The Cities are Falling

The city of Maywood, CA, recently shut down their police department and outsourced all services. This is because their police department was so corrupt that the city could no longer afford the insurance necessary to guard against lawsuits. They outsourced their police protection to the city of Bell, CA.

The city of Bell, CA, was the next city in the news. It was discovered by the Los Angeles Times that City Manager Robert Rizzo was making $787,637 per year, Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia was making $376,288, and Police Chief Randy Adams was making $457,000. The city has a population of 36,664 and a median income of $29,946, well below the state average.

For two weeks in a row, there has been overflow attendance at city council meetings. The first time the council immediately recessed for seven hours, not resuming business until after midnight. The second time the council reconvened earlier to meet the demands of their citizens. When the citizens of Bell demanded the resignation of the whole council, the response was that the mayor offered to work the rest of his term for no pay and the rest of the council offered to work at one-tenth their prior pay.

As it was members of the police department who allegedly tipped off the Los Angeles Times regarding the pay issue, it was thought that the city council was going to disband their police force in retaliation at that second meeting and turn security over to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. It was even reported by John and Ken that there was an agreement between Police Chief Adams and Sheriff Baca that ensured the Sheriff’s Department would not hire any of the displaced police. So far the department is still intact, although the threat of retribution is still very real.

On Monday, July 26, State Attorney General Jerry Brown issued a subpoena for all city records, giving the city officials 48 hours to comply. It is doubtful that in any case not involving government officials he would announce that the culprits have 48 hours to destroy all evidence. Eventually a police raid did occur, not led by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department or any state enforcement agency, but by Police Chief Adams who was barred from his own office.

There is obviously a lot of corruption in the city of Bell, just as there is in the city of Maywood. The mood in Bell was extremely bitter to the point where city councilmen desired police protection to simply get from their cars to the city council meeting.

These are just current events. It was California that also hosted the first city to go bankrupt as a result of the Greater Depression, the city of Vallejo. Across the state of California, and across much of the nation as well, cities are being hit hard.

Listening to John and Ken report on it, one thing became clear: the people are angrier than ever. In spite of efforts to force the Tea Party movement into picking a side and only one side, keeping the greater freedom movement divided, the people as a whole are angrier than ever before. Had it been announced that the crowd had turned violent, it would not have been surprising to any listener.

Many people are starting to see a definite possibility of a second American Revolution, probably more similar to The French Revolution than the first American Revolution. As each new scandal of each new city hits the news, each scandal worse than the one before, it gives reason to ponder if that revolution could be sparked by a particularly corrupt city and a riot that gets out of control.

An Overused Tactic

If an average American were accused of being a Tory, he’d probably shrug his shoulders and consider it a silly thing to say. During the American Revolution, however, it was a potent insult. Call him a Papist and he’ll understand that it refers to Catholicism, but will find it an odd way of putting it. If called a Communist most would find it funny, although that does still retain some sting.

The truth is that labels meant to be insults do lose their power over time. Sometimes the issue ages out, such as when calling someone a Tory. Sometimes the label looses effect due to overuse, such as when calling someone a Racist.

It has come to the point where the term "racist" has become so completely overused that it is losing its impact. There was a time when a person so accused would take great offense and spend much time demonstrating a lack of racist tendencies. The typical response now is to sigh and accuse the other person of making the accusation due to having run out of actual arguments.

The reason it was overused is because the person making the accusation typically did resort to it due to having run out of actual arguments. Now an outside observer, hearing a progressive refer to someone else as a racist, hears "he's saying that guy isn't a progressive."

That is what happened when the president of the NAACP, Ben Jealous, called out the Tea Party movement as racist. It was such an obviously cynical and transparent ploy that it takes a determined effort to believe that there is any legitimacy to the claim.

He was called out on it a cynical and sarcastic response by Mark Williams of Tea Party Express. While the Tea Party Express is one of the groups trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement with false promises of "enemy of my enemy" and "lesser of two evils", in this instance Mr. Williams was right. He compared the NAACP to slaves rejecting an offer of freedom.

For that he was pilloried in the media as racist. While the National Tea Party Federation did expel him, the wider reaction was interesting. Most progressives worked hard to convince themselves that the letter was itself racist. Everyone else yawned.

While it is good that those who dare to oppose progressive are no longer afraid of the charge, the unfortunate effect about the diminished meaning of the word "racism" is that it enables the few real racists to defend themselves with "he called me that because I’m not progressive enough."

Once again, a useful word has been destroyed by progressives. First the word "liberal" was taken to mean the reverse of what it originally meant and now "racist" has come to mean nothing at all.

Tea Party Protest History

The first of the modern Tea Party protests took place in 2007. It was a combined event, both a protest against the excessive spending of George W. Bush and a campaign event of presidential candidate Ron Paul. Throughout 2008 more of these combined events occurred.

This is important to remember, because while the current state of the Tea Party movement is such to cause many libertarians and other freedom lovers to be a little cautious of the current Tea Party protests, especially those that emphasize the pseudo-patriotism of the current military misadventures in the Middle East, especially the Tea Party Express AstroTurf movement, the history is still noble.

Currently progressive and liberal critics of the Tea Party movement like to ask the question where the protesters were before February 2009. This is asked in order to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the protesters by highlighting how they didn’t protest spending under Bush. This allegedly shows that the protests aren’t based on spending but either on partisanship or on alleged (but never proven) racism.

It is true that after the election many people joined the movement who were not in it previously. It is true that many of these late-comers could have their concern described as partisan instead of fiscal, but certainly not all of them. The same can be said about the reduced attendance in anti-war protests since January 2009.

The history of the Tea Party protests is also forgotten by members of the Republican Party trying to absorb the Tea Party protests with false promises of “enemy of my enemy” and “lesser of two evils” who do not want to recall the true origin of the protests. To acknowledge where the protests came from is to acknowledge the dirty secret of Republican fiscal irresponsibility and to lose the audience they wish to capture.

History is inconvenient, and thus forgotten.

Fascism with Free Speech

One of the most difficult challenges people face in convincing people that the United States is far from free is that, for the most part, people still have a considerable amount of the right to free speech as allegedly protected by the first amendment.

There have not been any incidents to truly rival the White Rose Resistance Movement of Nazi Germany, in which the six people who were handing out pamphlets criticizing the government were executed. It is true that compared to Nazi Germany, Americans have pretty impressive free speech rights. Anybody can start a blog, or post to any internet forum, and criticize the leadership of the United States. There is no crime in saying that George W. Bush and Barack Obama are incompetent, idiotic, despotic psychopaths.

But doing so has no impact.

Sometimes internet activity can have an impact. In the case of Michael Nifong, William Anderson’s relentless blogging, combined with the defendants having the resources to defend themselves, not only led to the case being dismissed but to Nifong being disbarred, losing his job, and spending an entire day in jail. It was clear that the trial of Nifong had the entire court staff mystified because it was a prosecutor being put on trial for prosecutorial conduct. But that was an isolated case. Libertarians commenting on the case tried repeatedly to branch the discussion from this particular example to the behavior of the legal system in the United States and the behavior of prosecutors, only to have the audience disappear every time. While this particular case was impacted, the system as a whole was not impacted.

