

It should be remembered that it was a democracy that martyred Socrates. The majority did not care for what he taught, and as a result he was tried, convicted, and executed. This was all done according to the proper democratic procedures.

Instead of spreading democracy, what should be spread are the liberal values that are often associated with democracy. This cannot be done at the point of a gun.

Positive and Negative Liberty

Isaiah Berlin once did a valuable service to the cause of liberty. He wrote a rather muddled book that discussed the difference between positive liberty and negative liberty. People are familiar with negative liberty - it is the "leave me alone" liberty that forms the cross-axis of the Nolan Chart, stretching from Statist to Libertarian. What is less familiar to most people is positive liberty, which is the liberty of having a voice in government, be it the ability to vote, to create and implement ballot initiatives, or to run for office.

This is an important distinction because occasionally these two come into conflict. When the come into conflict, the libertarian believes that negative liberty must win while the democratic statist believes that positive liberty must win.

A common theme among those who would argue against libertarianism is that the will of the majority must be obeyed. "What if the majority is wrong?" and often ducked question, is occasionally answered with "then work within the system to change the system."

It is a commonly used argument, to obey the majority, often expressed in the fallacious argument that by refusing to obey the majority the one doing so is imposing his will on the majority. This is an accusation that disturbs libertarians because the one thing the libertarian doesn't believe in is forcing others to comply with his will, but instead wished to be left alone and to leave others alone on all matters political.

It is a fallacious argument because it ignores the difference between initiated force and responsive force. When a libertarian says "you cannot pass that law", he is not saying "you must do as I say" but "there is no just reason for me to do as you say." Others can still choose of their own free will to act as if the unpassed law applies to them, by refraining from whatever activity the law was supposed to restrict or engaging in whatever activity the law was supposed to mandate.

The difference between initiated force and responsive force is glossed over in an effort to create a moral equivalent that takes the issue outside of the question of whether force itself is justified. Having dispensed with the integral moral question, the only remaining question is whether the majority or the minority shall have dictatorial power. By that mindset, a libertarian saying "no" is imposing dictatorial power.

The proper response by the libertarian when accused of imposing his will on others is "Yes, I do impose my will on muggers when they ask for my wallet." That places the question firmly back in the realm of whether or not the resisted action is justified, the one place statists do not wish it to go. The counter arguments range far and wide to try to distinguish between different types of initiatory force.

But even those who wish to engage in initiatory force through democratic action seem to have limits to what they would consider a justified action for the government to take. Based on the principle that a government action is good because it is approved by the majority, an inevitable conclusion is that it is perfectly justified for 90% to strip the remaining 10% of all of their rights, including the right to protest such a stripping. This is an issue always avoided by democratic positivists.

If one is to be consistent, there are absolutely no limits on what a democratic positivist would place on the majority’s decision making power.

Often times the question is phrased in terms of the social contract, and that the libertarian saying "no" is somehow violating the social contract. It should be noted that the social contract is a myth, nothing more. It is a useful myth, but it is still a myth. It is useful in that it is an intellectual tool used to analyze the relationship between the individual and the society as expressed through the government.

In this myth, people had the freedom to kill each other but not the right to life, the freedom to steal, but not the right to property, et cetera. Dissatisfied with that state of affairs they banded together and agreed to certain terms, that they would respect each others rights in exchange for a respect for their own rights. In order to safeguard this arrangement government was established to protect and enforce these rights.

The problem is that now those who wish to impose their will on others through the government have co-opted the term "social contract" and use it to mean that since government has decided everyone else is obligated to obey. What they do not realize, or hope nobody else realizes, is that by using the term "social contract" they undermine their own case. The Social Contract is specifically about respecting people's rights, and under social contract theory any government that violates the contract is not a legitimate government and the people have the right to overthrow said government.

Saying "social contract" in the abused sense of it as used by statists is simply another way to say that positive rights trump negative rights.

Positive and negative liberty can be arranged into a four quadrant chart similar in appearance to the Nolan Chart or Pournelle Chart. In the quadrant where both are low the result is despotism. In the quadrant of low positive and high negative the result is a libertarian monarch. In the quadrant of high positive and low negative the result is mob rule and the martyrdom of Socrates. Finally in the quadrant where both are high the result is anarcho-capitalism or other variants on libertarianism.

The important point of all of this is to remember that democracy is simply a form, not a function, of government. Libertarianism is concerned with the function, that government maximizes the rights of the people. When politicians talk about spreading democracy, they express their own ignorance of the difference between function and form. What should be spread isn’t democracy, but liberty.

The Missing Case for Military Intervention

Whenever a conflict erupts somewhere in the world, invariably there are calls for the United States to intervene. If there are no actual United States interests at stake in the conflict invariably the argument comes up that if Hitler had been opposed early enough there would have been no World War Two.

There is only one valid response to arguments from Hitler, and that is to point out that the person making the argument that World War One proves intervention necessary.

It is inarguable that way World War One ended was the primary cause of World War Two. The only way to avoid that point is to only look at causes that occurred after Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.

Starting the search at that point and forbidding earlier causes is intellectually not a supportable practice. The only reason to do so is to advance a particular political agenda, but those who support that agenda do so fiercely and insist on only analyzing causes that support interventionism and never analyzing causes that oppose it.

The largest contributing factor to World War Two was the resolution of World War One. The Treaty of Versailles imposed overly harsh and punitive terms on Germany. The economic damage caused by the harsh terms, coupled with the social insult of being made to admit full fault in a war that was as much the fault of France as it was Germany and having those terms imposed even though foreign troops never actually entered Germany laid all the groundwork for the rise of Hitler and the waging of World War Two.

If it were not for the Treaty of Versailles, there would have been no World War Two.

The Treaty of Versailles was made possible by the intervention of the United States, both before and after the United States entered the war officially. Before the United States declared war the support given to the Allied Powers gave them an edge against the Central Powers in terms of supplies. It was an open secret that the United States was shipping munitions to Great Britain, and that the submarine warfare that Germany condemned so loudly was aimed at munitions. Sinking a cargo ship full or arms was not sufficient to for President Wilson to goad the USA into war, which is why they were later shipped on civilian cruise ships.

Even with that edge, the Central Powers were able to maintain the stalemate that was draining the wealth and population of both sides. That is why President Wilson was seeking a plausible excuse, such as the Lusitania, to actively involve United States troops. The entry of a powerful country that was not drained by several years of warfare was too much for the Central Powers to withstand, and the war ended with an Allied victory that made the Treaty of Versailles possible.

If it were not for United States entry into World War One, there would have been no Treaty of Versailles.

Anyone who expresses the idea that World War Two proves interventionism is sometimes necessary is, if educated, expressing the idea that Wilson’s intervention against Germany is an example of necessary interventionism. The two wars are the same war.

The causes of World War One itself are also examples of interventionism on the part of the European powers. Germany and Italy, late in becoming unified countries compared to the Renaissance unifications of France, England, or Spain, were behind on the drive to have colonies in distant lands. France and England ruled large parts of Africa and Asia, while Spain had ruled large parts of the America. Both Germany and Italy were able to grab parts of Africa. Austria-Hungary was left out of the colony race completely so tried to compensate by picking up the pieces of the decaying Ottoman Empire. Before the fighting actually started the Allied Powers were those with colonies (and also Russia which while lacking colonies had large amount of land within Russian borders ready to colonize) while the Central Powers were those without many colonies, including Italy even though it was an Allied Power once the shooting started, and also including the Ottoman Empire which while large was decaying at a rapid pace, in effect losing colonies.

