Libertarians' Racial Blindspot

My friends and former colleagues over at reason rightly note that a cop appears to have been way too aggressive when stopping a college professor for jaywalking:

A police encounter in Tempe, Arizona, over the weekend turned ugly after a campus police officer wrestled Arizona State University professor Ersula Ore to the ground. Video footage shows the officer attempting to pull Ore's hands behind her back and pin her against the dashboard before slamming her onto the ground in the middle of the street.

Ore's crime, evidently, was jaywalking in the middle of the night.

Now, I'd seen people share this story on social media without clicking through, but it was something I wanted to check out. Without seeing her name--or even her gender--but hearing about the incident, I assumed that the professor was likely black and the officer was likely white.

Why? Because black people's history with law enforcement has long been fraught with conflict and the years of police officers treating black people more harshly than they treat your average white person is no secret. Police abuse is by no means exclusive to black people, but it is and has been prevalent since law enforcement and black people have coexisted in this country. And jaywalking is one of those laws that is, for the most part, used as a pretextual stop (as opposed to, say, a priority of law enforcement) because the officer thinks the person is otherwise up to no good.

Police have a special place of disdain in the hearts and minds of many libertarians.* Libertarians often see police as the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the state and their use and abuse of force is wanton and without rhyme or reason. Yet, most black people understand that this sort of abuse happens to them more often, whether it's inherent racism or suspicion on the part of the officer, the policing style in a given neighborhood or area, or the disparate political power of a group of people less able and likely to successfully challenge the behavior of an officer.

I don't think it's a failure of the reason author to point this out, but I would have liked to see it.

Too often, libertarians have asked me in private conversation about what's best described as "respectability politics." That is, because of the dress or language or behavior of young black men particularly that the ire of police is directed their way and therefore results in the myriad criminal justice disparities. But here you have a black female college professor refusing to show ID--as any good libertarian would--and getting thrown to the ground and arrested. How many times does this sort of thing happen to black people before libertarians recognize that maybe her race may have played a role? It's journalism--you're supposed to stick to the facts and keep speculation down, I know. But the fact is black people have a long history in this country of being singled out and abused by people in power and, to my knowledge, there's been no magical moment when that has stopped being true.

I've written about this libertarian blindspot at length in my latest essay at Libertarianism.org.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

*NB: My father was a police officer.  Many years after he retired, he went back to work part time at the police department because it was home to him. I got to know many police officers and I continue to respect police officers today. But that doesn't make the history any less true or troubling.

Recognizing Power Structures is Not in Tension with Individual Liberty

Individual liberty is perhaps the most fundamental value I hold dear. Intelligent, well-meaning people may disagree, but I wanted to make my priors clear at the outset. However, I also am aware that--particularly this country, but certainly over the course of world history--power structures often punish or reward people based on issues such as class, race, gender, religion, sexuality, or whatever. This seems to me quite obvious and beyond reasonable debate.

Over at the Foundation for Economic Education website, however, two libertarians--Cathy Reisenwitz and Julie Borowski-- debate whether libertarians should be more aware of "privilege" or if they should stick to protecting individual rights. It is completely unclear to me why the two are necessarily in tension, but having had my share of arguments with dogmatic libertarians who chafe at considering race or privilege, I suppose it is an argument worth examining.

Privilege, as it is commonly used today, is shorthand for the benefit an individual or group of people holds in contrast to another individual or group of people, particularly in relation to class, race, and the other categories I named above. This is a particularly salient topic when dealing with the abuses of state power. As Ms. Reisenwitz describes in her essay, statistics clearly bear out racial disparities in the criminal justice system and laws still on the books discriminate against people of different national origin or sexual orientation. Government uses differences, real and imagined, to punish individuals for nothing more than who they are or are perceived to be.

Ms. Borowski's position is one I've heard many times before, in various iterations, but it's less a cogent argument than it is a forceful restatement of priors to rationalize ignoring the world as it exists. Sure, it would be great if we were all judged as individuals and not by race or gender or whatever arbitrary assignment those in power would like to punish or diminish, but throughout history, people have been sorted into groups and those in power often exploit marginal or otherwise detested groups when they get the opportunity. To say otherwise is to say that six million Jews just happened to have been gassed in the Holocaust or several million black people just happened to be enslaved for a few hundred years in North America.

The crux of Ms. Borowski's argument is this, and I quote:

These are not white people issues. These are not black people issues. These are not rich people issues. These are not poor people issues. These are human issues.

Ah, but when laws and customs skew against certain humans on a regular and systematic basis, her argument is essentially, 'Race is a collectivist construct! LIBERTY! SMASH!'

I get that libertarians are uncomfortable dealing with privilege because it's not something that is confined to government action. People who were humiliated and beaten for sitting in at segregated lunch counters were not attacked by the state--they were attacked by other private citizens in an effort to maintain their own social status. Such events are much rarer today, granted, but let's not forget that government is often a tool of the majority against the rights of the minority in innumerable settings. Dismissing this with atomistic claptrap is fine for a libertarian summer seminar, but is useless and, frankly, childish when discussing the real-world impact of public policy.