Or there is the case of the Critical Mass Cyclist, where the internet forced the case to not only be dropped but for the officer involved to be stripped of his badge. He was not incarcerated for his crime. This relates to the case of the BART shooting in Oakland, where the officer was convicted of fourth degree manslaughter because of the large number of cell phones recording the shooting - after the police attempted to confiscate all the cell phones in the vicinity of the shooting. In both of those cases, modern technology facilitated free speech to achieve some (albeit insufficient) justice, but libertarians commenting on the cases tried to branch the discussion from isolated incidents to police behavior in general, only to have the audience disappear every time.

In these specific instances, in these specific cases, the specific people involved were impacted by free speech, but the overall system was not impacted. Even so, there is discussion inside Washington on how to regulate blogging, because even isolated incidents show that the power of the elite is not absolute. It is when speech starts having an impact that government officials seem to be more than willing to sacrifice the first amendment. It is already the case that elected officials believe campaign contributions are not a form of speech at all, and have managed to convince many people of that.

Radio personalities John and Ken of KFI640 were unhappy with Congressman David Dreier area over the topic of illegal immigration. So they led a campaign to have him lose his next election, calling it "Fire Dreier" and urging people to vote against him due to his stand on illegal immigration. Their impact was such that, in his safe district, he won by a small margin instead of a large margin. That result was so troubling that the Republican Party filed an FEC complaint against them in a deliberate effort to chill political speech. The FEC has not taken any action against John and Ken or KFI.

Unlike the victory of John and Ken, Julian Heicklen is constantly being abused by those in authority, so that when he is not being arrested by police he is being involuntarily committed to the hospital. He is receiving this treatment for handing out FIJA pamphlets in front of court houses. He is not a major radio personality in a major media market, and that is why the police can continue to get away with this kind of abuse. FIJA pamphlets are a direct assault on the court system which has conspired to prevent people from exercising their full rights as jurors. In some states, such as California, it is currently illegal to hand out pamphlets on court house grounds at all, unlike in the places were Julian Heicklen does his work.

It is clear that free speech is under assault, but in a very careful manner to protect all speech except for speech that may actually make a difference. That way the average American will not ever encounter a situation where he will find his free speech to be limited, and thus will never believe that free speech is limited in the first place.

Prison Normal

Andy Dufresne: I just don't understand what happened in there, that's all.
Heywood: Old man's crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse, is what.
Red: Oh Heywood, that's enough out of you!
Ernie: I heard he had you shittin' in your pants!
Heywood: Fuck you!
Red: Would you knock it off? Brooks ain't no bug. He's just... just institutionalized.
Heywood: Institutionalized, my ass.
Red: The man's been in here fifty years, Heywood. Fifty years! This is all he knows. In here, he's an important man. He's an educated man. Outside, he's nothin'! Just a used up con with arthritis in both hands. Probably couldn't get a library card if he tried! You know what I'm tryin' to say?
Floyd: Red, I do believe you're talking out of your ass.
Red: You believe whatever you want, Floyd. But I'm tellin' you these walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, you get so you depend on them. That's institutionalized.
Heywood: Shit. I could never get like that.
Prisoner: Oh yeah? Say that when you been here as long as Brooks has.
Red: Goddamn right. They send you here for life, and that's exactly what they take. The part that counts, anyway.

- The Shawshank Redemption

One of the more amazing things about people is their ability to adapt to almost any circumstance. No matter how unusual the situation people develop means of coping and new routines to accommodate the extremes that they face. Some people even move towards considering the unusual situation as the normal situation.

In "The Shawshank Redemption" the character of Brooks had been in prison for fifty years. Hearing that he was about to be paroled he snapped and attacked another inmate. He did this because he knew no other life than prison, and he wanted to stay inside. According to the character Red, Brooks had become institutionalized. Prison was normal for him.

After a century, most people in the United States have come to believe that an unbacked fiat currency is normal. People have come to expect an average of three percent inflation per year is normal. In the course of one century the dollar has lost ninety-eight percent of its value, and people have come to think of that as normal.

People have come to think of it as so normal that they have come to think of other arrangements as being completely abnormal. It is argued that a modern economy cannot grow without a constantly inflating fiat currency. They are experiencing "Prison normal".

The real miracle of the United States economy is that it has been prosperous for so long in an abnormal situation. It takes a long time to drain the wealth of a wealthy nation, which is why the abnormal situation was able to continue for long enough to become a Prison Normal situation. The steps that are necessary to return the economy to a truly normal state are considered abnormal, extremist. The average American has become institutionalized.

Against Milton Friedman

Upon seeing "Fear the Boom and Bust”, the Keynes versus Hayek rap video, the following email was sent to the producers of that video:

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Ayn R. Key wrote:

Having Keynes versus Hayek was great. Loved the imagery of alcohol and hangover, and the reference to Tim and Ben.

Next, Hayek (or Rothbard or Mises) versus Friedman (or Fisher, where Friedman got all his ideas from) please.

I'm tired of people thinking that Chicago School Monetarists are some sort of libertarians.

The following response was forthcoming:

On Thu, Apr22, 2010 at 9:16 AM, John Papola wrote:

Thanks for the note! Explaining the differences of the two schools of thought is useful and we'll be getting to it in our extended content via interviews. It's a little too nuanced for a rap song.

Have you read Roger Garrison's "Time and Money”? There is much more in common between the Austrian theory of the business cycle and Milton's monetarism than meets the eye. If we can't call Milton a libertarian, we're doomed. I'm not big on libertarian factionalism. Compared with our opponents on the Keynes/Marx statist side, the differences between Hayek and Friedman are inconsequential in my opinion. Friedman was also very successful in moving public opinion and the profession away from Keynes. For that we should all be grateful.

Friedman, Hayek, Mises and Rothbard are all awesome in different ways.

For reasons unknown, Milton Friedman is considered to be a libertarian thinker, especially in matters economic. He is often used as an example of libertarian thinking by those who are not libertarians but wish to reference libertarians to support a point.

The problem is, Milton Friedman was a Monetarist. As pointed out, Monetarism is not the same thing as Capitalism. When compared to Keynesianism then of course it appears to be more libertarian, but that is an awfully low bar to measure against.

There are many critiques libertarians can make against Friedman, such as his relationship to Pinochet or how he instituted income tax withholding, but the most fundamental one is that he, like Irving Fisher, advocated central banking.

If Keynesians are to be considered as saying that two and two make eight, and Austrians are to be considered as saying that two and two make four, then Monetarists try to position themselves as moderates by saying that two and two make six. They may be closer than Keynesians, but they are still quite wrong. Central banking, the defining position of Monetarists, is causing yet another catastrophic collapse, and people actually are calling it libertarian? Calling it so is a gift to the statists that they couldn't even hope for.

A second civil war

It comes up every once in a while in libertarian circles, more often in some boards than in others and more often as we near the anniversary of the secession of 1776 - a discussion of a potential future civil war that could theoretically restore liberty in the United States. Although entertaining to think about an uprising can have disastrous consequences, or if it is the wrong uprising can be a disaster itself.