Since none of the European powers were able to mind their own business the series of alliances formed that led to a small conflict exploding into a world war.

World War One was the disastrous result of intervention gone haywire, leading to further intervention, leading to devastating results that are used to justify intervention.

No sensible, educated, and honest person can use World War Two as a justification for intervention given that it is the result of layers of intervention piled up until the result was Hitler. A better argument for intervention needs to be found for those who advocate meddling in the conflicts of others.

The Prevalence of Police Abuse

There are certainly more stories of police abuse hitting the news outlets, at an accelerating pace. This is resulting in greater awareness in the general public of the police abusing their powers. Whether it is tasering a driver on the highways of Utah, tackling a kid in Baltimore because he is riding a skateboard, strip searching the victim of an assault, or the many examples of SWAT team raids of wrong houses often resulting in the death of either the occupants or even police, these stories are circulating with an ever increasing frequency.

There are two theories about why this is so. One is that the rise of inexpensive digital cameras and video cameras has made it easier to capture police misconduct, and the rise of YouTube has made it easier to spread the stories captured. In the past these issues were investigated only if the news were to make an issue of it. As video cameras became more popular it was still up to the news, but it was harder for news outlets to ignore police abuse. As a result of private footage of Rodney King being aired on television the police involved were eventually held accountable.

The television networks can choose whether or not to air any privately recorded footage, and as a result it is possible that many recorded incidents never were shown to the public. The internet enables people to bypass the major media and as a result those incidents are available to be viewed by anyone with an internet connection. Being viewed, it then becomes possible for the public to pressure the media into covering the story in ways never before possible.

Another theory is that these incidents are indeed becoming more common. The erosion of civil liberties that has taken place over the last seven years of the war on terror, coupled with the almost forty years of waging the drug war, has created a climate where government enforcement officials are not only given greater authority, but given more incentive to act against those who question their authority. Failure to show respect, or even obeisance, is considered a direct challenge to the authority of the officers and it must be punished.

This is abetted by the taser, which is considered a non-lethal instrument (except for the times when it is lethal). This leads to it being used as a method of “pain compliance”. This is in violation of the entire Anglo system of law because pain compliance is a euphemism for “punishment” and that can only be decided in a court of law by a judge and a jury, not by a law enforcement official. Any officer who uses a taser for the purpose of disciplining someone who is not a threat but guilty of not obeying an officer is guilty of assault and battery – and that is before the question of whether an officer can give a "lawful order" in the first place that must be obeyed.

It is clear that many police feel that they are above the law that they are sworn to enforce. This is shown in so many ways, most recently by Jimmy Justice as he films the police breaking even simple laws and their irate reactions as he calls them on their activities. Sometimes catching police breaking the law can lead to legal trouble for the person with the camera, which is why Jimmy Justice acts pseudonymously.

Sometimes filming of law enforcement officials leads to their discipline, although not as often as it should. This trend is only going to accelerate. Some jurisdictions are fighting back with laws that prevent us from videotaping the police or even taking still photos as they perform their duties, calling these activities spying or obstruction respectively. The question remains how well ordinances and charges of this nature will hold up in court against what is left of our civil liberties.

Given the abusive nature of police today, it is a good idea to have a camera handy even if local ordinances forbid it. When accused of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct – a charge used when there is no specific law being broken but the officer simply doesn’t like what is being done – a camera recording the incident may be the best defense as it was in the case of a bicyclist assaulted by the NYPD. It can be used as evidence against the charges, and may even be useful if the department actually decides to discipline the officer.

The Vosem Chart

In an earlier article, the subject of the Vosem Cube was briefly mentioned as an attempt to deal with an economic axis that failed to sufficiently differentiate between mercantilism and socialism with respect to economic liberty. While both systems are a diminishment of economic liberty they are so in different ways to the point where it is difficult to get a more accurate measure of economic liberty. This is compounded by the deliberate refusal of those with a more socialist mindset to differentiate between mercantilism and capitalism.

Name "Vosem" for the Russian word for "eight" because a cube has eight sides, this chart has one civil liberty axis identical to the civil liberty of the Nolan Chart. It has two economic axes which the author labels as "Fiscal" and "Corporate".

The Fiscal axis is clearly the spectrum that runs from socialist to capitalist, whether or not the government should redistribute wealth or directly control certain industries (the two separate definitions of socialist will be discussed in a later article). It is on the Corporate axis where things get muddled.

CORPORATE
CLASS 1: People who are in the first camp on this final dichotomy are, all around, pro-corporate. The way they see it, corporations should be treated and protected with the same rights as individuals. They want businesses to have the power to hire and discriminate against whom they want -- if an employer doesn't want an immigrant or a member of an ethnic minority working for him, he shouldn't be required by hire any people in that group, even if they are indisputably qualified. They also want everyone's business to be protected by private property rights -- the owner paid to keep the space and he can insist in anyone he wants leaving the business, including using the police to enforce this wish. Anyone walking on a business' premises against the wishes of the owner is viewed as trespassing. They oppose the right of people to strike or otherwise rebel against a business, and will favor laws that allow a corporate head to have his employees arrested for striking. They can be very strongly anti-union and view management as knowing best. Corporate monopolies are just seen as part of the game. As they see it, pure freedom of the market will take care of any injustices or inequities, and will promise diversity and creativity. If something done by a business is unethical and/or harmful, people will make the right choice by choosing another business, thereby regulating themselves. They trust the patron public will know and decide what is right. Some even support reversing government restrictions on dishonestly mislabeling or misrepresenting your advertised product. They are not quite as concerned with or offended by Enron/WorldCom type corporate dishonesty as their opponents. Strongly pro-copyright, they favor punishing Napster and want to hunt down other music site offenders on the Internet. Characteristic catchwords: it's their business, free enterprise, the magic of the market, property rights, intellectual property violator.

CLASS 2: Someone in the second camp opposes corporate power and rule of the business over the individual. They believe that a corporation is not a person and cannot be a person, and therefore does not deserve the same rights as a person. Businesses are viewed as a form of authority, akin to government authority, that can be oppressive. The major heads behind huge corporations, furthermore, are viewed as greedy rich folks who will do anything to make even more and keep the oil flowing to them. Many of these people are anti-WTO, anti-IMF, etc. If you see someone engaged in a protest against "corporate goons", taking it to the streets like the Seattle protestors of 1999, they no doubt belong to this camp. They consider discriminatory or otherwise unethical behavior by a business owner or manager completely inexcusable. They consider it unacceptable to have to watch anyone -- even one person -- be legally hurt by a business' practices in order to get people to finally bring the business down with their own boycott. They do not trust the common people alone to be able to drive every and any immoral business into the ground with their purchasing choices. They fail to see any flourishing of diversity or creativity of products due to the market; rather, they view increasingly richer cannibal companies as having homogenized the market and given us too few different companies and too few products. The overwhelming power of a few names over radio stations has likewise ruined the diversity of music. Some even turn to Internet file-sharing. They are opposed to the concept of "intellectual property". Characteristic catchwords: corporate greed, people before profits, Naderism, sell-out, monolithic corporate culture, pigs, Micro$oft.

This is problematic because on the whole it fails to place those who subscribe to Austrian Economics. On the whole Austrians would be on the pro-corporate side, but certainly do not believe that striking workers should be penalized. This should be analyzed by looking at it through the capitalist versus mercantilist question.