To wit, privilege is what blinded people to the explosion of the militarism of our police forces and the growing problem of overcriminalization in our legal and regulatory codes. When black and brown people were thrown up against the wall in the inner cities or having their homes broken into by militarily armed police on drug missions, many people--of all colors--thought it was a good thing. Because drug dealers were demonized and kept on the margins of society, massive amounts of tax money fueled a war on a segment of the American people by the government, and the privileged folks who didn't have to suffer such treatment were fine with it. Now, as it spills into everyone else's life because our prisons are overflowing and our budgets are being stretched thin, NOW people are thinking "Hey, maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all!" and "Why does Lafayette, Indiana need an armored personnel carrier?" That is privilege blindness, and it has multiple applications in many aspects of society.

'Privilege vs. Individual Rights' is a false dichotomy that masks the fact libertarianism doesn't always have the answers for society's ills, especially when they're not solely government caused. 'Recognizing privilege' is understanding power dynamics and how the world works; rejecting it for some ethereal ideal of the individual is ahistoric, self-marginalizing nonsense.

Check yourselves, libertarians.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

A Quick Comment on Perspective

My friend wrote to me this morning about his thoughts on the Trayvon Martin case. It was moving and awful, as he too experienced harassment and abuse of force at the hands of people who thought a young black man was in the wrong place to be up to anything but trouble.

Shortly thereafter I see a retweet of "Chef Geoff" Tracy on Twitter:

Virginia ABC law prohibits us from using the words "Happy Hour" in any advertising. Are we still in America?

Yes, it's a stupid law. Yes, bar and restaurant owners should work to get rid of the law and I would fully support that effort. But given that a 17 year old black kid was hunted down and shot by a man with dubious authority, at best, who was explicitly told by police dispatch not to pursue and engage him, with no legal repercussions to this point, I think it's a tad overwrought to start questioning the sanctity of America over ad restrictions.

This isn't to say that Trayvon's killing is necessarily Chef Geoff's fight, but I think this underscores a lot of the disconnect between what liberty means to the business-centric folk and what liberty means to those of us who see and/or experience the abuse of power in ways more threatening to personal safety, security, and dignity. Chef Geoff isn't at all wrong to claim injustice--the Virginia alcohol laws are harmful to business and that directly affects his livelihood, and he has every right to be upset--but in the grand scheme of things, a catchy phrase for an ad just doesn't compare to some guy with a gun and a power trip getting away with hunting down and killing a black kid because 'he looked suspicious.'

I have nothing at all against Chef Geoff and have heard only great things about him and his notable establishments. He's not guilty of anything other than slight overstatement and I do not wish to impugn him in any way. I just thought his comment reflects a language gap between people who rightly fear threats to economic liberty, but may not give as much thought to threats to personal liberty that so many others face on a daily basis. It's not that he's wrong, it's just that he--and so many others who care about liberty--could use a dose of perspective.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

On the Koch/Cato fight

Most readers know that I am a Cato employee and have been since August 2007. Just prior to that, I was a Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow at reason magazine. As you have probably heard, the Koch brothers are attempting to gain control of the Cato Institute in order to turn the world's leading libertarian think tank into a right wing hack factory. This schism is sort of like a falling out between your dad and a rich uncle that paid for your senior trip.

Thanks for the great summer, Uncle Charlie, but you're way out of line here.

What always bothered me by the 'Koch-as-master-of-puppets' tripe was not just that it impugned my motivations and those of my colleagues, but that it couldn't be further from the truth. If Charles Koch had been calling the shots, none of this would be happening. Ed Crane would be gone, and maybe a few employees go with him, but Cato would look mostly the same. Yet, I don't think anyone believes today's Cato will have anything in common with a Koch-run Cato other than the renovated building that bears the same name.

I was deeply shaken when the story broke about the Kochs' actions. They are not only attempting to destroy the Cato brand by making it partisan and inherently less honest, but they are already sullying the reputations of all of the other policy shops and publications they support that don't carry the Koch name. While the Left and its allies kept harping that the Kochs were somehow calling the shots--boogeymen make great fundraising gimmicks--most DC people knew better, whether or not they would admit it publicly. Now that the Kochs have proven that they don't have the influence the Left assigned to them, they are trying their hardest to get it. Any organization that has a Koch closely associated with it has been tainted going forward, and that is unfortunate.

Despite their business acumen and strongly held beliefs, the Kochs don't know how to run a think tank. A think tank is jealous of its reputation, yet the Kochs' actions here have demonstrated they have no interest in maintaining it. Cato as a name will be irreparably damaged, the board of directors will disintegrate, and they'll have to start poaching Right-wing shops to fill the vacancies left by the resignations of people who refuse to associate themselves with this naked power grab.

Just because we support legalized prostitution doesn't mean we want to live it.

The Kochs would do themselves and everyone else a big favor if they just let this die. Cato was never theirs to control, and if they want to shift their support to Republican activist organizations, that is their prerogative. But attempting to take over Cato only harms the many organizations, causes, and individuals they have long supported, including many quite separate from Cato. But, I fear, they plan to see this through and will fight on even if they lose in court.

There are few places in DC I could work at in good conscience, and none hold the appeal of working for Ed Crane, David Boaz, and the rest of my colleagues at Cato. If the Kochs win, I'll have to figure out a new path for myself. If that should happen, though, I suggest a name change for the pretenders:

I suspect New Koch's appeal will be quite similar.


bellum medicamenti delenda est

States' Rights vs. Individual Rights

I have an essay up over at Libertarianism.org in which I argue that the "States' Rights" argument for the Confederate secession is an argument that sides with the prerogatives of the state over the inalienable rights of the individual. This has ruffled some feathers within the libertarian community, despite its veracity. If a state has a right of exit that individuals in that state do not (through no crime of their own) then clearly the state's "rights" are preferred over those of the individual.