One of the ways it could go horribly wrong is if the conflict is steered into red versus blue, red states versus blue states. Neither the Democrats and their supporters nor the Republicans and their supporters represent greater liberty, but instead offer competing versions of how the government should run the lives of the people. The leadership of both parties believe that they are entitled to rule others. Yet this is a particularly likely form of civil war due to it perpetuating the basic right versus left division that has kept the freedom movement divided against each other instead of the common foe, and kept the people divided so that they do not notice the common foe.

What could undo that possibility is if both a red state and a blue state were to nullify or secede for different reasons at the same time. Supposing California seceded over marijuana legalization while Texas seceded over health care reform, at the same time. By both acts occurring near each other it would prevent those in charge from saying that pulling away is uniquely red or uniquely blue.

Another possibility is a very messy war composed of many factions, both within and outside the government. Although this gives the freedom movement more opportunities, it will take a lot longer to resolve and it will mean many more enemies. This would come about if an over grown government begins to splinter under its own weight. Different areas of the country could come under different rule not by secession but by different agencies or commands declaring different fiefdoms. It is already the case where the military is establishing a command with the special focus of inside the United States, and there are the ever present rumors about FEMA camps.

Then there is the possibility of a groundswell in the form of riots. Some predict that they will be triggered by the depression getting worse, or by a lack of food. Given the success of public education it will take a lot to get to this point. The people have been successfully taught that there are only two respectable sources for answers to political questions, and anything else is fringe and to be ignored. These same people also do not like the answers they are getting from the only two sources they have learned they should listen to. It is a nasty dilemma that the average person is in, and the frustration can lead to chaos. This type of uprising could lead to a revolution more like the French Revolution than either of the American Revolutions.

The only real option for the freedom movement in the face of those possibilities is to try to build strong networks of mutual support. That way if it does come down to people shooting each other the freedom movement will have the advantage of friendly loose organization.

If those in the freedom movement genuinely believe there will be conflict, then the thing that needs to be done is to prepare to ensure it is the right conflict. The wrong conflict could result in a Napoleon or a Lenin seizing control. And even if it is the right conflict, it should be remembered that war is ugly. There may be some opportunity for glory, but there is much more opportunity for gory.

On Voting

There are three common arguments made about voting by libertarians. The first is made by those who are too ready to sacrifice principle; that a person must vote for the lesser of two evils. This is a wasted vote. Voting for a Republican or a Democrat on the premise that the candidate from the other major party is worse really makes no difference. First of all most districts are safe districts and the winner of the general election is really determined in the primary. For state-wide races, such as senators or the president, most states are safe states as well.

Voting for the lesser of two evils doesn’t send the message the voter generally assumes will be sent. If a person votes against candidate A by voting for candidate B, all the vote totals show is another vote for candidate B. Votes do not come with labels saying "this is actually a vote against the other candidate", it is counted as a positive endorsement of all the flaws of candidate B.

Maybe in some particular races the counter argument could be made. In Minnesota, for example, the margin of victory in the 2008 senate race was less than the third party total, and Republicans bitterly complained about Libertarians allowing a Democrat to win the office - but Republicans forgot that the votes do not belong to the Republican Party, that they had not earned them, and in fact had acted in such a way as to guarantee that those voters will vote Libertarian. In attempting to make the lesser of two evils argument in that particular case, defenders of lesser of two evils not only undermine their own case, they support showing that the case is the exception and that most races are not nearly that close.

Except for the very extreme case, the vote for a third party will not decide the race between the major party candidates. In Texas, a voter trying to choose between Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party or Barack Obama of the Democratic Party will not swing that state. In California, a voter trying to choose between Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party or John McCain of the Republican Party will not swing that state. Also, a voter choosing between McKinney or Obama in California or Baldwin or McCain in Texas will not change the outcome.

But put it another way, take a theoretical voter trying to decide between Cynthia McKinney as his first choice or Barack Obama as the lesser of two evils candidate. If he votes for McKinney he increases her vote total from 161,603 to 161,604 (a percentage increase of 0.0006), but if he votes for Obama he increases his vote total from 64,639,738 to 64,639,739 (a percentage increase of 0.000000015). Clearly voting for McKinney would have a greater impact.

The two arguments on effective voting center on whether or not someone should vote at all. Well reasoned arguments are made on both sides of the issue. Those against voting are attempting to withhold consent from the state, consent that the state claims to have from participation in the system. Theoretically if someone votes, the person agrees to abide by the outcome of the election. Those in favor of voting, and not for the lesser of two evils, say that only by voting can the voice of the voter be heard, however faintly, alerting those in power to the wishes of the voter.

On the consent issue, the state has constructed an inherently contradictory case. If a person does vote the person is said to have given consent through participation; however, if a person does not vote the person is said to have given consent through not bothering to participate by expressing that the voter is content with any outcome. The two arguments contradict each other, but that is no concern to those who support gaining the illusion of consent. Whether or not someone votes, it is counted as consent, so therefore there is no reason to not vote; better to vote in a way that sends a clear message on the voter’s preference.

It is true that if there is no good candidate then there is no point in voting, but if there is actually a good candidate then by voting for that person it does increase, in however small a number, the chances that said candidate would win and does relay the message of who the voter actually supports and what the voter actually wishes of the government. Since the leaders of the major parties seem to believe that the votes belong to the major parties, by voting outside the two party framework a voter sends a disproportionately loud message by not "giving" to the parties that which "belongs" to them. The more voters fail to "deliver the goods" the more the parties start to work on how they can adjust to cause those voters to return. It is even possible, though unlikely, that the major parties could move towards greater liberty without ever attracting a pro-liberty vote. They will never move in that direction if they can get the pro-liberty vote without effort, or if they do not know that the vote is out there.

But there is one area in which the message sent by voting is unmistakable: ballot propositions. There are only two sides to a ballot proposition: yes and no. One of those options is clearly better, and there is no splitting of the vote with third options on ballot propositions. Sometimes the right side of the ballot proposition wins, such as Proposition 13, and sometimes it loses, such as Proposition 14, but every vote on a ballot proposition counts. There is no argument against voting for a ballot proposition.

The Greater Freedom Movement

After the Libertarian Party Convention there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that Mark Hinkle beat Wayne Root for national chair. The bad news is that on the final ballot Wayne Root received a significant percentage, about 45%, of the final vote. The first is a good sign that the Libertarian Party is moving back in a more libertarian direction, the second is a sign that there is still a great distance to go before the Libertarian Party can be restored.

Wayne Root was supported by the Reform Caucus. The Reform Caucus was founded on a good idea, that the Libertarian Party could attract greater numbers by working with others who are freedom oriented but who are not as purist as the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately it went entirely the wrong direction - the members of the Reform Caucus started steering the Libertarian Party in a much more Republican direction, giving a big boost to Bob Barr and Wayne Root, ultimately resulting in Aaron Star trying to purge purists from the National Committee.

While there were some in the Reform Caucus who had the best of intentions, trying to reshape the Libertarian Party in that direction was entirely the wrong way to collect the energy of the greater freedom movement. Becoming more like one of the two major parties, or moving more towards the center of the Nolan Chart, is not the way to bring together the greater freedom movement.