In that perspective, a new result is given.

CLASS 1: Someone in the second camp opposes any government protection or favoritism of corporations. They believe in a free market, and if a corporation cannot survive it deserves to fail. The major heads behind huge corporations are viewed as too intimately involved in government. Many of these people are anti-WTO, anti-IMF, etc on the grounds that a "free trade organization" is a contradiction of terms. They also oppose regulation of businesses beyond dishonesty to be a restriction on the right of people to do business. While Enron is looked down on for their unethical practices, Michael Milken is looked as heroes of free enterprise and examples of unjust government interference in economics. Characteristic catchwords: Free enterprise, corporate welfare, REAL free trade

CLASS 2a: People who are in the first camp on this final dichotomy are, all around, pro-corporate. The way they see it, corporations should be treated and protected with the same rights as individuals. They want everyone's business to be protected by private property rights -- the owner paid to keep the space and he can insist in anyone he wants leaving the business, including using the police to enforce this wish. Anyone walking on a business' premises against the wishes of the owner is viewed as trespassing. They oppose the right of people to strike or otherwise rebel against a business, and will favor laws that allow a corporate head to have his employees arrested for striking. They can be very strongly anti-union and view management as knowing best. Corporate monopolies are just seen as part of the game. They support protective tariffs to keep out foreign competition or import quotas to protect domestic industries. They also support subsidies from the government to businesses on the grounds that it helps domestic corporations, especially against countries where governments support their corporations. Some even support reversing government restrictions on dishonestly mislabeling or misrepresenting your advertised product. They are not quite as concerned with or offended by Enron/WorldCom type corporate dishonesty as their opponents. Strongly pro-copyright, they favor punishing Napster and want to hunt down other music site offenders on the Internet. Characteristic catchwords: dumping, domestic industry, what’s good for GM is good for America, intellectual property violator.

CLASS 2b: Someone in the second camp opposes corporate power and rule of the business over the individual. They believe that a corporation is not a person and cannot be a person, and therefore does not deserve the same rights as a person. Businesses are viewed as a form of authority, akin to government authority, that can be oppressive. The major heads behind huge corporations, furthermore, are viewed as greedy rich folks who will do anything to make even more and keep the oil flowing to them. Many of these people are anti-WTO, anti-IMF, etc. If you see someone engaged in a protest against "corporate goons", taking it to the streets like the Seattle protestors of 1999, they no doubt belong to this camp. They consider discriminatory or otherwise unethical behavior by a business owner or manager completely inexcusable. They consider it unacceptable to have to watch anyone -- even one person -- be legally hurt by a business' practices in order to get people to finally bring the business down with their own boycott. They do not trust the common people alone to be able to drive every and any immoral business into the ground with their purchasing choices. They fail to see any flourishing of diversity or creativity of products due to the market; rather, they view increasingly richer cannibal companies as having homogenized the market and given us too few different companies and too few products. The overwhelming power of a few names over radio stations has likewise ruined the diversity of music. Some even turn to Internet file-sharing. They are opposed to the concept of "intellectual property". Characteristic catchwords: corporate greed, people before profits, Naderism, sell-out, monolithic corporate culture, pigs, Micro$oft.

The drawback is that this still splits the mercantilist axis. The problem is with Class 2b, which doesn’t really belong in this axis but needs to fit in somewhere. The problem is to find a location for it.

On the other hand, perhaps libertarians are 1a, the anti-corporates are 1b, and the mercantilists are 2.

A Combined Chart

Recently the Pournelle Chart was analyzed. It has both its advantages and disadvantages when compared to the Nolan Chart, but overall is a good way to represent the political spectrum.

That leads to the question of what the result would be if the two charts were combined. Given that the liberty axis of the Pournelle Chart is basically the vertical cross axis of the Nolan Chart, it would simply be a matter of substituting the one axis with the two axes to create a cube. The three axes would be Economic Liberty, Civil Liberty, and Rationality.

To view it directly on the Rationality axis it would look exactly like the Nolan Chart, which means that the only thing to describe is the high and low rationality end of each of the four corners.

Starting with the corner of high economic liberty and high civil liberty, the high rationality aspect is libertarianism, including anarcho-capitalism and objectivism. The low rationality aspect is counter-cultural anarchism.

In the corner of high economic liberty and low civil liberty, the high rationality aspect should be considered conservatism excepting the fact that conservatives do not embrace economic liberty. Either the theoretical model needs a new name, or the modern conservative needs to embrace a new name. A low rationality equivalent would be the Theocrat. The difference is that one is the security conservative and the other the moral conservative. The theocrat, the moral conservative, is technically an authoritarian but as Ayn Rand pointed out they consider economics to be less important than civil matters and are willing to not regulate it because other matters are more important.

In the corner of low economic liberty and high civil liberty, the high rationality aspect is the welfare liberal. These are the ones that support welfare due to the belief that government can solve economic problems. Their low rationality counterpart is the libertine who relies on government to support. There is no overarching philosophy behind this position other than a feeling of entitlement.

In the final corner of statism, the high rationality aspect is communism, in which there is a belief in government planning of all aspect of society, while the low rationality aspect is fascism.

Perhaps there could be further refinements, especially further examination how to effectively measure the rationality axis, but this could also be considered a more descriptive model than either of the parent models when considered alone.

Anonymous versus Scientology

Mr. William Lind has created the foundation on the subject of Fourth Generation Warfare. In that warfare, a centralized force, more powerful but less able to apply that power, is faced by a decentralized disorganized force. While the more powerful force could prevail if the two were to meet openly, they never meet in that way. Instead the smaller force strikes at random and melts away into anonymity.

The primary conflict is to cause the more powerful force to lose their morale, to lose the public relations war, to lose the will to continue the fight. The smaller force expends few resources for a large impact. The larger force expends many resources for a smaller impact. This played out in Vietnam. This is playing out in Iraq. Some call it guerilla warfare. Some call it terrorism.

And it may be playing out in an unexpected front in the United States in the war between the Anonymous of the Internet versus the Church of Scientology. Attempts to get the opinion of Mr. Lind on this subject have not been successful, but that does not mean independent analysis is not possible. Although this conflict is not lethal like the Iraq conflict, it does have many of the characteristics of fourth generation warfare.

Scientology is a large and powerful organization with a reputation for fiercely attacking critics. The organization is quite centralized with massive resources.

Anonymous is a group if independent individuals communicating anonymously through various message boards including 4chan, 711chan, partyvan.info, and IRC chats, as well as Encyclopedia Dramatica. None of these boards lead the effort, there are no leaders to the war anonymous is waging. They serve instead as a way to relay information to interested parties.



In a standard confrontation with Scientology, scientologists have the advantage of numbers and organization. A single protestor can be met by many scientologists, investigations run, and harassments through lawsuits can cripple the financial resources of the person attacking scientology. If Chanology (the code word for this war among Anonymous) is analogous to Fourth Generation Warfare, then the tactics of Anonymous turn those advantages on their heads. Scientologists do not know who the protestors are, and the protestors turn out in (masked) numbers to overwhelm the Scientologists who normally react to individual protestors.

Whereas a large portion of Forth Generation Warfare takes place on the realm of psy-ops, winning the hearts and minds of the people while demoralizing the opposition, again Anonymous has the advantage. Anonymous knows how to use the internet to its advantage, which is a very inexpensive tool. Documents are lifted (possibly by illegal means) and posted to wikileaks, while videos by anonymous are posted on Youtube.

