Anarchism, vs. Minarchism, vs. Liberty Realism

Posted on

I often run across the perpetual idle (or sometimes fevered) debate among libertarians about what is the supposedly ‘best’ form human order from a consistent pro-liberty perspective. The two major views are anarchism (no-state, or the belief there is no legtimate civil government is the ‘real’ libertarian position) and minarchism (a view that people can legitimately delegate the defense of their basic rights to a minimal state).

Voluntaryists (advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society), who typically reject electoral politics, tend to side with the anarchists in opposing any concept that there can be a legitimate government from a liberty perspective. Voluntaryists believe government has no basis for asserting its monopoly claims (as some people are not inclined to support it), and it too often (soon, or eventually) takes the form of authoritarian tyranny.

This definition presumes an approach to ‘libertarian principle’ that makes it no different than anarchism, in that it recognizes no possible legitimate basis for civil government. The minarchist view holds that the size and scope of government should be limited strictly to that large enough to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property, and no larger. This is consistent with libertarian principles, because the use of force by such a state would be defensive, thus not an initiation of force or aggression.

If individuals have a right to self-defense use of force with respect to their basic rights, then so does the government they delegate to protect those rights. In fact, one of the reasons the LP’s non-initiation of force pledge is written that way was to accomodate both the anarchists and minarchists under the libertarian umbrella, by appealing to both group’s opposition to the offensive use of force.

The pledge silently implies the defensive use of force by a minimal state is therefore legitimate, but does not go into it due to the myriad variations of opinion between anarchists and minarchists about applying or delegating this to government. The point being, there can be voluntaryists who are consistent minarchist libertarians. The attempt to define libertarianism as being innately opposed to electoral politics is in error, since libertarians support electoral politics to facilitate achieving a minarchist state, which is in fact compatible with voluntaryism.

My own take on this dispute (as a Christian Libertarian) is otherwise to introduce a bit of “liberty realism” into the fray, which incorporates the input of the fundamental document of Western civilization (the Bible), the actual track record of history, and the key factor of human imperfection (or doctrinally speaking, the sin nature).

From a biblical point of view, in practice no form of human-based governance, anarchist or minarchist, works in the long run. The real obstacles to liberty in either order is ultimately not tyranny or the State, but sin and Satan. A people that does not acknowledge God or His moral law will not find a way to navigate challenges to a anarchic system once people disagree about resolution of issues (the “who decides what private law is?” question). A lack of recognition that God is the ruler of the nations tends to defacto lead to rule by the Prince of the air and his devils, playing on the sin nature of men.

About the only successful anarchist system was the ancient Israelite history of Judges following their settling after the Exodus, which went on for several centuries before the people decided to trade it in for setting up a kingdom (in other words, due to sinfully envying their neighbors). The prophets verified their authority through miracles and correct prophecy, which helped resolve disputes without need for courts or other civil institutions. It worked because it was a theocratic anarchy based on God’s law and kingdom, which the Israelites voluntarily entered into as a matter of contract or covenant (thus eliminating the issue of disagreements over private law, or authoritarian elements associated with theocracy). The millennial kingdom following the Second Coming of Christ will likely run along the same lines.

The pattern of history is otherwise one of, with humans left to institute anarchy or government on their own, one tyranny after another, sometimes interrupted by attempts by the people to restore a free order. That order, no matter how carefully constructed or articulated in law, has tended to fall away as the people abandoned the vigilance to maintain it, or kept advancing rulers who ignored the law or limits supposedly placed on their power. Even when no order was chosen, the anarchy broke down even more rapidly, when sinful strongmen took over and seized power from within, or the land would be overrun by invaders from without.

The lesson of world history is that 6,000 years of human civilization shows we cannot rule ourselves in a manner that keeps people free either with limited civil government, or no civil government. The debate as to which is theoretically better becomes moot, in this context. God, the Author of liberty, is the secret sauce to make liberty work, in either case. In the meanwhile, a man-based minarchist government is the defacto preferred interim order from a practical perspective, as the legal limits it puts on state power tends to preserve a free order longer than a man-based anarchic order would.