The way to go isn't to be more like the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, but to find a way to build alliances with the disaffected of both parties. The way to do that isn't to eliminate what it means to be libertarian, but to encourage the other disaffected fringes to grow and to work with them. It was once pointed out that if Cindy Sheehan's anti-war movement were to join forces with the Tea Party protests it would be a coup for the freedom movement. It has been noticed that the way the parties divided in the bailout separated the mainstreamers of both parties from the mavericks of both parties (with the alleged maverick John McCain a bailout supporter unlike real mavericks Paul and Kucinich).

The greater freedom movement can be considered "libertarian" in the sense used in "Tribesman, Barbarian, Citizen … and Libertarian", but it actually is more diverse than the Libertarian Party Platform could ever be. The Pournelle Chart is a better model in certain respects because it separates the Anarcho-Syndicalists from the Anarcho-Capitalists. It differentiates the Counter-Culture from the Objectivists, while acknowledging that they are both part of the same greater freedom movement that combines the best elements of the Tea Party with the best elements of the Sheehan protests.

The Campaign For Liberty could have been that, by inviting the four leading third candidates on to one stage. It probably still could be, and in doing so is taking the place that should have been taken by the Reform Caucus, and doing it in the way the Reform Caucus should have in the first place. The trick is to acknowledge the differences in the Issues Designed to Divide (abortion being the biggest, and also whether a system without government would be capitalist or syndicalist, but don't budge on the definition of capitalism) instead of fighting over them, and to concentrate on the common foe. That way both purity of ideology can be maintained while making the necessary compromises to work together. Instead of becoming less radical in order to stop scaring voters, the trick is to become more radical by embracing the other, different radicals.

If that is accomplished, then it will be possible for the greater freedom movement to succeed, which will be a victory for the Libertarian Party, both the purists AND the reformers.

Secession, or Jettison

When Bush was president, there were some hopeful signs on the subject of secession. It was when Bush was president that the Free State Project was initiated, and it was under President Bush that liberal pundits made their first, tentative explorations into the subjects of nullification and secession, subjects previously forbidden to liberals and progressives. The tentative progressive explorations all came to an abrupt halt when Obama was elected, of course, at which point conservatives started making the same explorations with regards to health care, explorations that were forbidden due to the war on terror.

But secession is not the only way to deal with irreconcilable differences between different states and regions of the country. Although there has been no noticeable exploration of this option, it should be possible to jettison a state that is more of a burden to the union than the rest of the states wish to bear.

This option is actually being discussed in the much looser federation known as the European Union, as Germans are, on average, quite displeased with the bailout of the Greek Government. Some talk about Greece withdrawing from the EU, some talk about Germany withdrawing from the EU, and some talk about kicking Greece out of the EU.

That last option could be applied to great effect in the United States.

California, for example, is a state in such severe financial disarray that it is actually in worse shape than Greece. It is practically inevitable that at some point the federal government will have to come in and rescue California from its massive structural deficits, and will have to do so more than once. Is it right that other states should have to shoulder that burden simply because California politicians are unable to resist giving the public employee union anything they desire?

Texas, where talk of secession was so notable that it made the news, is in much better shape financially. They are causing a controversy because they are getting unabashedly political in their choice of textbooks, and their decisions have an impact on the rest of the country. People in smaller states are quite displeased that their own textbook choices will be limited by manufacturers trying to please politicians in Texas.

There is no precedent for ejecting a state from the union, so every single action taken would be groundbreaking. It is possible that one could argue that under Article Five it is forbidden to eject a state on the grounds that doing so would deprive them of representation in the Senate. It is possible, but that is a weak argument given that the article is supposed to ensure that no state that is in the union lacks proper representation. Any state that is jettisoned is no longer a state.

The benefits to jettison can be immense. There is no way currently for people in one state to reject noxious politicians elected by another state. If jettison were implemented on, for example, Arizona’s new immigration bill, the result would mean the United States is permanently relieved from having John McCain taint the Senate any more.

Marginalizing Third Parties

The two parties, in collusion, have ever sought greater ways to limit outside competition. Ballot access laws, campaign finance laws, and safe districts have done much in this area, but even then third parties are still on the ballot. Occasionally a third party even garners more votes than the winning margin between the two approved candidates. Occasionally a third party even wins some office.

That situation is considered, by those who feel it is their right to rule others, intolerable. They really have no complaint, because in the few instances in which the rules could have applied to the major parties, the rules were waived. In 2004, the Republican Party held its convention rather late in the year to put it as close to September 11th as possible. As such, Bush was named the candidate after the filing deadline had passed in two states that Bush eventually carried. Had the law been enforced, Kerry would have won in 2004. In 2008, both the Republicans and the Democrats failed to file on time in Texas. Had the law been enforced, the Texas electoral votes would have gone to Bob Barr. Theoretically Democrats should have supported enforcing the law as written, since it would have enabled them to sail to an easy victory. In reality the Democratic Party leadership recognized a higher principle, that of maintaining the duopoly, and was willing to sacrifice victory in 2004 and risk sacrificing victory in 2008 to maintain their top positions.

It goes without saying that had a third party filed late, no such exception would be made.

But a way to truly disenfranchise third parties has reared its ugly head and is spreading, one state at a time, through the United States. Currently it is festering in California under the guise of California Proposition 14, the Top Two Primaries Act of 2010.

It purports to fight partisanship by putting all candidates in one primary, without regard for party. Anyone can vote for any parties candidates. The top two vote getters will proceed to the general election.

The minor argument against this proposition is that it will result in two Republicans running against each other in Republican Safe Districts, and two Democrats running against each other in Democrat Safe Districts. This will leave those in the out party having little choice.

The middle argument is that this will entrench incumbents even more. As has been shown in Louisiana, the only incumbent to lose after an approach like this was passed did so because redistricting had that incumbent lose to another incumbent.

The greatest argument is that this will destroy all third party electoral chances. As has been shown in Washington (the state), no third party candidates have been on the general election ballot since that state adopted this measure. California Proposition 14 would even eliminate the protest of a write in candidate, so any third party voter who continues to vote for a third party candidate will not have the vote counted and will have the ballot disqualified.

This measure is exactly what one would want to further entrench the duopoly. It is corruption manifest and must be defeated.

Capitalism

There appears to be a debate in some libertarian circles on whether or not libertarians should embrace or reject the word "capitalism."

Those who would reject the word do so on the basis of the baggage that comes with the word. It was first popularized by Marx to describe not just the free market but also economies in which the government interferes in favor of businesses.

Those who would keep the word do so on the basis of there being no better single word. Other terms are less widely known or are more cumbersome. The word itself, they argue, actually describes best the economic system advocated by libertarians in spite of its baggage.

It really is a simple choice, and capitalism is the best word for a free market economic system, but if it is to be used it must be fought for. A simple pronouncement is far insufficient.

People are doing that. Garry Reed, the Libertarian News Examiner, did so recently with the article Corpratism – equally loved by left and right.