Like a regular government in a 4GW, Scientology is slow to react to each new attack, and is always preparing for the last attack. Individual Scientologist are not able to create their own responses without permission, much like individual commanders of military units have to get proper permission to deviate from the plans of the military central command. Individual members of Anonymous are under no such constraint and are free to come up with creative attacks of their own, much like how individual terrorists are under no constraints about where and when to attack government forces.

Scientology has main bases, the various locations of the churces as well as various headquarters. Anonymous does not have those, although the nearest analogous structures would be the redundant lines of communication. The attacks are direct protests as well as politic, economic, and social. The attacks by anonymous are directly against the culture of Scientology, while the attacks by Scientology are against individual protestors.

The war between Anonymous and Scientology is in every way except for bodycount a classic example of Fourth Generation Warfare.

Comments are open. Due to a software bug Blogger is not automatically showing the link. Since I already have one comment I am reluctant to delete this entry and repost it. Seriously, you can comment. I'm trying to find out what is wrong with Blogger's software.

Another political spectrum

While libertarians are quite familiar with the Nolan Political Science Chart, it isn't the only attempt to more accurately graph the political map. Moreover, as shown in Conservatives Versus the Nolan Chart it doesn't depict the political landscape as accurately as it could, given that modern American conservatism isn't synonymous with Nolan conservatism.

Another chart that is slowly making waves is the Pournelle Chart, another two dimensional representation. He starts his essay with the standard attack on the inconsistencies of the standard one-dimensional spectrum, but proceeds from there to describe his own alternative model.

The first axis of his chart is "liberty", which could be considered the cross-axis of the Nolan chart ranging from statist to libertarian. That is common to many attempts to rectify the political spectrum, but Jerry Pournelle felt that was inadequate. The reason is that it groups fascists and communists on one end as if they are the same, and it groups anarchists and libertarians at the other end as if they are the same. He felt a second axist was necessary to separate out these ideologies.

The axis he came up with is called "attitude towards planned social progress" or "rationalism", the belief that society's problems can be solved by reasoned solutions. After adding this axis he was able to differentiat the communist from the fascist and the libertarian from the anarchist.

On the corner of statist and rationalist one finds Communists and Socialists. The corner of statist and irrationalist one finds Fascists and Theocrats. The corner of rationalist and anti-statist is occupied by the libertarians and objectivists. Finally the corner of irrationalist and anti-statist is Anarcism and counter-culturalism. Conservatives and Liberals are both near the center by having midway opinions of both the state and the ability of planning to achieve social goals.

Conservatives versus the Nolan Chart

The Nolan Chart defines a conservative as someone who advocates economic liberty but also advocates government regulation of civil matters. Is that definition accurate? Within the context of the chart it is certainly accurate but does a modern American conservative hold the same beliefs?

The problem with the Nolan Chart is that modern American conservatives do not necessarily hold those beliefs. As discussed in Liberalsim, Conservatism, and Libertarianism a there are several factions all sharing the label "conservative", and only one of them is strong on economic liberty. Other schools show general disinterest, and a couple of schools favor government involvement in the economy. Mercantilism is not capitalism, and advocates for mercantilism are not the same as advocates for the free market.

A tangent is necessary here as some will object to the term "mercantilism" as it is used with reference to a school of conservative thought. Mercantilism originally described policies of Great Britain in the 19th century with regards to the gold supply. Some wish to keep the definition so restricted, but if that is the case there is no suitable term for similar policies in other locations or in other times. Mercantilism, some would say corporatism, refers to using the government for the benefit of domestic industries by a variety of methods including but not limited to import quotas or tariffs, subsidies and tax breaks to domestic industries, and government contracts. These are all designed to restrict the amount of competition a domestic company faces or to support a failing domestic industry. Union-unfriendly legislation is also used to increase profits without the necessity of competition.

The problem most people have with thinking about mercantilism as not being an anti-liberty ideology is twofold. First people often think of socialism as being the anti-liberty economic ideology, and mercantilism certainly isn’t socialism except in the most outrageously loose sense of the term. Second, mercantilism doesn’t have an ideological base the way that capitalism and socialism do. It borrows somewhat from capitalism, but the arguments in favor of mercantilism are either purely emotional (appeals to patriotism quite often) or simply lobbying.

Socialists in a truer sense often think mercantilists are not advocates of government intervention in the economy, as shown by Democrat accusations of that nature towards Republicans. The problem isn’t that Republicans don’t advocate intervention, it is that Republicans advocate the wrong interventions. If an analogy could be made between religion and politics, liberals are theists because they believe in government while libertarians are atheists because they do not believe in government. Conservatives, under that analogy, are heretics. They do believe, they have the wrong beliefs, and because they have beliefs (however wrong) they are not atheists. When a liberal accuses a conservative of being anti-government, the accusation is based on the inability (due to intellectual laziness) to tell the difference between atheism and heresy.

Unfortunately there is no spot on the Nolan chart for a real world conservative. What would be needed is a third dimension to show this different means of economic interventionism. An attempt has been made here but the labels need further adjustment to more closely fit the model to the real world.

History of the United States

History can be viewed at from various perspectives, the most common of which being the names and dates method. The problem with said method is that it fails to give any insight into the causes of the various memorized events. To study history from that perspective is similar to studying biology without evolution; it becomes little more than a disparate set of fields and zoology is reduced to cataloging. To properly understand the history one needs to look at the causes of the events, and a way to do that is by studying the ebb and flow of competing ideas that are brought to a head by the issues studied in the name and date form of history. Professional historians know this, but their knowledge seldom translates down to the public school history lessons where most people are fed the simplistic version of history.

The United States was founded with two competing schools of thought, which can be exemplified by two early representatives of those schools, the Hamiltonian school and the Jeffersonian school. The Hamiltonians desire an activist government that intervenes on behalf of major industry and financial institutions, while the Jeffersonians desire a minimalist government. The signing of the Constitution was a Hamiltonian victory, but the ratification of the Bill of Rights was a Jeffersonian victory.

Early in the history of the United States, the Jeffersonians had the upper hand due to the disintegration of the Federalist Party and the ineffectiveness of the Whig party. The economic issues that divided the country were more easily reconciled by Jeffersonians who did not favor economic policies that benefited one region over another, while the interventionist Whigs had to balance competing demands from different regions of the country with different activist goals. Meanwhile several Jeffersonian presidents in a row in first the Democratic Republican Party and then the Democratic Party ensured a court that was primary Jeffersonian.

But as the economic divide in the United States grew more severe the issue of slavery became more polarized with the pro-slavery forces aligning with the Jeffersonians (even though Jeffersonians themselves aren’t pro-slavery) and the anti-slavery forces aligning with the Hamiltonians (even though Hamiltonians themselves aren’t anti-slavery). Slavery and States Rights were blocking the Hamiltonian agenda, which led to the Hamiltonians switching from the Whig Party to the Republican Party and bringing the conflict to a head in the United States Civil War.

Not all Jeffersonians were Southern. The "copperheads" were Northern Jeffersonians who objected to what they perceived to be an unconstitutional extension of Federal power enacted under Lincoln during the war. What the war did settle was which interpretation of the constitution was to dominate, the Jeffersonian version or the Hamiltonian version. Having lost the debate on the field of ideas, the Hamiltonians turned to debate on the field of battle, and there they won.