I’m at the NYC Cannabis Parade May 2

Posted on

It’s been called the Million Marijuana March in past years, but the annual Manhattan event is now called the NYC Cannabis Parade and Rally, and I will be speaking at it this Saturday (May 2). The goal, as ever is to “Liberate New York City” by demanding a legal market for cannabis in New York City, along with ending the drug law regime that has served to enrich the prison industrial complex.

People interested in the cause will be meeting up on Broadway at W. 31-32 Streets from 11:00 am, but will proceed to march to Union Square South Plaza around 12:30 pm, whereupon the speakers (including moi) will give our remarks on the struggle from 1:00 onward.  stand up for personal freedom and ending the social control grid, and meet up with us to help legalize weed!


The Media is Useless, Pt. 2

Posted on Updated on

As stated last time, modern journalism has a curious way of avoiding covering major news stories, such that key details or dynamics get excluded, and alternative voices are buried. The way the early Presidential primary coverage has been conducted, where Big Corporate candidates Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are treated as the only “serious” choices, even where other candidates are making major headway, is but one example. Those independent, or more authentic alternative voices within the major parties, be they progressives like Elizabeth Warren and war hero Jim Webb on the Democratic side, or liberty-leaning Sen. Rand Paul in the Republican race, seem to get mentioned only as a lead in to babbling about how they may impact Jeb and Hillary. Still other possibles discussed, like Trump, Cruz, Palin on one side, or Biden on the other, are either jokes, or treated like such.

To Big Corporate news, pushing or protecting Republican No. 1 and Democrat No. 1 is everything, while mentioning the Libertarian or “minor” parties means nothing (which is one reason they stay minor). The elite establishment doesn’t care, so long as they get their pro-Fed, pro-war, pro-surveillance candidate in, from column A or column B.  Even worse, some supposed “opposition” outlets turn out to be mainstream controlled when push comes to shove. Case in point, why does FOX News run story after story about Hillary, as if it was the neocon network’s job to promote her?

Other example: Mother Jones not long ago published a well-researched, strongly critical piece on Jeb Bush’s tenure as Governor of Florida, as one would expect from a progressive journal. Then they pulled the article from its website archive. While they (very) eventually put the piece back up, why would they have done such a thing? Could it be as simple as, they got a call from someplace connected to their funding, and got told they couldn’t keep their well-written article accessible online, if it made Jeb look bad? So for those progressives who scoff at my “two party paradigm” talk, and think the left-right battles aren’t managed, I ask them why would an “independent” left publication disappear a perfectly good critical piece on Jeb Bush, unless it wasn’t independent?

News MediaThe mainstream news media (or MSM, and by this term, I mean the “A list” consisting of the NY Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, and the four main broadcast networks) could do much better, especially those organs that have the column space or available cable time to so attempt. For one thing, they could pay attention to self-centered political figures who may happen to say true things. If Sarah Palin comes into the race, for example, and (as usual) attention whores herself, this time by way of successfully exposing Jeb Bush’s inadequacies, she should become major 2016 news. Palin and/or Cruz could work out being defacto advocates for Rand Paul in a ‘reverse triangulation‘ way. Say a Tea Party (TP) ‘firebrand’ candidate says something true, but really harshly or in incendiary fashion, drawing Bush et al into reacting to it in an extreme establishment-prone way that alienates the rank and file GOP voters. Rand then steps up, acts likes “the statesman” and expresses the firebrand position in a polished, diplomatic way, and is perceived as the true leader.