Those who would disparage Capitalism are always confusing it with other ideologies, including but not limited to Corporatism, Keynesianism, and Monetarism. Some go so far as to say Monetarism, the economic ideology of Friedman and the Chicago School, is a libertarian economic ideology.

A few moments of honest thought would dispel any confusion over whether or not these other ideologies are included in Capitalism as is meant by libertarians. Monetarism has a central bank. Corporatism has protective tariffs and bailouts. It's not even necessary to describe the many differences between Capitalism and Keynesianism. And yet the myths persist.

That is because detractors want to lay at the feet of Capitalism the faults of the other systems. In Corporatism, failing businesses get bailouts, in Capitalism they do not. Yet if the two are the same then bailouts are a feature of Capitalism. In Monetarism the dollar loses value every year to the point where a 2010 dollar is worth a few cents compared to a 1910 dollar. Yet if the two are the same then an inflationary monetary policy is a feature of Capitalism.

Every fault that detractors name in the real world, as opposed to pure theory, comes from departures from the free market and government interference in the free market. Therefore it is not the fault of the free market. The only way to blame Capitalism is if other ideologies are lumped together with it.

Those who wish to preserve the word "Capitalism" have the right idea, but they must remember that they must fight for it. It's a good word but it has to be defended. The attempts to add baggage to the word are continuous.

Update: It was pointed out that Marx only popularized the term "capitalism", he didn't coin the term. Correction noted.

Arizona's SB 1070 works perfectly

Even though it has not yet taken effect, and not yet faced the inevitable court challenges, Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 has worked very well. In fact it has worked far better than the original authors could have imagined. This may sound strange considering how little time it has had, but as Ayn Rand would point out, if you want to know if something is right ask yourself "by what standard?"

It's actually surprisingly obvious how this bill is a success. Across the country people are debating it, but they’re all either debating "white" versus "brown" or "legal" versus "illegal." Outside of a small handful of libertarian commentators, nobody is pointing out that this bill has established a legal precedent for "papers please."

Some will think that, due to not being of the ethnic group most likely to be targeted, that they are actually safe. But, given the need to not appear to be racially profiling, the police will have license to stop anybody, at any time, on the grounds of "suspicion." And given the overly wide leeway given to police to stop people on "suspicion" that means anybody can be stopped at any time.

This means that if someone fails to show proper respect, they can be asked to show their papers. If someone insults a cop, he can be asked to show his papers. If someone stares too long at a cop, he can be asked to show his papers. Already the crime of "contempt of cop" carries the high risk of being assaulted, and then arrested for "disorderly conduct", with the additional crime of "resisting arrest" and "assaulting a cop" for anyone who tries to resist this unlawful arrest. Now an additional charge can be tacked on.

According to the statute, failure to prove citizenship can carry a fine of up to $100 and 6 days in jail for first time offenders. Originally the bill carried a fine of up to $500 and 20 days in jail for first time offenders. Those who fail to carry documentation more often face steeper fines and sentences.

What remains to be seen is how this act will be enforced on legal citizens who are simultaneously guilty of "contempt of cop" and failure to carry sufficient documentation. Will this require all people in Arizona to carry full proof of citizenship at all times? Will this require all people in Arizona to show said paperwork to police on demand or pay the fine originally intended for illegal aliens?

This bill worked far better than intended. The popular debate focuses on the racial and immigration aspects, and ignores the fact that this implements "papers please."

Tenth Amendment Resolutions

Many states are passing state sovereignty resolutions. Some, usually considered more "blue", are passing resolutions legalizing marijuana, usually for medicinal purposes but sometimes going as far as outright legalization. Others, usually considered more "red", are passing resolutions exempting citizens of that state from the insurance mandate included in the health care "reform" recently passed.

The problem is that at this point these resolutions are symbolic. While these resolutions will be challenged in federal courts (at which point the federal government will likely rule in its own favor) these resolutions lack any enforcement mechanism. The only resolutions that have any actual impact are the ones that prohibit a state from participating in REAL ID or PASS ID on the grounds that the state simply refuses to spend the money to comply with federal standards.

What, in any of these resolutions, will stop the DEA for the ATF from enforcing federal law on the citizens of states allegedly protected by these tenth amendment resolutions? Based on the continuing arrests of medicinal marijuana patients in California, apparently nothing. These resolutions lack an enforcement mechanism.

A better resolution would not only nullify the federal law in question - it would mandate that the state and local police not cooperate under any circumstances with the federal agency corresponding to the law in question, up to including punishments for police that do so. An even better resolution would mandate that the police arrest and the district attorneys file charges against federal agents for violating the rights of citizens of the state, and forbid transfer of these federal agents into federal custody.

It is absolutely certain that the federal government will attempt to challenge these laws. The question is how effective that would be. Any state legislature that has the courage to pass a nullification resolution with an enforcement mechanism would also have the courage to refuse to hand over any federal DEA or ATF agents. To get these agents would require an armed assault on the state prison system. To arrest politicians who stand up to the federal government would also require an armed assault. Will the federal government go that far?

This is not without precedent though. The State of Massachusetts nullified the Fugitive Slave Act before the civil war. The Fugitive Slave Act said that anyone who kidnaps a runaway slave is protected from prosecution but anyone who protects a runaway slave would be tried for violating the act. The nullification act passed by Massachusetts reversed the Fugitive Slave Act so that anyone who kidnapped a runaway slave would be tried and anyone who protected a runaway slave would be protected.

It is impossible, absent calling out the military, for the federal government to enforce laws that the state absolutely refuses to enforce. That's why nullification works, and why a nullification act with an enforcement mechanism is necessary.

The Temporal Fallacy

Although it really cannot be done, there are those who attempt to find an era in some country in which libertarian ideas reigned. But there are valid attempts to show how certain eras qualify in one manner or another. Part of the problem is that conditions always change.

The United States, for example, has advanced liberty in some areas and degraded liberty in other areas. In the past there was much more economic liberty, but that was before slavery ended and before women and minorities were given the right to vote.

But generally it is assumed that the late nineteenth century in the western world, for all its flaws, had many of the characteristics of a libertarian society.

Many statists will immediately point to the flaws and say that it is the flaws that libertarians advocate. They are not interested in a true discussion or debate, only trying to find some ammunition, no matter how ludicrous, with which to try to tar libertarianism.

Then there's the temporal fallacy.

Due to advances in technology, there are amenities available today that were not available then. But there were advances then that were not available before then. True, compared to a modern factory, an earlier factory from the late 1800s would seem rather crude and dangerous – but it is better than what existed before then.

The fallacy is that everything that happened then is judged by today's standards. Thanks to advances in technology and worker productivity, companies can afford many more safety features than they were able to in the past. Those advances were not available then; therefore they were not implemented then. To the person committing the fallacy, that those advances were not implemented then is an unforgivable sin.

The fallacy is judging a factory from the 1880s by the standards of the 2010s. Of course it won't measure up. The factory must be judged in the proper context.

The factories of the day were, in general although there were exceptions, as safe as they could have been given the resources they had. People worked there because they were safer than other occupations and paid more than other occupations.