This doesn't sit well with people who claim that the South was somehow fighting for liberty. Southern "liberty" was a false one because, within a rights framework, a man does not have the liberty to enslave another man.

You'd think people who define their politics as one of liberty would understand that.

Read it here.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

Strictly Speaking

Strict liability is bullshit.

An ex-soldier handing in a found sawed-off shotgun faces five years in an English prison for illegal possession of a firearm. Of course, he only possessed it in order to get it off the streets and turn it into police:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.

"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

The story goes on to say that Mr. Clarke's intent is irrelevant because gun possession is a "strict liability" offense, meaning that no matter how one comes into possession of a banned item or substance, or whether or not one had mens rea--criminal intent--he is technically guilty.

This is doubly frustrating because he faces "at least" five years in prison. Like some gun and other criminal offenses in the United States, Mr. Clarke is poised to lose five years of his liberty for doing the right thing because of mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

One-size-fits-all laws are pernicious. While most of these laws were crafted to bring uniformity and fairness to criminal sentencing--consistency , generally speaking, is a good thing--they become inflexible barriers to true justice in many cases. As I have said before, judges should be allowed to assess the facts of any given case to bring about a just conclusion to a criminal matter. Statutory constraints like "strict liability"--particularly when coupled with mandatory minimum sentences--cross the line from proper legislative decisionmaking into what should be exclusively judicial purview. Stripping judges of their ability to judge mitigating factors--or, in this case, undisputed facts that should have led to immediate dismissal--can result in the state committing crimes against its citizenry.

While I'm not familiar with the English criminal justice system, given that America's common law is a direct descendant of English common law, there has to be some executive or other official that can issue a pardon for this man. They should issue that pardon immediately, in addition to an apology.

Last year, I wrote a piece for reason on mandatory minimum sentences as they applied to ex-(and hopefully future) NFL star Plaxico Burress, that can be found here. Also, in today's WSJ, the feds are rethinking mandatory minimum policy. Let's hope (against hope, probably) that they get this right, at least on a federal level.

Mood Music Monday

In addition to the 20th anniversary of perhaps the greatest single day of the 20th century, this is the one year anniversary of me quitting smoking. Woo, freedomz.

It very well may be that the most appropriate music for the day would be Winds of Change by the German band Scorpion or something by German superstar and official hero of bad American television David Hasselhoff (I refuse to link anything by him, look it up your damned self), and while I believe in free trade, any music composed after 1900 is not in the German's comparative advantage and thus I don't want to leave you with a negative impression of the German people.

So, in the spirit of freedom's triumph over tyranny and personal victory over addiction, I give you this uplifting song by the decidedly non-German "Ladies Love Cool" James Smith:



UPDATE: So, I had NO idea this interview existed, but check this interview with the baddest rapper in the history of rap itself here. Libertarians Love Cool James? H/T Mary Katharine Ham's twitter feed.

The Three Books, Part 1

Tony Woodlief, Megan McArdle, Ilya Somin and others tackle the question, "what three books would you recommend to someone who disagrees with you?" Although Tony frames it as a left versus conservative/libertarian discussion, given the sort of "I don't agree with either party" mindset most small-L libertarians share, I think this would be more dependent on where that disagreement is than it would be a standard three books that could possibly wrap up the strongest arguments for an/my individual way of thinking. I mean, a free market conservative with social conservative biases would get much different treatment than a traditional ACLU-type liberal lacking a decent respect for property rights and economics. Indeed, I could probably come up with a list for a lot of traditional libertarian types, especially the consequentialist economist types.

It is assumed that these books would be more friendly to the intelligent layperson than some of the books that cater to the wonkish types that are typically answering this question on their personal blogs.

Staying within Tony's framework, however, I would give:

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

Government Failure: A Primer in Public Choice by Gordon Tullock et al.

The Cult of the Presidency by Gene Healy

I picked Gene's book not because of any personal or collegial affinity I have for him, but because I think it is an excellent, non-partisan attack on the absurd heights we have taken the expectations of the most visible political office in America. I picked Hazlitt's book because it is a concise explanation of fundamental economic concepts--and fallacies--that have been prevalent in modern Western economic discourse. And Tullock's book, I think, is a nice bridge between the other two because it explains the confluence of the political and the economic arenas that make sense on an almost intuitive level. They are all eminently readable--I dare say "enjoyable" in regards to Gene's book.

I will soon post books for the Right and the "Libertariat" in the next day or two.

iRat

Despite Godwin's Law, there comes a point when analogies to certain vicious security states of the 20th century are appropriate. This video has made me so angry that I'm gonna "go there" to make my point.




There is something so fundamentally wrong with this campaign that I'm getting a migraine from trying to figure out where to begin.

Even at the height of the Third Reich, there were very few Gestapo officers relative to the population of Germany and, subsequently, German-occupied Europe. Thus, to get information, the government relied heavily on everyday citizens reporting to the Gestapo's local and regional offices. The files recovered after the war document the copious amounts of information they had collected, most of which was voluntarily given by citizens about other citizens. Like today's "fusion centers" that aggregate data on Americans, the Gestapo had too much information to run efficiently. (Former FBI agent Mike German has done invaluable work on fusion centers at the ACLU.)

