The Post tells us how the people who designed the bank bailout were committed to the free market. Interestingly, the key decisions that they made gave the banks much better terms than they could have received from the free market.

- Dean Baker

Baker’s Conservative Nanny State is required reading as well.

More than anybody else, Robert Anton Wilson’s life and attitude represent the essence of what attracts me to libertarianism. His example inspires me to engage in a libertarianism that is curious, comfortable with an imperfect world, and interested in understanding and appreciating man-as-he-is rather than molding him into a New Libertarian Man. I especially admire the way he combined sober thinking with a gigantic sense of light-heartedness and humor. Only a man with his humility and playfulness could give fringe topics like ritual magic and psychopharmacology the energy and attention they were due without sounding like he was selling something. He exemplified a libertarianism, to sum it up, that viewed the human condition as a frontier to be explored, not a prison to be escaped.

Sometimes I think those who identify as left libertarian are advancing this spirit; other times, the movement seems to be careening into the swamps of Ideology, working on its own (perhaps looser) straitjacket for mankind. To the latter group, I join ol’ Bob in extending a giant middle finger (though the particular people I’m talking about appear to not have heard of blogs and think Yahoo!Groups is the wave of the future, so I’m probably not flicking you off, gentle reader). I refuse to let certain “ideologically consistent” types browbeat me into living by their Rule Book, and I deny their authority to bestow or withhold the title of “libertarian”. Or as Bob wrote:

…there is an opinion abroad in the land that libertarianism does mean a mindless, heartless and mechanical system of medieval dogma. I don’t know how this impression came about, although it probably has something to do with Randroids and other robot Ideologists who occasionally infest libertarian groups. Frankly, I have always loathed being associated with such types and devoutly wish libertarianism could be sharply distinguished from Idolatry and fetishism of all sorts. If liberty does not mean that we can all be more free, not less free, then I need to find a better word than “liberty” to describe my aspirations; and if we are to be governed by a Natural Law Rule Book of extramundane authority, we can scarcely claim to have advanced beyond the dark ages and might as well make our submission to the Pope again. (He’s funnier than Ayn Rand, anyway.)

I do not see this dispute, then, as merely philosophical hair-splitting, and I would hate to see it degenerate into Ideology. I am not claiming to offer Eternal Truth here (I don’t know where such a commodity is to be found) but only stating an attitude. If Ideologists ever convince me that this pragmatic, individualistic, scientific attitude is incompatible with libertarianism, then I will find some other name for myself and not use the word “libertarian” anymore. I am not interested in Ideologies and don’t give a damn about labels at all, at all. I am interested only in what makes the world a little more reasonable, a little less violent and somewhat more free and tolerant than it has been in the past.

Every manager in a current corporation knows that they have been doing this (fudging their business’s value) on a systematic basis since the 80’s and that the value is purely based on a consensus, which in fact created a pyramid scheme. This is in my view the reason of the crisis of confidence, since they know deep down that their own value is bogus, how can they trust anyone else’s?

- Michael Bauwens

Richmond’s own Keith Preston is the winner of the U.K.-based Libertarian Alliance’s Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize Essay Contest. The theme of the competition was, “Can a Libertarian Society be Described as ‘Tesco minus the State’?”, reflecting the general debate in libertarian circles on the exact nature of the free market we so doggedly advocate. Keith’s essay nails it:

An economy organized on the basis of worker-owned and operated industries, peoples’ banks, mutuals, consumer cooperatives, anarcho-syndicalist labor unions, individual and family enterprises, small farms and crafts workers associations engaged in local production for local use, voluntary charitable institutions, land trusts, or voluntary collectives, communes and kibbutzim may seem farfetched to some, but no more so and probably less so than a modern industrial, high-tech economy where the merchant class is the ruling class and the working class is a frequently affluent middle class would have seemed to residents of the feudal societies of pre-modern times. If the expansion of the market economy, specialization, the division of labor, industrialization and technological advancements can bring about the achievements of modern societies in eradicating disease, starvation, infant mortality and early death, one can only wonder what a genuine free enterprise system might achieve, and would have already achieved were it not for the scourge of statism and the corresponding plutocracy.

As I wrote in an essay a few months ago, the best way to view the imperial nature of the U.S. government is to view it as an empire controlled by the city-state of Washington instead of as a broadly American phenomenon. Indeed, the territorial U.S. differs from Iraq and Afghanistan only in the sense that our occupation is a less volatile one. This allows the resemblance of “civil society” that supports and approves of the occupation, and rules out the need for the frightening displays of force that other people around the world endure at the hands of U.S. armed forces. Generally speaking, we chalk this relative lack of open violence up to our status as a “free people”.