The United States was locked for a while into the Hamiltonian model, but having determined that an economically interventionist government is good the question that originally divided the Whigs arose in a new form: which model of interventionism is to be implemented? A new ideology grew in the United States after the Civil War, imported from Europe, Progressivism. These progressive initially applied themselves in the Republican Party, influencing the decisions of Theodore Roosevelt. It was the internal struggle between the Hamiltonians and the Progressives that caused the Republican Party to briefly split enabling the election of Woodrow Wilson.

During the time progressivism was trying to influence the Republican Party, it was also trying to influence the Democratic Party. The loss of the Civil War had been devastating to the efforts of Jeffersonians to limit the power of the government, and as a result the Democratic Party was open to takeover by the new ideology. This started under President Wilson but was carried to fulfillment by President Franklin Roosevelt who, while he campaigned as a Jeffersonian in 1932, acted as a full progressive once in office.

The remaining Jeffersonians, already in decline, defected from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in response to the positions taken by the Progressives. The Hamiltonian reaction to the progressive agenda was in opposition for several reasons, including the difference between the forms of interventionism advocated, the scale of interventionism proposed by Roosevelt being beyond that of most Hamiltonians, and that Roosevelt was in the wrong party.

For a while the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians were uneasy allies, but did work together to try to rein in the proposals of Roosevelt and subsequent Democrat presidents, and during that time many people mistook the Republican Party as being a small government party as the Jeffersonians shaped the rhetoric while the Hamiltonians shaped the policy, but under President Nixon the strain of holding together such a coalition finally broke and a core of Jeffersonians broke away and formed the Libertarian Party.

Freed from the constraints of the Jeffersonians and no longer shocked by the scale of the progressives, the Hamiltonians finally shed their small government rhetoric and embraced a full mercantilist system under President George W. Bush of subidies for domestic industries and militarism.

Home Business opportunities

In response to How to Survive the Upcoming Economic Collapse the question was asked what home businesses a family can start.

The problem is that several of the businesses that have high profit potential and low startup costs are also subject to specialized licensing. The Institute for Justice has an page Study on Barriers to Entrepreneurship that shows all the businesses that it would be difficult to get into due to prohibitive entry requirements. It is difficult at best to: community transport, cosmetology and hair braiding, catering, and child care.

All businesses, to be formal, will need a business license purchased from the city or the county. To go through this one should consult a lawyer, which is an additional cost. Then, depending on the business there are specialized licenses that must be acquired at various costs and difficulties. Then there is the issue of zoning laws that may prohibit any sort of business in a residential area, more common inside city limits than outside.

Businesses that are among the least licensed are those that manufacture, tailor, and sell clothing. This can be done by sewing or knitting, made to fit, done with minimum startup costs, and even be worked on at odd hours such as when relaxing. Another home business without licensing is for those with woodshop skills to manufacture furniture. Although the specialized tools are an investment, good furniture commands an impressive price.

Another business would be in education, but only in certain areas to reduce the prohibitions and regulations. Teaching in the arts is one option, and tutoring the academic subjects is another. Tutors are technically not teachers, and therefore exempt from some of the regulation, even though in practice they often provide high quality education outside of the formal educational establishment. The only thing a tutor cannot provide is academic credit. In some areas it is possible to formally open a private school in the home, and give academic credit, without possessing educator credentials. A private school does not always need to hire formally trained teachers.

Becoming an eBay vendor is easy, requiring basically registering with eBay and PayPal to start up the business, except in areas that require auctioneering licenses. To collect items worthy of sale on eBay all a person needs to do is scour garage sales for items that would do well in an expanded market.

While some areas require extensive licensing for anyone to tend yard, others are open about it and that would enable someone to get into a home landscaping business that includes mowing lawns, tilling gardens, and even trimming tress. The same applies to animal care short of actual veterinary services, where a person could clean stables and animals and tell the owner when it would be a good idea to refer an animal to a veterinarian.

Those who have formal training in specific fields may find that they can operate a home business completely legally. A licensed electrician may use the home as a location from which to operate on calls, while a licensed therapist may have an office at home avoiding the expense of a separate office. All such efforts are based on the zoning laws, of course.

This all implies that the business relationship is formalized. It is also possible to run an informal business arrangement out of the home, although the legal impediments to doing so need careful examination. Doing so loosens up the business model, but also makes it impossible to apply for small business loans. This could easily cause the entrepreneur to run afoul of the law, so care must be taken if this model is to be embraced. A way to avoid trouble is to engage in a barter economy.

The options aren’t as many as in the past, but there are still home business opportunities for those who want to expand their options.

Liberalism, Conservatism, and Libertarianism.

This text uses America Centric definitions.

In America there are several different factions of liberals.

First there are the civil libertarian liberals, not to be confused with the minority rights liberals. These are the types most aligned with libertarians. Whether the issue is pornography, gay marriage, drug legalization, or prostitution, these are the ones (found in the ACLU or the Democratic Freedom Caucus) that agree with libertarians. They are very strong on civil issues, and slightly less on economic issues.

Then there are the union liberals. For them, protecting the working class is their motive. They are not overly concerned with civil issues, but are very concerned with protecting American Jobs. They aren't concerned about economic issues over much, but are quite interested in government regulation of the economy. Ironically this school of liberalism finds itself in alliance with one of the schools of conservatism, Mercantilist conservatism.

Then there are the environmental liberals. This faction is quite often at odds with the union liberal, as the environmental regulation proposed can quite often be harmful to the creation of jobs. While compromise makes all schools of progressive liberalism (except union liberalism) advocate the measure of environmental liberals to some extent, these are the core of that movement. They are not overly concerned with civil issues, but are quite interested in government regulation of the economy, just in a different way from union liberals and mercantilist conservatives.

Welfare Liberals are very much the core of American Progressive Liberalism. They range from the moderates of implementing a safety net to the extreme of a totally managed economy, all for the sake of helping the poor through taxation policy, government hand out policies, outright nationalization of portions of the American economy (such as health care), and regulation of the rest. While there isn't great concern for civil liberties here, economic liberties are completely dead within this tradition.

Finally there are also minority rights liberals. They are separate from civil liberty liberals for a reason, and that reason is the radicalization of this faction. Too many members of this faction are bigoted against groups outside their own minority. To hold up examples of the most extreme, look to Andrea Dworkin as an extremely radical misandrist feminist, or La Raza for Hispanic rights, or Louis Farakhan for African-Americans. They are quite opposed to both economic and civil issues as defined by classic liberals, and quite in favor of reverse discrimination.

There are also several smaller schools of liberalism.

Then there are several different factions of American conservatism.

Paleoconservatives, a smaller faction, are the one type which can be considered moderate libertarians. On economic matters they agree almost entirely with libertarians, and on civil matters they agree mostly.

Mercantile conservatives are the leading faction, and have been since the Republicans were called Whigs, and since the Whigs were called Federalists. Some may object that they should oppose government regulation when it harms their own interests, but that is not always the case. They dislike government regulation on themselves but accept it if it gives them an advantage. On civil issues they care little either way and are quite willing to advocate increased government control of civil matters in exchange for increased government control on economic issues provided that control gives them an advantage. While they are often seen as opponents of Union Liberals, they are often allies of Union Liberals. A tariff that increases the cost of imports protects American Industry (which satisfies the mercantilist conservative) also protects American Jobs (which satisfies the union liberal).

Moral conservatives are another major faction. While most exemplified by the Religious Right, it includes all those who advocate security above liberty. The moral conservative stands in distinct opposition with libertarians on civil matters. This school is not strong on economic thought, and is willing to exchange advocacy of government control of economic issues for advocacy of government control of civil issues. Any suggestion that drug laws or prostitution laws be loosened causes panic among this crowd.