Yes, they didn't have closed circuit computer controlled safety systems. Of course those who commit this fallacy, when hard pressed, will admit that they don't expect closed circuit computer controlled safety systems, but then immediately turn around and deplore unmentioned safety protocols available today.

Conditions then were still an improvement over previous conditions. The economic liberty of the late 1800s created greater prosperity. And it is that same prosperity created then that enabled the more advanced technology available today - and the same prosperity that enables people to commit the temporal fallacy.

The Nuremberg Defense

In the blog "Strike the Root", the author Carpe Libertatem wrote Diffusion and Confusion describing the difficulty in determining who, exactly, is responsible for violating the rights of the people in the United States today.

The problem is that the first line agents, the police for example, are only following orders and did not originate the command that ultimately results in a violation of rights. Their supervisors only gave the orders and neither originated the laws that resulted in the orders nor actually implemented the orders. The ultimate source of the laws, the politicians, neither give the orders nor obey the orders.

All three links in the chain have found a way to absolve themselves of responsibility. All three of them are invoking a form of the Nuremberg defense.

Carpe Libertatem ultimately condemned Joseph Stack as a murderer because the person he killed was not the actual aggressor. He's right, and he's wrong. Vernon Hunter was not personally threatening Joseph Stack, but Vernon Hunter was a piece of the machine that was threatening Joseph Stack.

Killing of government agents is not only wrong, it's a bad idea. But it is time to stop accepting the Nuremberg defense. When agents of the government try to use it, they should be called on it every time.

It is a good idea to refuse to deal with anybody in the enforcement branch, from the making of laws to issuing of orders to implementing of orders, as if the Nuremberg defense is their default mode unless they clearly indicate otherwise in some manner, such as joining Oath Keepers. Any politician, administrator, or officer who doesn't indicate a repudiation of the Nuremberg Defense should be treated as a potential but not realized threat and people should have as little to do with them as possible.

Who will be betrayed?

Now that healthcare reform has passed, the onerous task of finding out what is actually in it has begun. But some parts are already known. There is a provision that people must either carry insurance or pay a fine, but the fine is lower than the price of an insurance policy. This is coupled with a prohibition against denying anyone who has a pre-existing condition.

Politicians are convinced this will cause everyone to carry insurance for their own good. Economists are convinced that given the nature of the incentives people will only carry insurance when they actually need it and will prefer to pay the fine the rest of the time. Politicians are shocked when economists tell them that people may deliberately opt to not carry insurance given the nature of the incentives.

The situation is completely unsustainable. One way or another something has to give. The question is what exactly will give? As long as the situation continues as designed then the insurance companies will lose money. Who exactly is congress planning on betraying?

At first people will pay the fines rather than carry the insurance. At first the insurance companies will lose money. Then they will petition congress to raise the fine above the cost of an insurance policy. Then one of two things will happen.

One option is that congress will comply with the wishes of the insurance companies and raise the fines. This will cause people to actually try to contest the validity of the fines in court. This will lead to the argument that by paying the fines before they went up people had agreed to the validity of the fines. Those who had not contested the fines in previous years will have their standing questioned. Perhaps congress will, when raising the fines, enact legislation that anyone who had willingly paid the fine in previous years without complaint have no standing in the future.

The other option is that congress will keep the fines low in spite of the complaints of the insurance companies. Perhaps, adding insult to injury, they will raise the fines but still keep them lower than the cost of an insurance policy, directing yet more money that “should” have been going to the insurance companies to the government. This will bankrupt any company that is offering health insurance and direct even more people to a government healthcare plan.

Neither option is attractive, and it is difficult to say which option is worse. But given the current situation as designed in the healthcare reform bill those are the two possible futures.

Tribesman, Barbarian, Citizen … and Libertarian

It is always risky to take a work developed by someone else and try to discover something the original author has not yet developed. William Lind developed the theory about the four generations of warfare, and has since received emails describing a tentative fifth stage of warfare that he reports isn’t actually a fifth stage. But then there are times when building up on the existing framework does indeed add something new, such as when William Lind discovered the fourth generation in the first place.

Jerry Pournelle created a theoretical framework to describe three different stages of cultural advancement. He left open the possibility of discovering what might be the fourth stage of cultural development based upon how the different stages react to each other when the come into contact.

The first described is the interaction between the Tribesman and the Barbarian.

When Barbarism first arises in any area, Tribalism is doomed. The two are mutually exclusive, and there is no possible "peaceful coexistence" between them. To the Tribesman, the Barbarian is Evil Incarnate; the Barbarian has utterly rejected all Good, Moral, and Ethical values. He has rejected the Sacred Traditions, and glories in his absolute defiance of them. He blasphemes not casually, but as a way of life.

To the Barbarians, the Tribesman is a slave, a spineless, gutless coward, a disgrace to human shape. He has no self-respect, no courage to take a risk, no faith in himself. He doesn't respect himself, or any man. He won't fight for any reward, no matter how great and shining! He's a stupid, lazy slug, a disgrace to humanity.

The Tribesman won't fight for reward, he won't take a risk for great gain--because that is not in the Traditions. A Tribesman can't fight an enemy tribe for that enemy tribe's land; his tribal traditions refer to his tribe's land. If he did take the neighboring tribe's land . . . there would be no traditions to tell what to do with it. It would, in fact, be a Change, and therefore Evil.

The "battles" between two ritual-taboo tribes, anthropologists have long since observed, are practically pure rituals, and actually have a vanishingly small casualty rate. Not greatly different--for all the use of spears!--than in modern college football clashes. The spears are hurled while at a range so extreme that it's sheer accident if someone gets hurt.

When Barbarism appears--that situation changes in a hurry. The Barbarian army isn't going through a ritual; they're out for blood and loot. They don't have traditions as guides, nor as limiting fences about them.

The next thing he describes is what happens when a Barbarian meets a Citizen.

When the Barbarian encounters Civilization, therefore, he is going to be enormously confused and baffled. The Barbarians of North Europe, meeting the Citizens of the Roman Republic, were meeting men who allowed others to order them about, to tell them what to do and when to do it. Who obeyed commands they didn't, themselves, agree with. Obviously, a pack of servile slaves!

But these cowardly Roman Legionnaires, for some incomprehensible reason, did not collapse in battle. These Legionnaires, who had no self-respect, who did not fight man-to-man, but used short swords so that no one of them could say, when he returned home, "I killed Urhtoth!" but only, "I am a member of the Fourth Legion,"--these Romans strangely didn't flee before the fiercest Barbarian charges.

To the Barbarians, the Citizen shows the symptoms of all the things the Barbarian rejects as vile and degrading--the essence of cowardice. The Citizen yields his will to the demands of others. He allows himself to be limited, and allows himself to be compelled against his own desires.

To the Barbarian, the Citizen shows the same loathsome abnegation that the Tribesman does.

Which makes it all the more incomprehensible that these sniveling Citizens win battle after battle. They who have sacrificed their Manhood, have given up their right to individual dignity, somehow prove able to fight like maddened demons!

Finally, almost as an afterthought, he describes what happens when Tribesmen meet Citizens.