Rand did something like this in the vaccine flap, only out of sequence–he and Gov. Christie expressed the grassroots view first, which led the self-styled mainstream to react with “anti-vaxxer” spin, then causing Bush and Hillary to sound like the statesmen afterward. If a sort-of TP person like Palin ran and revived some of these debates by acting as the leading edge, sacrificial lamb who boldly states the alternative view first, Rand could benefit by responding in a measured way to the establishment’s dogmatism, and thus be on the right (lagging) edge of the triangle. (Note: “The establishment” I speak of is not rank and file Republicans or Democrats, but that motely collection of rank and file elite special interests (and media or party leadership vassals) who control both parties, and represent the MIC, banksters, AIPAC, Big Biz, etc. )

As it stands, the media’s one sided, “we’re in Big Pharma’s pocket” treatment of the vaccine story was scandalous, relentlessly putting supporters of parental choice, or for choosing natural immune health options on the defensive, while continuing to foster the corporate “we’ve got to support more vaccines” framework. The cable news networks were particularly horrible, acting as drug company enforcers of “the science is clear, there is no other side” dogma that any expression of opting out of vaccines should be frowned upon, and dismissed as a knee-jerk “anti-science” attitude.

The MSM tells us point blank that ‘there is no debate,’ while anybody who researches the alternative media for ten minutes can find out the opposite is the case. Where was any mention given to the $3 billion the US government has paid in settlement costs, to families who could prove their children were damaged by vaccinations? Or mention of the CDC’s own admission that roughly half the health care professionals in the US choose to not vaccinate their kids? Or how in Europe vaccines have been proven in court to cause autism? The MSM, particularly the 24/7 news channels, have all the time in the world to present doctors and scientists who are critical of the current vaccine regime, but devote their segments on the issue to pushing only the medical industry narrative. It is this no-choice authoritarian propaganda onslaught that is being knee-jerk rejected, not the individual choices of millions of informed parents.

The major news media has also played the “there is no other side” game when they have failed to call out political theater, as acted out by establishment celebrity tools like Donald Trump. Right after Ted Cruz announced his candidacy for President, the Donald jumped out and attacked his eligibility for the office, based on Cruz being born outside the US. The MSM latched on to the defective case Trump made by re-bashing the “birthers,” and repeating most “experts” had concluded Cruz was a US citizen qualified to run. The very appearance of the self-absorbed Trump on the political stump again was enough to nauseate most people, thus tend to poison the well concerning any topic he would deign to bring up.

Which was the intention. The point behind Trump’s “attack” was to get Cruz’s eligibility issue buried—in other words, to help Cruz. The MSM obliged, instead of calling him out as a strawman or shill, and having a real constitutional discussion of the matter. Statutorily, Cruz is a US Citizen, but Constitutionally as per its original intent, he is not a natural born citizen, thus he is not eligible to run for or serve the office of President. Regardless of Trump’s involvement, that is the end of the matter for those consistently applying the Constitution as the fundamental law controlling the understanding of the question.

As with the case of Obama, the establishment was using its tool The Donald to make the “natural born citizen” case poorly or even cloddishly, in order to preemptively marginalize those who would stress a consistent reliance on the Constitutional criteria. Trump is protecting Cruz, in other words, which is another indicator that Cruz is an agent assigned by the establishment to crowd out Rand Paul, and divide the liberty vote in the primaries. Thus proving, while the media is indeed useless to us regular folks insofar as exploring the truth is concerned, it does serve to lick the boots of its elite masters superbly.

Bode Was Right: The Media IS Useless, Pt. 1

Posted on Updated on

There’s a popular commercial featuring the US champion alpine skier Bode Miller recollecting a fictional “out of control” phase of his career, including an episode where he declares at a press conference that “the media is useless.”  Would that more real world figures would state this obvious fact out in the open, given the ongoing travesty of so-called mainstream news coverage masquerading as “journalism” these days. The consistent pattern is one that is damaging to the cause of liberty.

Take the early Presidential campaign coverage, for one example. The 24/7 cable news networks and the Sunday morning broadcast news shows cover the Presidential primaries as if their only obligation was to push anti-liberty, establishment favorites Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush upon us as the inevitable choices. As in, no detailed coverage of the other major party contenders, and certainly no reference ever to Libertarian or other alternative party options.