Collecting information this way is not only a threat to individual liberty, but it also is counter-productive to law enforcement's legitimate and necessary counter-terrorism efforts because the resources required to investigate so many bogus leads. Thus, informing on fellow citizens actually helps terrorists because law enforcement agents are too busy wasting their time with superfluous allegations. (Of course, law enforcement will happily arrest and prosecute people for whatever non-terrorism related information they find as they dig into the lives of those people unlucky enough to be reported on.)

Our police should do their jobs and our citizens should mind their own damned business.

H/T: Allison Gibbs

Situational Constitutionalism

In recognition of the anniversary of the 2001 attacks today, I wrote in my Twitter feed and similarly on my facebook status:

Trampling on the protections provided by the Constitution is no way to honor the fallen.

While I intended it to reference those who are wont to say "9/11 changed everything" or some other pap to justify torture, wiretaps, indefinite detention without charge etc. initiated by the Bush administration and--for the most part--wholeheartedly continued by the Obama administration, it dawned on me that some may take it as some sort of backhanded slap at the health care reform plans currently festering in Congress. Well, it wasn't, but since we're on the subject...

I am sick and tired of the Left (I patently refuse to refer to people who work to reestablish the age-old power of the state over people's lives as "progressive") complaining about the unconstitutionality of Bush administration actions while simultaneously holding in contempt those of us who read Article 1,§ 8 of the Constitution and Amendments 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights as limits upon government action. If the Necessary and Proper, General Welfare, and Commerce clauses are to be read so broadly as to nullify the major safeguards against tyranny (e.g., arbitary seizure and reallocation of wealth and property) enshrined in our Founding documents, then those documents cease to mean anything at all. Explicit directives from the document upon which all federal laws are (meant to be) built are not to be casually tossed aside because legislators or presidents purportedly mean/meant well.

The Left is just as guilty as the Right of situational constitutionalism--standing by the document when its suits their particular policy interests, but ignoring it when the unambiguous meaning of the text prohibits the excessive power the government needs to implement their preferred goals. Either the Constitution grants the power or it does not. If it does not, the government does not legitimately have that power, in spite of what they or anyone else thinks is the "right thing to do."

If you don't like it, change the Constitution. Short of that, simply ignoring the text to play Robin Hood (or Jack Bauer, for that matter) is sickening and ignominious hypocrisy.

Update: Further comment on the Millhiser piece I linked to above, here.

Perhaps the Most Preposterous Thought Ever Printed in the New York Times

And that is saying something.

But, without further ado, I present to you the unfathomable Thomas Friedman:

There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China's leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down...Our one-party democracy is worse.

For some reason, when I think of China and green automobiles, I think of this:


'Benevolent' dictatorship/autocracy beats the deliberative process of democratic republics because, dammit, those people can get things done!

Just don't look at the man behind the curtain jailing, censoring, beating, and executing untold numbers of dissenters, choking-off less desirable political content on the internet, forcing abortions on families, and only allowing markets to flourish in certain geographic locations while so many people still live in the countryside without basic amenities those contemptible and inefficient free nations have had for, oh, about 100 years.

There aren't words in our language strong enough to describe the abject imbecility of this column.

H/T: John Tabin and Matt Welch

more on this by Will Wilkinson and Kenneth Anderson.

Unfortunate Update

I hate it when I can see something like this coming:

I'm glad that a story of a (presumably) squeaky-clean white baptist minister is out to bring light to abusive officers--if we assume it's true. (There is no confirmation on the story I can find yet) I just hope he's got no terrible skeletons in his closet (e.g., militia organizations/fringe Minutemen, racist, etc.) because, if he does, the officers' lawyers will eat him for lunch--in spite of what appears to be a detailed and legitimate complaint.

Because our friend Rev. Stephen Anderson is back in the news...(::smacks forehead::)

Pastor Steven Anderson has used his position at Faithful World Baptist Church, in Tempe, Arizona to bring just a little more hate into the world. Pastor Anderson is praying for the death of President Obama and an eternity in hell.

“Nope. I’m not gonna pray for his good. I’m going to pray that he dies and goes to hell. When I go to bed tonight, that’s what I’m going to pray. And you say, ‘Are you just saying that?’ No. When I go to bed tonight, Steven L. Anderson is going to pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell.”

Reminds me of this classic from the Onion:

We're not all "Jesus Freaks" who run around screaming about how everyone should "Judge not lest ye be judged," whine "Blessed are the meek" all the time, or drone on and on about how we're all equal in the eyes of God! Some of us are just trying to be good, honest folks who believe the unbaptized will roam the Earth for ages without the comfort of God's love when Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior returns on Judgment Day to whisk the righteous off to heaven.

I am not insane. I am not racist. I do not hate the president. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not think Obama is the devil incarnate. I do not speak in a language that makes it sound as if "government" is just another word for "evil cabal hell-bent on taking away the god-given birthrights of affluent and middle-class white Americans." But, unfortunately, so many of the people who grab headlines with legitimate accusations of state overreactions and outright intrusions upon liberties indeed fit one or more of these descriptions.