Closely allied to the moral conservatives are the security conservatives. Like the moral conservative the security conservative stands in distinct opposition with libertarians on civil matters, and is not strong on economic though. While they lack the motive to police drugs or prostitution the way the moral conservatives do, they view any civil rights that impede police work as detrimental to society. While not strongly inclined by nature towards moral legislation the way the moral conservatives are, the fact that said legislation is law is enough to make them react with horror to any suggestion the laws be loosened.

Then there are the neoconservatives. These are the worst that conservatism has to offer. They are quite fond of regulation both economic and civil. They have no problems at all with a welfare state, since their ideology has a root with Trotsky. Because of that root, they have no problem with military adventurism, reshaping the world in their image in the spirit of Trotsky's "eternal revolution." They also have from Leo Strauss the belief in an elite that rules the ignorant masses, and from Machiavelli the belief that it is quite acceptable for leaders to lie to their subjects for the subjects own good. This, by the way, is the faction currently occupying the White House.

There are also lesser schools of conservative thought.

Then there are the factions of libertarians.

First there are the civil libertarian liberals, already described.

Then there are the paleoconservatives, already described.

Then there are the anarcho-capitalists, the most extreme form of libertarian. While most libertarians come out in favor of very limited government power, they come out against all government power.

Then there are the classic liberals, the core libertarians to the point where classic liberal and libertarian can be used interchangeably, who are considered soft by the anarcho-capitalists for our minarchism. This is by far the largest faction of libertarians.

Then there are the objectivists. While in agreement with classic liberals on almost everything there are a few key points of difference regarding the respect to be shown to those who disagree.

The leading schools of economic thought among conservatives are mercantilism, supply side / right Keynesianism, and some monetarism. Capitalism can be found among the paleoconservatives.

The leading schools of economic thought among progressive liberals are socialism, demand side / left Keynesianism, and some georgism. Capitalism can be found among the civil liberty liberals.

The leading schools of economic thought among libertarians are Capitalism, with traces of monetarism and georgism.

The Importance of Strategy

One thing libertarians often lose sight of is strategy. This applies to both those inside the party and those outside, and to both the libertarian caucus and the reform caucus.

In California two ballot propositions were up for vote. Both of them promised eminent domain reform. Proposition 98 included very strong eminent domain reform, and also included rent control reform. It was a perfect libertarian initiative in that if it had passed it would have restored and protected the right of private property. Proposition 99 was a very weak eminent domain reform that basically left the balance of power in the hands of the city and county governments. Proposition 98 was written because of the discontent with Kelo versus New London. Proposition 99 was written to protect the cities and counties from proposition 98.

The advertisements for 99 pointed out that 98 was advertised as an eminent domain reform but contained a "hidden agenda" against rent control. The advertisements neglected to mention that rent control is a failure every time it is tried. Instead they simply ended by saying 98 was against rent control as if that alone were proof of the sinister nature of 98, and they correctly pointed out that 98 was a bundled measure and if one part passed the whole thing passed.

Proposition 99 feed on the discontent against eminent domain, and the measure that protected eminent domain rode to victory with the votes of those who wanted to reform eminent domain. Proposition 98 was defeated by the same margin by those who felt that the measure was dishonest.

At the 2008 Libertarian Party convention, the Reform Caucus beat the Libertarian Caucus. Mainstream libertarians are not represented on the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential ticket. It would have been a good move on the part of the Reform Caucus to sponsor a unity ticket with a prominent member of the Libertarian Caucus in the Vice Presidential Candidate slot. Failing to think strategically the Reform Caucus wanted their victory over the Libertarian Caucus to be thorough. Now the result is a weakened candidate. There is much discontent within Libertarian Party ranks over this ticket.

Bob Barr is campaigning for votes outside the Libertarian Party. What he is neglecting is that he should be campaigning for votes inside the Libertarian Party as well. The Reform Caucus has, by choosing victory over strategy, alienated a large portion of the Libertarian Party. The reaction from the candidate himself has been "I'm the candidate so you will vote for me." The reaction from the Reform Caucus has been to accuse everyone who hasn't warmly and happily embraced the ticket of being sore losers, wanting to destroy the party, et cetera. The truth is that by placing victory at the convention over strategy, the Reform Caucus is more guilty of trying to fracture the party than the disenfranchised Libertarian Caucus is.

Barr does need to spend time advertising to the base. He is neglecting that duty, relying on "you have to vote for me" to get the votes from the base. Libertarians are notorious for rejecting calls for "you have to vote for me" as a substantial portion of libertarians are converts from major parties and those converts realized that they don’t have to vote for the candidate of the party. It doesn’t matter that the hated other party will win if the candidate for the party is just as bad. That’s not to say that Barr is as bad as Obama or McCain – he most certainly is not as bad as them. The question resolves to is he good enough to get the vote of those who will actually analyze a candidate instead of showing blind party loyalty.

Strategy is important. A better thinking of strategy by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assocation and Proposition 98 would have passed. A better thinking of strategy by the Reform Caucus and Barr wouldn’t have to worry about getting the libertarian vote and could concentrate on the independent vote. As it stands now he has the potential to gain one at the expense of the other, and that will not result in the growth that the Reform Caucus promised the rest of the party when they rammed a double reform ticket down the throats of everyone else.

Barr/WAR

The Libertarian Party has nominated as the presidential ticket Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root. This is not news to any libertarians, but what does it mean to the Libertarian Party?

That’s a good question, because of all the issues that Bob Barr refuses to discuss. Perhaps indications of his positions can be inferred by some of his most vocal advocates. That is a rather risky assumption to make, but given a lack of contraindicating evidence, and given the determined silence by candidate Barr, that assumption is all there is to work with.

Barr and WAR were most heavily supported by the Reform Caucus of the Libertarian Party. Among the positions advocated by the Reform Caucus is a support for continued occupation of Iraq. WAR originally was a supporter of the occupation until he realized he could never get the nomination that way and switched position. Barr voted for the war in Iraq, but now supports pulling the troops out of Iraq. The problem is he described it as reducing America’s Military Footprint in Iraq. He opposes a massive footprint, but is remarkably silent of how little of a footprint he is discussing. Has the anti-war LP just chosen pro-war candidates?

Now that the nomination is secured, will the ticket remain as non-interventionist as the majority of the Libertarian Party or will the ticket become as interventionist as the Reform Caucus? What if Barr actively campaigns on issues at variance to the platform of the Libertarian Party?

Also given that before the candidates entered the race they both endorsed Republicans this is a problematic ticket. This isn’t comparable to Barr voting in anti-libertarian ways several years ago, because these are current events. WAR endorsed McCain before WAR became a candidate. Barr’s PAC contributed to a Republican instead of a competing Libertarian while Barr was on the Exec-Comm. Barr has since given a bigger donation to the Libertarian candidate, but how could any Libertarian (or libertarian) ever support McCain unless the issue that mattered most was continuing the imperialist wars in the Middle East?

Then there are issues he has refused to discuss, and mention of those issues earns the sneering scorn of the Reform Caucus. What is his position on freedom of religion? Those who ask are derided as pandering to pagans, but if the lesser known religions aren’t protected then are any religions protected? Given recent events with the CPS in Texas this is a valid concern.