Notice that the root philosophy of the ritual-taboo tribesman is such that it is inherently impossible to cooperate with him in establishing a colony. So long as the natives are true Tribesmen, Change is Evil--and the colonists are introducing change. There is no such thing as "a good change" in a pure-tradition system: "Change is Evil; Evil is Change."

More immediately, the Tribesman's sense of security stems entirely from having a sure source of Answers. The Tribesman has no answers himself, and has no sense that he can be a source of answers. His sense of security, his defense against the Unknown, is a Source of Answers. He expects to be told what to do, when, and how; if his Tribal Traditions don't do so, then some other source of Answers must. He has no expectation or desire to be responsible for his own acts; that way lies the terror of the Unknown.

If some colonist comes in and overthrows the Tribal Traditions--then the Colonist must be the Source of Answers. The Tribesman cannot cooperate on a man-to-man basis with the colonist, no matter how the colonist may seek to establish such a system. The Tribesman doesn't know he's a man; he knows only that he's a Unit of the System--that he has to be a unit of some system.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. And you can lead a Tribesman to Liberty . . . but you can't make him free.

He includes two references to describe what the next phase of cultural development would be within the framework of Tribesman, Barbarian, and Citizen.

At each stage of cultural evolution, the preceding stage appears loathsome . . . and the succeeding stage appears to partake of those same loathsome characteristics.

As a rough guess, it's highly probable that the next stage of cultural evolution will appear, to us, to be Barbarism, and be a horrible, degenerate, loathsome system indeed.

Just as the Civil system appears, to the Barbarian, to be the Tribal system, in which the individual has no dignity, and a man is not a Man, for he lacks the courage to express his individual worth and will.

. . .

It's also interesting to wonder what will happen if we go in to some planet, and find what seems to be a Barbarian culture ... which isn't. It would certainly be baffling, and almost certainly be disastrous in a way we cannot dimly imagine.

It would mean the destruction of our very souls. Just as Civilization, by merely contacting Barbarians repeatedly, brings about the corruption and degradation of their dignity, their self-respect--their very souls. And turns them into cowardly, weakened, crawling things that actually cooperate with another human being.

We can't, of course, guess just what form of loathsome corruption of our selves, our dignity, looms before us.

It doesn't really matter; we're going to get it anyway, whether from outside, or from our own unwanted, yet inescapable, evolution.

But we won't like it. Any more than a Tribesman likes becoming that essence of corruption and evil, a Barbarian. Or a Barbarian likes becoming that sniveling thing, a Citizen.

The key point to notice is that in any given stage, the immediately later stage will look distressingly like the immediately previous stage. To the Barbarian, the Citizen appears distressingly like the Tribesman. The relationship is superficial, as the citizen takes orders not because he is "not a man" but because after having discovered individualism (and immediately overdoing it as the Barbarian does) they have discovered cooperation. The fact that Tribesmen and Citizens are alien to each other is revealed in the way they interact in the description provided by Mr. Pournelle.

So, to a Citizen, the next stage will resemble all of the features of Barbarism that the Citizen has outgrown and now finds repulsive. The Citizen views the Barbarian as a criminal who has no respect for other individuals. The extreme individualism of the Barbarian would never respect a contract, would never take orders that he feels contradicts his own desires.

That is how a Citizen would view the next stage. He would view the next stage as criminal, and those in it as individuals who have no respect for social order. And, just as the Citizen superficially resembles the Tribesman, the Citizen’s view of the next stage would be superficially accurate.

Which is why it baffles the Citizen that the Libertarian is stricter in upholding the rights of others and the sanctity of the contract than even the Citizen is, that the Libertarian isn’t a criminal the way a Barbarian is. The Citizen is as baffled by the Libertarian as the Barbarian is baffled by the Citizen.

It should be noted here that "Libertarian" in this context has a much broader definition than agreeing with the platform of the Libertarian Party of the United States. In this context it encompasses many different movements with many different ideas. The common ground in this context is the social outlook that differentiates it from Citizen, Barbarian, or Tribesman.

Just as the Citizen took the lessons of individualism learned by the Barbarian and tempered them with cross-linked cooperation, the Libertarian took the lessons of cooperation and tempered them with a respect for, not just the individual, but each other as individuals. This is fundamentally different from the individualism of the Barbarian, as it respects other individuals as individuals. It is cross-linked cooperative individualism, to stretch the descriptions first described by Mr. Pournelle.

That only leaves, if Libertarianism is indeed the fourth stage of development thus far advanced to by mankind, how Libertarianism views prior stages.

Although the Citizen views the Libertarian as similar to the Barbarian, the Libertarian and the Barbarian do not view each other that way. Just as the Tribesman does not understand the Citizen, the Barbarian does not understand the Libertarian. The Libertarian, completely unorganized, is capable of spontaneous cross-linked cooperation to form an organized defense that strongly resembles that of the Citizen. The Libertarian doesn’t simply take what he wants, but fights fiercely against those who would simply take – and eventually even fights against the Citizen on those same grounds. When the Libertarian does fight the Citizen, it is not for the purpose of looting but to stop looting.

The Libertarian would basically ignore the Tribesman. While a Citizen, having discovered cooperation is eager to share it with everyone whether or not they want it shared, the Libertarian, having discovered that people have a right to be left alone is eager to leave people alone. Since the Tribesman is not a looter the way a Barbarian is, or even the more subtle way the Citizen is, the Libertarian has no reason for conflict.

However, the Tribesman will see the Libertarian as completely and utterly alien, even more so than Barbarians (who merely represent absolute evil) or the Citizen (who represents new replacement traditions). The Libertarian could potentially be new traditions, except that he consistently refuses to take that burden. The Tribesman can try to return the favor and politely ignore the Libertarian, but eventually is forced to adapt and move forward to a new stage whether he likes it or not. The Libertarian would try to treat individual Tribesmen as equals, but just as with the Citizen and the Tribesman not knowing he's a man, the Tribesman doesn't know he's an individual.

Fortunately for the Libertarian, according to Jerry Pournelle, any time a later stage encounters an earlier stage, it spells doom for the earlier stage. Libertarianism was birthed with John Locke, midwifed by Thomas Jefferson, and then brought to maturity by Lysander Spooner, Friedrich von Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and other libertarian philosophers. And by their work the idea that people should belong to each other is doomed.

Tribesman, Barbarian, and Citizen

In the anthology "The Stars At War, Volume 1, Imperial Stars", assembled in 1986 by Jerry Pournelle, he included an original essay “Tribesman, Barbarian, and Citizen”. It can be read here and it includes some very useful concepts.

The essay's value as a piece of anthropology is as useful as the Social Contract written about by Hobbes and Locke, but just as with the Social Contract it is not in anthropology that it has uses. Like the Social Contract, it is a "useful myth" in which Mr. Pournelle describes three levels of social development that a people go through.