Think about it this way: what if everything you believed was most popularly represented by screaming Code Pink yahoos (I've seen them up-close and personal...scary folks.) They are anti-war, among other things, but not everyone anti-war is like this. But, of course, libertarians are anti-'security state', inasmuch as it intrudes upon our constitutional rights.( N.B. This is not to say I am anti security of the state. Big difference.) But it seems the only people standing up to the injustice of overzealous cops and invasive and illegal searches are criminals, half-wits, and/or crazy bastards. And, of those who grab headlines, they tend to be white, middle class, with a touch of Southern 'States Rights' animosity that is thinly veiled, if veiled at all, racism. (I tend to refer to myself as a Federalist.)

To paraphrase William F. Buckley, speaking about Sen. Joseph McCarthy who led the infamous committees to uncover communists in the government--which, incidentally, had indeed infiltrated high levels of the U.S. government--"just because he's crazy, doesn't mean he's wrong." So too are embarrassments to liberty like Rev. Anderson.

But, alas, many mock our position on this, and health care, and anything else that has been shouted loudly by less-than-informed people on half-assed assumptions by good ol' boys and religious nuts and militia members and...well, the list goes on.

You'll notice that at the American Prospect, they're even mocking those of us who still believe the Constitution is the law of the land by comparing us to Orly Taitz and the "Birthers" by calling us "Tenthers"--we, so naive to support the anachronistic 10th Amendment to the Constitution. What crazy fucks we must be for taking the Constitution at face value.

*I am not accusing Anderson of racism, by the way. He may be, he may not be. It's irrelevant to my overall point because if it's not him, it's someone else.

Where's George (Orwell)?

I don't usually dig features.

Seriously, I cringe every time I see what I have dubbed "Oprah Moments" on ESPN--some harrowing tale of some amateur or has-been professional athlete--or worse, sick and/or dying kids-- overcoming ridiculous adversity to arrive at some sort of peace in their life. If I wanted to watch stuff like this, I'd watch Lifetime. (Granted, I sit there and watch them as I wait for the second-run of the Yankees highlights that air late in the show. And, predictably, the very-much intended touching moment touches me too, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.)

So, too, would I read Reader's Digest if I wanted to read stories and articles about random happenstance "You'll never guess what happened after Timmy got the cat out of the tree" yarn.

Bah.

I have forsaken television news--save the rarity I'm home to watch the NewsHour (which I unashamedly follow on Twitter)--not only for its general lack of substance, but the choice to air some sort of feel-good filler at some point in the broadcast. Of all the stuff going on in the world, the fact that Jane Hemshaw has been cooking pies down on Main Street for 47 years doesn't rise to the level of making me give a good [gosh darn.]

So all that being said, I LOVED this piece in WaPo today. I loved it because I'm a book reader and, since coming to DC, I am enamored by decentralized autonomous happenings. Yes, I know all about the 'Where's George' dollar tracking--but this is actually spreading ideas around the globe as opposed to "I wonder where that piece of paper is."

[Christal] Groves is a member of BookCrossing, a free-book-tracking Web site where anyone can, as a brochure puts it, "share your books with the world and follow their paths forever more!" Its fans can register a book, add a brief journal entry, then place it in a public spot. The hope is that someone else will pick it up, record their find online and pass it on -- becoming a link in a long chain of serendipitous literary discoveries.

Of course, the first thing I thought of is sharing books on the ideas of liberty, though I think leaving Human Action or An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations around may be counterproductive. (You kinda have to WANT to read those to get through them. And even then, they're a challenge.) I think it would probably be best to start out with Economics in One Lesson or The Road to Serfdom--or, perhaps for the less strictly-libertarian inclined: 1984 or Animal Farm.

Anyway, I thought I'd share the feature with you before I dive back into the dreary news of skyrocketing national debt, a possible war brewing in Zimbabwe, and, worst of all, the Red Sox gaining a game back against my beloved Yankees.

Treat yourself today and pick a up a book.

Ron Paul + Metallica

Regular readers of my blog know that I am not a big fan of Congressman Ron Paul, to be polite.* That said, and I can't say I agree with everything he implies in this, I think he's right on most of it and the video is simply great:



H/T Knud Berthelsen

*Why couldn't Paul have talked more like this on the campaign trail and so much less about the Gold standard???

A Libertarian Defense of Lincoln

In libertarian circles, Abraham Lincoln isn't a president that gets a whole lot of respect. There are a few reasons for this, including:

1. Lincoln illegally suspended habeas corpus, barricaded cities and stretched the limits of executive power well-beyond any measure, even with generous interpretation, that could be granted by the Constitution


2. The Union that emerged from the Civil War was one of much more centralized power and, in many respects, anathema to the vision of the Founders


3. The South had a right to secession and thus it was wrong for Lincoln to attempt to keep them in the Union


4. A hefty Southern strand of libertarian thought that either mythologizes the Old South or, at least, tends to apologize for it by insisting that the "War of Northern Aggression" was not in fact fought over slavery. Not surprisingly, this is bolstered by a number of Southern adherents to libertarianism who refuse to face the awful history that was the antebellum American South

This first point is, by far, the strongest critique of Lincoln. In the most extraordinary time in U.S. history, and with Congress out of session, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and in doing so effectively ordered martial law wherever the U.S. military happened to be. Several of his subsequent actions, including incarceration of seditious journalists, were thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court after the war. As a strict adherent to the Constitution, I feel more than a little compunction saying "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" and letting it go at that, but if the country was falling apart all around me, with spies all over the capital city and the rest of the North, I'd have a hard time condemning him for most of what he did.