Given the polarization that occurred in the Libertarian Party in the lead-up to the convention between the Reform Caucus and the Libertarian Caucus, it might have been a good idea to have a unity ticket with a member of the Libertarian Caucus as the vice presidential candidate. A Barr/Kubby ticket would have gone far to allay worries among those in the Libertarian Caucus. A Barr/WAR ticket is the Reform Caucus telling the Libertarian Caucus how much their input is actively wanted.

On the other hand, the Libertarian Caucus did gain seats on the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party, which could help the LP ride this election no matter how disastrous it is to the cause of advancing liberty and enable a shoring of the weaknesses.

The hope is that the two sides can make amends and try to reconcile to each other. Given that Christine Smith and Robert Milnes are leaving the party (and maybe drawing support with them), and given that Bob Barr refuses to answer some of the difficult questions that causes the Libertarian Caucus to be hesitant about embracing him even after he won the nomination this will be a difficult thing to achieve. Steve Kubby has taken the first critical step by urging support of Barr/WAR, but no reciprocal steps have been taken yet.

This could result in the strongest LP ticket ever with Barr reaching beyond the LP and bringing in new LP voters. This could also result in the weakest LP ticket ever with Barr alienating a significant portion of the LP base who will resort to either writing in a more palatable candidate, voting for a different party’s candidate (such as the Constitution Party), or simply not voting for president while voting for down-ticket libertarians. It is not only the job of the Libertarian Caucus to unite; it is the job of the Candidate to unite the party and the job of the Reform Caucus to unite the party. Thus far there have been no indications that the candidates are willing to do so, if their supporters are any measure.

Why the ACLU-SC should immediately reverse its position on Proposition 98

Notice, as a result of this article my membership in the ACLU has been revoked effective approximately June 16, 2008.

Support of proposition 98 is the pro-liberty position. Opposing 98 is an anti-liberty position. The ACLU-SC (ACLU of Southern California) has taken a position against the people in favor of the government with regards to proposition 98, for three distinct reasons: Eminent Domain, Environmentalism, and Rent Control.

Starting with the easiest, the ACLU-SC’s argument about environmentalism is flawed. It is said that this is bad for the environment. There are no environmental provisions anywhere in proposition 98. It does not mention any environmental regulations anywhere in the text. The only impact this measure could possibly have on the environment is by limiting the ability of the cities and counties to seize property for the sake of environmentalism. That is an exceedingly unusual usage of eminent domain in the first place, given that the overwhelming usage is either to steal the property for public works or to steal the property to give to favored and politically connected businesses. No environmental regulations relating to the use of property are impacted in any way.

It is said that this "hurts California cities" by making planning more difficult. Well, that’s exactly why it is good for everyone else. Too often cities simply take what they want without regards for the wishes of the owners. Too often the victims of Eminent Domain are the poor and the minority populations of the city who lack the resources to get fair hearings to retain their property and, at the least, force a fair settlement.

Eminent Domain is stealing from the poor to give to the rich. There is no way a person can be an advocate for the poor and allow the government the continued ability to steal property. The ACLU itself has come out against Eminent Domain, citing Kelo versus New London as a travesty of a Supreme Court decision detrimental to the poor.

Few protested the Kelo ruling more ardently than the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In an amicus brief filed in the case, it argued that "[t]he burden of eminent domain has and will continue to fall disproportionately upon racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and economically disadvantaged." Unfettered eminent domain authority, the NAACP concluded, is a "license for government to coerce individuals on behalf of society's strongest interests."

One cannot have civil liberty without sound property rights. It is not possible. All that is necessary to punish someone for behaving within the law but in ways that annoy the local government is for that local government to concoct a rationale to steal the property, and the nuisance person who embarrasses the city council no longer lives in the city. Eminent Domain is a weapon in the hands of those who desire greater government control over the public and to limit the rights of all.

All of those reasons take a back seat to the big reason the ACLU-SC opposes Proposition 98, and that is because Proposition 98 also attacks rent control.

It is said that if Proposition 98 passes, rent control will disappear and that will hurt the poor.

Anyone who has read the actual text of Proposition 98 knows that there is no merit to that argument.

First of all, rent control will not disappear. As long as the resident lives in the property, it will still be rent controlled. Someone who secures a rent controlled apartment the day before Proposition 98 goes into effect will still have a rent controlled apartment the day after it goes into effect. Every single rent controlled property is grandfathered out, not eliminated out right. This does not do a thing to weaken the situation of those in rent controlled properties.

Second, it is argued that this will eliminate federal fair housing laws. Nothing in the state government can touch a federal law.

Third, it is argued that this will make it impossible for a working or poor family to find available housing. That is the biggest fallacy of them all, as the entire history of rent control from the first time it was implemented shows that it has made housing less available and less affordable in every city that it has been tried in.

It is argued that without rent control nobody would be able to afford housing, which argues that landlords would rather allow property to sit idle than make a profit by renting out the property.

It is argued that without rent control housing landlords will throw people out of their dwellings without warning, an argument that can only be made by one who has never managed a business of any sort.

The truth is that rent control increases the cost of renting.

First, those who have rent controlled dwellings hold onto them for a very long time. If effect, they are hoarding the housing. This includes people who are middle class who secured the properties in their youth when their need for affordable housing was greater, but can easily afford better lodgings now. They remain in the properties because the cost is much lower, keeping out any and all new entrants into the housing market.

Since it is never the case that all of the housing in any city is rent controlled, this increases the demand for housing in the uncontrolled sector, pushing up the prices there. This amounts to a subsidy paid by the poor to those middle class who do not leave their dwellings.

Second, there is little incentive for investors to create more rental properties. Investors have a wide range of options to choose from when deciding where to invest. They could invest in rental properties, knowing that their returns will be low and will diminish in time. They could invest in other areas with much better returns. New rental properties are therefore not built.

Third, because rent control creates shortages, it creates the situation where poor and working families must crown into inferior sizes of housing, sometimes with two or more families in one unit, and it also exacerbates the homeless problem in the city.

The whole argument boils down to two basic economic misunderstandings. First there is ignorance of the laws of supply and demand, and the mistaken and misguided belief that the government can legislate against natural law. Just as it would be impossible for a city council to pass a law repealing the law of gravity, a city council cannot pass a law repealing the laws of supply and demand. When in an open market situation the equilibrium is close to the intersection of supply and demand. When the price is held artificially low by rent control laws, demand increases beyond the natural market state and supply drops similarly. Failure to account for such basic principles is the reasoning behind support of rent control.

Then there is the belief in market failures, that without the guiding hand of government the market is unable to function. People making this argument often say “yes, I believe in the free market, but there must be some controls.” That argument is untenable given the effectiveness record of rent control, as every control has made the situation worse, but that argument is still used all the time. Economic controls always backfire because it is impossible to repeal a natural law. Market failures are always the result government intervention, and using failures as an excuse for further interventions is recommending more poison as the cure for previous poison.

There is also the emotionally laded (but not rational in any sense) argument that by opposing rent control a person is siding with landlords against tenants, but the truth is that by opposing rent control one siding with both landlords and tenants against the government. Every time someone opposes rent control the argument is made that opposing rent control means that the person opposed to rent control hates the poor and loves the rich and wants the rich to profit off of the poor. It has to be an emotional argument because as has been demonstrated rent control actually hurts the poor. The motive for such an economically ignorant argument is "burn the rich."