However, as we plunge deeper into financial crisis, that may change. Soldiers fresh from counterinsurgency operations in Iraq are deploying for missions within the U.S.. With the unrest likely upon full-blown collapse of the currency and the economy, Bush retains the prerogative to declare martial law and institute what is, in effect, military dictatorship. Essentially, the imperial managers of Earth in D.C. are deciding whether or not we need a surge - not in Iraq, but right here in the territorial United States.

Part of the process of taking back our freedom entails a sober analysis of our present political situation. There is no real difference between a free society under a government and a military occupation - each exists merely as different zones on a sliding scale of repression, which government dials up or down based on “conditions on the ground”. Until we understand that we live in occupied territory, we will always be able to say “well, we got it better than Iraq” without realizing that the same dynamics are at play, at home and abroad.

There’s been a lot of quotable lines since I last blogged (sorry so seldom), but here’s a great one that bears reminding as we go through this national doubting of our fundamentals:

I think it was Michael Kinsley, 25 years ago, who said of course Republicans in power are going to lead to deficits. A budget in balance or surplus represents government collecting taxes from rich people to fund its functions. A vudget in deficit represents government paying rich people interest (on bonds) to fund its functions.

- Jim Henley

My essay on the political implications of the Law of One is now up. Note that it may at times make zero sense if you aren’t familiar with the Law of One material, but I plan on writing up a primer on the subject due to popular interest. This essay is based on a talk I gave at this year’s L/L Research Homecoming, and it is in many ways the culmination of the project I set out on in starting this blog.

One of my favorite live sets of music ever: Disco Biscuits on New Years Eve 1999. Trancefusion to the max (right before they broke up for a few months).

Enjoy courtesy of the wonderful Internet Live Music Archive.

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson

Via The Nation magazine.

In short, the state does not protect legitimate property per se, it institutionalizes private property into a legal construct that generally benefits a small elite at everyone else’s expense.

- Brainpolice

It’s official: there is no longer any need to belabor the distinction between capitalism and a free market. If you still choose to conflate the two, even after the events of this past year, you’re simply dishonest.

Maybe this will make it easier for you to understand:

• A free market is where people compete or cooperate without resorting to force or fraud.
• Capitalism is what is happening right now.

Any questions?

If somebody responds to a point you made by (1) prefacing their response with “I have no idea what you’re talking about,” (2) going on to address precisely the point you were originally intending to make, then you can be sure that they probably did have some idea all along what you were talking about. Ooh, busted!

But that’s ok - we all have our rhetorical tactics. And you two are still on my short list of favorite bloggers / libertarians.

I just about threw my computer across the room when I read this article:

Twitter got a lot of attention from the various press outlets today for its value in following yesterdays rampage by anarchists and the response by police.

One aspect of the social networking service is getting less mention: Its being used to coordinate the violence.

You read that right: Twitter was used to coordinate the violence. Now, let’s set aside the absurdity of this notion that anarchist violence even registered on the same chart as police violence. Maybe they’re confused by incriminating messages, since they usually, you know, have sources for their reports?

Well, there’s this one:

sector 2 requesting backup at kellogg and wabasha, massive amounts of riot cops

And this one:

bringing in delegates at st peter and kellog WIDE OPEN

And this one:

Cops near Excel are searching people’s bags for goggles and gas masks– hide them!

Of course, none of that is violent - and I know there were no others because I monitored the feeds all week (I was a bit obsessive about it). But what are we to make of MPR’s interesting standards for what qualifies as “violence”? Apparently, it’s only ok to have a protest as long as:

• the people at the event you’re protesting don’t hear you,
• you don’t protect yourself from the chemical weapons the police deploy indiscriminately,
• you don’t show solidarity with your fellow protesters.

So what’s the point? Maybe MPR disagrees ever so slightly with Alix’s analysis of this past week’s debacle:

Were they protesting that they have no right to protest?

No, they were committing violence because they have no right to protest. If they had the right to protest, it wouldn’t have been violence!

In order for protests and civil disobedience to work, the media has to capture and disseminate to the public the evidence of the system’s brutality. It was the stories, photos, and newsreels of repression that made the struggles of Indian independence and African American civil rights successful. But if the media really is fully integrated into the authoritarian establishment, then we can expect the tactics of Ghandi and King to fail.

It’s time for us to discard a decades-old tactic that has long since been neutralized by the establishment. We need a new strategy, and many of us need an altogether new goal. We need creativity, innovation, courage, focus, but most of all we need a passion for freedom that can guide our desperation. From now on, let’s stop mourning the passing of the old order, however outraged and angered we are by it. Let us start building the organizations and structures that can move our work forward into new territory.

Via PostSecret.