The second point is quite true, but fails to grip the severity with which the individual states abused their relative freedom from central control. This severity was played out again after Reconstruction, as they crippled the black communities with economic, educational, social and legal segregation up to and including intimidation, fraud, beatings and murder. It is no exaggeration that the Rule of Law--that is, the protection of (and consequently FROM) the law--simply did not apply to blacks in the South. There was--and human nature as it is, remains--a valid reason the central government was a necessary trump over the "States Rights." Inalienable human rights are not dependent on jurisdiction. Without a uniting and overseeing eye, those rights outlined in our Founding documents, would stand for nothing. The rights of the states to govern themselves should be respected only up to the point they abuse the fundamental rights of their citizens. If those so foolish as to proclaim States' Rights as absolute--when the right to free speech is clearly not (e.g., assault, fraud, etc.)--wish to place blame on the growth of the federal government, they need look no further than the abuses of the antebellum and Jim Crow Souths.

Thirdly, to hold up the Declaration of Independence as a document of liberty, one must recognize it is, indeed, a declaration of secession. Thus, if the Declaration is legitimate, then secession must be legitimate under some circumstances. What many libertarians fail to grasp is the "under some circumstances" part. Seceeding from a nation in order to keep other members of that nation in chains does NOT rise above the level of "light and transient" cause, to use Jefferson's words--not to mention being wholly unjust.

The purpose of the Declaration was to explain to the world the rightness of the Founders' actions and to list the reasons why prudence dictated they sever their ties to Great Britain. Four southern states--South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Mississippi--did the same when they decided they were to secede. Simply glancing over these four documents, unquestionably modeled on the 1776 Declaration, gives the reader a rather clear sense of the cause for separation: chattel slavery. The following are excerpted from the four declarations of secession.

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississippi:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

South Carolina:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
...

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.

Texas:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

For all the world to see, to justify their actions, and with no less than 82 direct references to slavery or servitude contained in just those four documents, the seceding states proudly asserted that slavery--and its perceived abolition--was the primary and compelling motive for their secession and, consequently, the singular cause for the war. While it would be disingenuous to say that the North began the war with the intent to end slavery, it would be nothing short of delusion to say the South did not fight to preserve it. After all, giving deference to their legendary honor, one would think we could take them at their word...

For all his faults, missteps, and, on several occasions, blatant abuses of his power, Lincoln is a president to be respected, and whom I personally revere. While he was no libertarian himself, in toto, he did more for American freedom as president than any man before or since. He fought against an illegitimate government bent on and created for the perpetuation of human bondage--and he won. It is an accomplishment, I think, too often lost on contemporary Americans.

Today is the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth, and it should be celebrated. Happy birthday, Mr. Lincoln.

The Curse of Ron Paul's R3VOLUTION

Some people just don't know when to quit:

[Y]ou can bet Rep. Ron Paul will be running for the White House again, probably as a Republican. Not so much to actually win, mind you; RP runs to make a point about less government and foreign intervention.

Yes. I believe we've heard that before. We've also heard about how people who have worked for him in years past feel about the inherent criminality of D.C. residents and the "fleet-of-foot" hoodlums also known as black teens.

I believe Paul means well, honestly. But so many of his followers were as blind as they were loyal. Very much like the supporters of the man now occupying 1600 Pennsylvania, NW, the ultimate focus of the campaign was the man, not the message. Granted, when Paul spoke, it was more policy-oriented than mindless abstractions of "change"--but the result on his base was effectively the same: legions of starry-eyed, Kool-Aid swilling 20-somethings prating on about how the business of Washington has to change. Yawn.

Dr. Earmark, er, Dr. No cannot match the libertarian cred of better polished and more consistent candidates like Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and save the former's membership in the religion that believes in magic underpants*, no hint of racism from either one of them. They are younger, more articulate, and lack a cult of personality that is currently attached to everybody's favorite Texan goldbug.

*See Second Book of Nephi, Chap 5, v 14 & 20-22 in the book of Mormon

Ron Paul is too old, has too much baggage, and isn't a very compelling figure--despite what his wide-eyed followers would have you believe. (If you've never seen him debate or talk before, imagine a pipsqueak in middle school who likes to correct the teacher and combine that with a lovable grandpa that has recurring flashbacks to the days he was vibrant and relevant). It is time for him to step aside and let a younger generation of liberty-oriented individuals build on what he has been able to accomplish.

Only, in the future, let us not put the man before the message and remember: It's the liberty, stupid.

Liberty: Ironically

So, a bar called "Liberty" decides to back a move to restrict the liberty of others:

ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) - Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, entering his final year in office, is making a third and final push to enact a smoking ban in the state's bars and restaurants.

He supported similar bills in 2007 and 2008 but the Legislature rejected them.

This year, he believes momentum is on his side. At a news conference Tuesday at a Clarendon tavern, Kaine said the public is increasingly supportive of such bans.

...

Stephen Fedorchak, owner of The Liberty Tavern, the restaurant where Kaine held his news conference, said he has been in the business long enough to know smoking was once entrenched in bars and restaurants. But those days have passed, he said.