Yes, proposition 98 is supported by wealthy land owners. They are looking out for their own best interests, just like everyone else. Somehow it is imagined that they should not have the right to look out for themselves. But in this case, their cause is also the cause of liberty. They have just as much of a right to security of property as everyone else. Hatred of the rich is a very base and undignified reason to support or oppose any measure. It is also supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association, which should indicate how much this measure is for the benefit of all against the government.

Finally, this is primarily an Economic Liberty proposition, not a Civil Liberty proposition. Given the horrendous record the ACLU has on economics, and given that the focus of the ACLU is Civil Liberty, that alone should have been sufficient reason to take no position. But since the ACLU-SC decided to take action, it is imperative that economics be studied sufficiently to understand that support of Proposition 98 is the only position in line with the desire to increase liberty. It increases the liberty of the rich and the poor, it increases the opportunity of the rich and the poor, and not only does it fail to legislate against reality it instead opposes legislation that oppose reality.

Proper Standing

Accountability really is the biggest problem with any government. Some may say that in a despotic government other problems are bigger, but it is the lack of accountability that enables a government to grow to the levels necessary to become abusive.

The original design of the federal system of the United States had several checks put in place to assist in keeping the government accountable. In theory the branches of the government compete with each other, and the individual states jealously guard their power. In practice the various levels of government have learned game theory and have solved the prisoner’s dilemma and all branches play cooperate more often than they play defect.

In The police state cannot happen without the police the tendency of the police to fail to adequately police themselves was noted. In A Proposed Solution it was suggested that those outside the government be given authority to file criminal charges against government officials.

If breaking the civil-criminal wall were implemented, there are still several defenses the state has.

One major problem with this is the problem of standing. One can only file a lawsuit in any given case if one has been an injured party. An outside observer, witnessing a crime, cannot file charges against the criminal. The victim, directly involved in the crime, can file civil charges against the criminal. The government is the only third party actor with standing to file any charges. The government, not directly involved in the crime, can file criminal charges against the criminal.

Another problem is the Nuremberg Defense. While that defense is not allowed by agents of a conquered government in courts of the conquering government, it has been shown to be effective when the court trying the case is of the same government as the defendant.

But the standing issue really is not only a big hurdle, it’s a big opportunity if the law can be adjusted to allow for it. In addition to holding police accountable, an adjustment to the principles of standing can hold the entire government accountable. Currently the only way an individual can challenge the constitutionality of any given law that individual must be on trial for breaking said law or as a victim of said law.

This is the reason why the ACLU has had such a hard time suing over wiretapping performed by the U.S. Government in the name of the “War On Terror.” The ACLU needs to find an actual victim to represent, someone who was actually spied upon unconstitutionally or illegally. That person would have standing and therefore the ACLU could represent them. The problem is the U.S. Government won’t intentionally release the names of who they have been secretly spying on, and therefore the ACLU cannot act. Fortunately for the ACLU they were saved by government incompetence and a partial list of names was released and therefore there were identifiable victims.

If one is not accused of breaking the law in question, or if one is not a victim of the law in question, one does not have standing to question the validity of the law. That needs to be remedied, and would be another check on the power of the government. Given the bromide that “we are the government” then theoretically everyone should be considered to have standing to challenge any law

If anyone could, at any time, file a case (at their own expense) to challenge the validity of the law it would be a legal nightmare. Therefore there will need to be guidelines and restrictions put in place to winnow out the more spurious cases. The guidelines already in place would serve as a good starting point, although they are more restrictive than they need to be. The only modification to the guidelines advocated is to remove the need for proper standing with regards to challenging legislation. This would also have the advantage of cutting through the government solution to the prisoners dilemma.

Purist versus Pragmatists

Once again the battle within the Libertarian Party between the purists and the pragmatists is heating up. The case for the pragmatists is thus: what is the virtue of being pure if you cannot get elected to positions where your ideas can influence others? The case for the purists is thus: what is the virtue of getting elected when you have to sacrifice your beliefs to get elected?

There is a certain amount of logic to each position, but only to a certain extent, and the weaker case is that of the pragmatists. If sacrificing for the purpose of popularity is an effective tactic, how far should this be taken? Just how much should be sacrificed? The nether terminus of that line of questioning is to go back to the two major political parties because for the overwhelming majority of political offices the holder comes from one of those two parties.

For a long time the purists have been in control of the party, and the platform has reflected this, which is very fortunate. The platform is the end goal, the ultimate desired state, and therefore should never be watered down. The war in Iraq has given focus to the Pragmatists as many of them are also Interventionists. In 2006 the pragmatists managed to organize into a "Reform Caucus" and take control of the Libertarian Party convention and shred major portions of the platform.

Now that the task before the Libertarian Party is to pick a new presidential candidate, the rivalry is heating up again. Among the candidates favored by the purists are Mary Ruwart and Steve Kubby. Among the candidates favored by the pragmatists are Wayne Root and Bob Barr. Also this has been reflected in the Republican presidential primary as libertarians of the purist faction favored Ron Paul while prominent pragmatists have come out against him to the point where Reason Magazine actually published a hit piece in order to accuse Rep. Paul of racism.

The argument in favor of Mr. Barr is that while he’s not pure he is significantly libertarian. As was put at one point "He’s 80% but can get 4% of the vote. Ruwart is closer to 100% but will get less than 1%."

Is Mr. Barr at the estimated 80%? His detractors have asked many questions of him that would either confirm or disprove his conversion to libertarianism, but thus far there have been no answers forthcoming. His supporters say that by asking the questions in the first place that purists are sabotaging the party by insisting that a candidate be perfect.

Asking questions in not the same as insisting a candidate be perfect. All asking questions does is try to find out his positions on the issues. Has he changed his opinion on Pagans serving in the military? Has he changed his opinion on Faith Based Initiatives? Has he changed his opinion on No Child Left Behind or Prescription Drug Coverage for Seniors?

Asking those questions doesn’t mean he has to be 100% libertarian, it means that if he wants support he should come up with reasonable answers instead of non answers. Supporters of Barr, pragmatists all, insist that Mr. Barr shouldn’t have to pass a purity test of libertarianism. The truth is that while a perfect score should not necessarily be needed, taking the test in the first place is needed.

As an alternative, if Mr. Barr will not answer those questions, there is one potential running mate that could allay any worries about his deviation from the libertarian line, a candidate who while also impure deviates in precisely the opposite way and if paired could potentially create a ticket where the negatives balance each other out: Mike Gravel. Mr. Gravel could never pass a libertarian purity tests, and would never be the choice of the purists on his own. Strangely he is not the choice of the pragmatists either, even though he also has greater public name recognition than any of the other candidates (save Barr).

He isn’t thought of by them because perhaps there is some grain of truth to the suspicion that the pragmatists are hoping that Mr. Barr might be a stealth interventionist candidate, the was Mr. Root was before he discovered that being an advocate of war was the last position a potential libertarian candidate wanted if his goal is to win the nomination. Mr. Root had the potential to be pro-war after winning the nomination, and so does Mr. Barr. There is no such suspicion with Mr. Gravel.

Also many of the pragmatists, for all their dislike of Ron Paul, are often accused of being sympathetic or soft on the Republicans. If Mr. Barr isn’t pure libertarian, he is impure in a very Republican direction, which is sure to please the Republican-leaning pro-war "pragmatists". Mike Gravel is sure to displease for all the reasons they suspect Bob Barr will please.

Still, the best hope the "pragmatists" have of convincing the purists to support Barr with any degree of enthusiasm would be the precisely opposite candidate. While better candidates exist, such as Mary Ruwart, the best ticket may be Barr-Gravel.