The first is the Tribesman:

The Tribal culture--in its never-actually-existent theoretical pure state--is a system of pure ritual and taboo. "Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory." The objectively observable system stems from an unstated philosophy--which is unstated because the Tribesman doesn't know philosophy exists, any more than a dog knows logic exists, or a fish knows that biochemistry exists. The philosophy is, essentially precisely that of the Absolute Totalitarian state . . . minus the familiar dictator. That is, in the Tribe, the individual exists for the service of the state. The individual has no value whatever, save as a replaceable plug-in unit in the immortal, ever-existent machinery-organism of the Tribe. No individual exists as an individual--neither Tribal king nor Tribal slave; each is a unit plugged in--temporarily, for all these units wear out and are discarded in a score or two of years--to the eternal Traditional System of the Tribe. The cells in a living organism wear out and are discarded; the organism is, relatively speaking, immortal. So, in the Tribe, the individual is nothing; the Tribe is eternal.

In return for a practically absolute loss of self-identity, the Tribesman is rewarded with security and peace of mind. The Tribal Traditions have The Answers to all possible real problems; nothing can happen that the Tribal Traditions, in their ancient and time-tested wisdom, have not already solved. There are no doubts; there are answers which involve "these tribesmen must die," but Death is not intolerable. Uncertainty--Doubt--these are the Terrors that live in the Unknown. And against those horrors, the ancient wisdom of the Tribal Traditions stand a strong, sure defense.

The Tribesman has an exact, clear-cut, and perfectly understandable definition of Evil. Evil is Change. Any Change whatever is Evil. The correlation is absolute--perfect one-to-one.

The next stage above Tribesman is Barbarian.

The Barbarian represents the Ultimate Horror from the viewpoint of the Tribesman; he is the Pure Individual. The Barbarian does not put his faith, his sense of security, in the ancient wisdom of the Traditions--but in the wisdom and strength of a Hero, a living demigod-man, a Leader who solves all problems.

Barbarism, in other words, is the Dictator, without the Totalitarian State. There is a Hero, who is a strong, and unusually clever leader--an individual who stands out above the men around him.

Tribalism is "a government of laws, not of men," with the minor change that "traditions" replace "laws."

Barbarism becomes a government of Men, not of traditions.

It is the first development of human culture which recognizes the value of the individual. It is not true that only civilized people respect the dignity of the individual; any Barbarian will assure you that Citizens have no dignity, that Civilization does not respect the individual. That only Barbarians understand what it means to be an individual.

The Barbarian, in essence, "has too much Ego in his Cosmos."

It's perfectly true that all men seek security--but necessarily, that means they seek what they believe is security. A superstitious Tribesman, fleeing a ghost, would happily climb a 100,000 volt power-line tower because he knows that ghosts can't climb.

The Tribesman's security is his conviction that the Tribal Traditions have sure answers to all real problems.

The Barbarian's security is in his absolute conviction that he can handle any problem--and if he can't, why, of course his Leader-Hero can, and will.

...

Barbarism is one of the great breakthroughs in cultural evolution; for the first time, it establishes that the individual has great value, that the individual must be respected.

He also describes the relationship between Barbarians and Tribesmen. Tribesmen, who view change as violating the traditions and therefore evil, see the Barbarian as evil. Barbarians, who view obeying orders with which one disagrees as spineless and sub-human, sees Tribesmen as being fit only for slavery as they are not human. A Barbarian thinks it pitiful is someone obeys an order with which he disagrees.

Advancing beyond Barbarism, the third stage so far is Civilization.

When the Barbarian encounters Civilization, therefore, he is going to be enormously confused and baffled. The Barbarians of North Europe, meeting the Citizens of the Roman Republic, were meeting men who allowed others to order them about, to tell them what to do and when to do it. Who obeyed commands they didn't, themselves, agree with. Obviously, a pack of servile slaves!

But these cowardly Roman Legionnaires, for some incomprehensible reason, did not collapse in battle. These Legionnaires, who had no self-respect, who did not fight man-to-man, but used short swords so that no one of them could say, when he returned home, "I killed Urhtoth!" but only, "I am a member of the Fourth Legion,"--these Romans strangely didn't flee before the fiercest Barbarian charges.

To the Barbarians, the Citizen shows the symptoms of all the things the Barbarian rejects as vile and degrading--the essence of cowardice. The Citizen yields his will to the demands of others. He allows himself to be limited, and allows himself to be compelled against his own desires.

To the Barbarian, the Citizen shows the same loathsome abnegation that the Tribesman does.

Which makes it all the more incomprehensible that these sniveling Citizens win battle after battle. They who have sacrificed their Manhood, have given up their right to individual dignity, somehow prove able to fight like maddened demons!

He spends little time describing the Civil system, and given that it is the current system in the western world there should theoretically be little need to describe it. What he does describe is interactions between Barbarians and Citizens and between Tribesmen and Citizens. In both cases, as with Barbarian and Tribesmen, interaction between a later stage and an earlier stage dooms the earlier stage.

The key question then becomes what happens to a Barbarian who discovers he cannot beat a Civil System from the outside? Doing so from the outside turns the Barbarian into a criminal, as can be discovered from a cursory examination of most true criminals. At one point there was a belief that criminals had insufficient self esteem, but further examination found that many real criminals had excessive self esteem.

A smarter Barbarian would find the Civil system useful, to do from the inside what cannot be done from the outside, to use the system for looting by proxy. The first advantage of this is that it saves the Barbarian from the consequences of criminal activity. The second advantage is that Citizens are conditioned to have a basic respect for order, and thus are much less likely to defend themselves from crimes when committed by the government.

This actually solves one of the biggest riddles of the twentieth century: why did not the German people do more to assassinate Hitler or overthrow his regime? It is because the Germans were a civilized people, raised to have a basic respect for order. Even though they did not like it, the Barbarian Hitler achieved power working inside the system.

If faced with a Barbarian in an alley, a Citizen will fight back. If faced with a Barbarian with a government form, a Citizen is likely to give in and try to work within the system to stop the Barbarian. A stupid Barbarian becomes a criminal; a smart Barbarian becomes a politician.

Government Goods

One fact that makes things difficult for those who would argue against excessive interference by the state is that occasionally the state actually produces something that a sane person would actually pay for. This happens more often in first world nations, less often in the thug governments of third world countries, but it does happen.

After all, people do have a desire to get from point A to point B, and the government does produce roads. People do have a desire to educate the young, and the government does provide schools. People do have a desire for some basic security, and the government does provide some basic security with the military and the police.

The government provides these goods at twice the cost and half the quality, if one is feeling generous in the description of government provided goods, but they are produced. These good are provided in a very abusive and inept manner, but they are produced.

The fact that they are produced enables defenders of having an intrusive state to invoke the Statist Fallacy. This is an unfortunate, but deliberate, act on the part of the government, because in enables defenders of the state to accuse defenders of liberty of being against the production of those very goods.

It is, however, a sham. The point of providing those goods is to control those goods. By having the government provide education, the government controls the content of the education. By having the government provide the roads and provide security at the airports and the border, the government controls freedom of movement. By having the government guarantee the quality of medications taken through FDA approval, the politicians now have the ability to restrict the ability of the individual to choose which medications may work best for said individual.

The question then becomes; are those invoking the statist fallacy "useful fools" or are they the ones who actually aspire to control others? Or are they the final type of statist described in The Authoritarian Mindset, someone who actually desires to be a slave?