He said he does not regret the decision to ban smoking in his restaurant and said these days "smokers are somewhat used to going out in a ... fresh-air environment" and no longer assume they will be allowed to light up.

As many of you know, I have recently quit smoking. I honestly prefer non-smoking establishments now because I don't like my clothes wreaking of cigarette smoke when I get home. But the decision to quit was my choice--and I still choose to go into smoking bars, on occasion. If it comes to the point that I don't want to ever walk into another smoking-permissive establishment, then that too will be up to me. But I will never back a government mandated smoking ban on a municipal, state, or--god forbid--national level.

Many of you also know that I was a bartender for the better part of 8 years. I've worked in smoking and non-smoking environments. I've always hated the "but what about the employees?" argument because, first off, most restaurant employees I worked with smoked. Secondly, any prospective employee knows going in that the restaurant/bar allowed smoking. (The ashtrays on the tables and bar closely situated to the smoking customers were usually a dead giveaway.) If you don't want to work at a smoking restaurant, don't apply. It's as simple as that.

I encourage all true believers in liberty to patronize any bar in Clarendon other than the misnamed Liberty Tavern. There are good bars there that allow smoking, and those that don't. I refuse to spend my hard-earned dollars there until they publicly repudiate their endorsement of this law. I implore Virginia and greater DC-area residents to do the same.

H/T: Jacob Grier

Please express your own dissatisfaction to the Liberty Tavern at info@thelibertytavern.com.

Quick Take on the Bailout

While most of my libertarian friends are behind the "failout"--it probably won't last. And, as often happens in Washington, the second version is likely to be worse than the first. So much for small victories...

But I wanted to address the few friends of mine who actually support the bailout--specifically a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist/anarchist friend of mine who works in the finance sector. We'll call him "Jim."

Jim tells me yesterday that while the bailout may not work, it may slow the domino effect of "runs on the bank" that we're seeing as Wachovia, WaMu, Merrill Lynch, etc. all fall. Apparently, Jim explained, they all lent money to each other while hiding the riskier sides of their holdings and now when that risk bites them in the ass it's the least the government can do to infuse $700 billion into proven bad investments. And, he argues, because of their holdings, all these failures could collapse the economy because, well, the banks don't trust each other anymore. So, in short, we should limit the consequences of those hidden shady investments by giving them more money so they can...do more of the same again?

Um, excuse me for not being sympathetic.

Broke people borrow and lend money all the time. The difference being is that they don't have the federal government backing their bad loans/defaulters in case things go wrong. Often, the loans are illegal and thus not enforceable by law; often resulting in--shall we say?--alternative punitive techniques.

People will be ok, bailout or no. (But a bailout is coming in all likelihood.) We're not going to see breadlines and 30% unemployment--but if we, as libertarians, back "shock therapy" for other economies when they need to get their houses in order, I see no moral reason we should expect any different for our own ( lest we only support creative destruction for brown people). If we are opposed to bailouts and government intervention on principle, then we must face the consequences of shady trading and lending which shouldn't have been going on in the first place. The proverb that you shouldn't rob Peter to pay Paul applies--the fact that (apparently) so much of our economy is based on such practices is disturbing and those involved should get what's coming to them.

Such is the destructive power of the market.

Effectively, the debate comes down to the consequentialists versus the natural rights folks within the broader "movement" and illustrates my problem with the former: it's the principle, stupid. (Small "l")Libertarians disregarding their long-held and strident principled opposition to redistribution is just as bad as the hypocrites on Capitol Hill who only espouse limited government when it suits them and chuck it out the window when it benefits them. I thought we were better than that.

And forgive me, Jim, for saying this: but an anarchist supporting government bailouts is akin to a praying atheist. There's nothing wrong with it, per se, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It's the Liberty, Stupid!

As is the norm amongst the neo-con right, David Brooks' newest column puts politics above principle:

The British conservative renovation begins with this insight: The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.”

That means, first, moving beyond the Thatcherite tendency to put economics first. As Oliver Letwin, one of the leading Tory strategists put it: “Politics, once econo-centric, must now become socio-centric.” David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, makes it clear that his primary focus is sociological. Last year he declared: “The great challenge of the 1970s and 1980s was economic revival. The great challenge in this decade and the next is social revival.” In another speech, he argued: “We used to stand for the individual. We still do. But individual freedoms count for little if society is disintegrating. Now we stand for the family, for the neighborhood — in a word, for society.”

...

As such, the Conservative Party has spent a lot of time thinking about how government should connect with citizens. Basically, everything should be smaller, decentralized and interactive.

While--unlike many of my libertarian colleagues and friends--I do actually have reservations relying solely on economics to guide our lives, I find that a dedication to the free market principles of Hayekian economics is the best thing politicians can do for the economy. (i.e., stay out of it!) Government "connect[ing] with citizens" is antithetical to that end and what Brooks proposes is to revert to failed policies in order to win over the electorate. I think we tried that already -- it was called "compassionate conservatism"-- and it's made an unholy mess of the country while undercutting the economic principles of the Republican party.

Way to go, Rove.

But beyond economics, I am foremost a civil libertarian. Benevolent government exists only in the minds of its proponents-- lest we forget that communism wasn't created as a tool of oppression. Its entire purpose was to help the poor and address the needs of the whole. In the course of moving toward that goal, individual freedoms and liberties were curbed and stripped.

Without a fundamental respect for the independence and freedom of the individual, the government--as an entity of concentrated power--will seek only to increase its role in the lives of its citizens: demanding more money, more liberty, and thus, more power from them.

The United States was not founded on the ideal of 'helping people'; it was founded on the ideal that gives the people (read individuals) the freedom to shape their own destiny. Brooks' 'what your politicians can do for you' notion flies squarely in the face of the guiding principles on which this nation was established.

Individual liberty--the concept which guided Thatcher, Reagan, and the Founders--should never take a back seat to political pandering. Otherwise, the debate between the American 'right' and 'left' will no longer be between individual liberty and the 'common good,' but simply how quickly we lose our liberties and which poisoned party will be most responsible.

UPDATE: Over at reason, Michael Moynihan takes a more intelligent and ideologically consistent approach to how the GOP could adopt the Conservative Party's more socially tolerant views here.

A Libertarian Race rEVOLution:

What libertarians should do after the Ron Paul Newsletters

In the wake of the racially divisive “revelations” surrounding the Ron Paul rEVOLution, libertarians should reevaluate the methods by which they make themselves and, even more importantly, their ideas palatable both to the electorate as a whole and to black voters specifically.

Selling libertarianism as a brand to the general population is a difficult enough proposition. To attempt to sell it to African-Americans is to buck seventy years of political socialization. From FDR’s New Deal to LBJ’s signing of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, the federal government has been viewed by many blacks as the guarantor of collective economic well-being and individual rights.

This view of government is complicated by the electoral shift and the courting of the Southern vote by the Republican Party, the traditional—if very strained—political allies of fiscal libertarians. Circumstances from Barry Goldwater’s vote against the Civil Rights Act to Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign kickoff in Neshoba County, Mississippi —a hotbed of racial tension— make a wholesale political shift of blacks to the right a pipe-dream. Yet, it does not follow that libertarians and the GOP should shirk black issues altogether.

Ron Paul’s most recent racial misstep is merely the latest in an always-growing list of offenses committed by the right. This is particularly problematic because of the groundswell of support Paul received, albeit of little electoral significance. The libertarian base of that support made the error usually reserved for supporters of more mainstream candidates — putting the man before the message. The general mistrust of politicians with a healthy and reliable contrarian approach to their more troublesome policies (e.g., Paul’s stance on immigration) were conspicuously absent around much of the rEVOLution. If libertarian activists wish to further the ideas of liberty, they must begin by abandoning this flawed “libertarian” campaign and re-embrace the ideas that, perhaps imperfect, can be debated without being compromised by the (glaring) faults of any single individual.

In the short term, this would serve as a public relations salve to African-Americans and a more racially sensitive general public. In the longer run, and more importantly, libertarian ideas will be separated from a marginalizing figure —to be heard by black people still looking for political answers to many problems. While the full package of libertarian ideas will not be accepted, certain topics would have special resonance among African-Americans and can gain traction:

1. War on Drugs. There is hardly an aspect of the ‘War on Drugs’ that doesn’t affect blacks disproportionately. From the extended criminal sentences on ‘crack’ cocaine, to the violence that invariably accompanies prohibition and the relative percentage of black men in prison, this policy has been nothing short of disastrous for black individuals and families across the country. The debate on the harshness and effects of the drug war ought to be hashed out not just in the marble halls and plush auditoriums within the beltway, but in the neighborhoods and churches suffering from virtual lockdown by gang violence and a rising police state. Where liberals and conservatives have failed in addressing these problems, libertarians are in the unique position as the voice of reason.

2. School Choice. The terrible state of American schools is no secret. Government at all levels is failing to provide adequate public education —and urban blacks often face the worst of circumstances. For example, while Maryland and Virginia are among the best public school systems in the country, Washington, D.C. schools rank 51^st —dead last among all the states plus the District. The ability to opt out of local public schools to other regional or private schools would provide the education necessary for upward mobility and increased lifetime wealth across the younger generations in black neighborhoods. Libertarians have long been the champions of school choice in its various forms.

3. Eminent Domain. After the Kelo decision in 2005, property rights have been in greater jeopardy from private interests. Given that poorer and middle-class blacks live in segregated areas often with depressed property values —which make the land a prime target for developers— and that the property owners and renters will be less able to afford adequate counsel to defend against seizure, blacks are certainly among those whom face the greatest threat from eminent domain abuse. Eminent domain serves as an excellent example of how government, with the blessing of the “liberal” members of the Supreme Court, oversteps its constitutional bounds and invades the solemn rights of its citizens. Framing this argument properly could win solid allies among black property owners and the middle class.

These are but three examples of policies that libertarians can highlight to at least begin a political rapprochement with African-Americans. Such a move probably irritates more traditional libertarians whom prefer broad-based messages to the public. Yet, it only makes sense that if certain policies more directly affect a particular demographic (e.g., farm subsidies and farmers), libertarians should tailor these issues —which are not exclusively black issues— to the particular (and considerably larger) audience which can most benefit from libertarian reform.

The libertarian policy elites need to take this opportunity to reach out to black America. Continuing to embrace Ron Paul in light of the newsletters will further marginalize an already weakened movement — ultimately impeding liberty for all Americans.