OlRli8nOn the GOP side, a token “plan B” candidate like Scott Walker is discussed, mainly in contrast to Bush, to make it look like they are covering a race (even as they use that two-man contrast as cover for not seriously talking about others such as Rand Paul, the party’s pro-liberty grassroots choice). On the Democratic side, the mainstream media (MSM) doesn’t even pretend to present prospective candidates besides Hillary as worth mentioning (in particular, people like Jim Webb, who was a war hero, US Senator, and Navy Secretary, or Joe Biden, who is merely the sitting Vice President).

So MSM “coverage” amounts to merely propaganda window dressing, for forcing two pre-selected, status-quo statists upon us. One giveaway to underscore this is true is to note how often they use all “news” as a cue to instead discuss the implications for Jeb and Hillary, and only tend to address positive aspects of news about them. In the just conducted CPAC straw poll, most of the media couldn’t even bring themselves to straightforwardly report the simple story “RAND PAUL WINS CPAC POLL” when it had just happened (notice the FOX News webpage screenshot from that time, emphasizing Jeb, with Rand’s win reduced to a tiny note). Some excuse the MSM’s behavior by pointing out that Rand had won it twice before, and so his victory was not “really” news.  But if it had been Bush who “was expected to win,” who then won the poll, would they have been equally restrained about reporting “Bush Wins” with a prominent photo and headline?

Inconceivable. The issue is the “journalists” have double standardszMWGNYa about campaign coverage, where the elite-selected, fat-cat backed establishment frontrunner gets the headline and most of the commentary at every opportunity, while truly popular figures like Paul get no comparable press, at every opportunity. Note that the MSM even short-changed Walker to a large extent Saturday—many of the CPAC poll stories emphasized Jeb, to the exclusion of both Rand and Walker.  And the fact that Bush got only 8% despite trying to pack the event with his people, was also “news” that should have been covered, but wasn’t. This is simply unfair to the voters, to the other candidates, and other observers of the coverage. The screen shots accompanying this post tell the real story—the media is useless!

Overt and Covert Thoughts on Paris, Terror and Peace

Posted on Updated on

Hmmmm. We have been asked to believe two working class Muslims in Paris had access to RPGs and other pricey, military grade equipment, which they used to attack the Charlie Hebdo newspaper office? Or, that they were “sophisticated terrorists” dumb enough to leave their ID behind? Three of the killed suspects/patsies were on government watchlists and were being tracked, but nobody noticed them preparing to perform the seige? How does the couple who held a grocery store hostage get surrounded by SWAT, yet the girl got away? How does that work, exactly? Where did all the professional, pre-printed “Paris est Charlie” signs come from, for the mass demonstrations suddenly held to honor the slain journalists? Most importantly:

“With France taking measures decisively sympathetic to Islam, why would Muslim zealots suddenly choose THIS MOMENT to murder a dozen French citizens, an act that would certainly turn French public opinion against Muslims and in favor of Israel?”

So James Perloff asks, along with me, who benefits from the events that don’t add up about the Paris seiges, the most recent episode in the “War on Terror” or “Stop the Towelheads” saga? That is, numerous details don’t make sense, UNLESS we consider the forbidden thought about these incidents—namely, that this and similar events are part of a campaign, to achieve certain policy results.

Consider that in recent months, the general public has been deeply focused on several spectacular cases of apparent police brutality or excessive (i.e., lethal) engagement of suspects, most prominently those of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo, and Eric Garner in Staten Island, NY. These cases raised issues of race and police misconduct on several levels, but the most important things those cases did was expose the militarization of the police to criticism by a mass audience, for weeks on end.

Consequently, the public is now openly doubting militarized policing, including lethal engagement tactics over minor offenses, and there is growing opposition to the expansion of this tyranny. Worst news of all for the powers that be, people have been concentrating on this despite all the scare mongering news that is supposed to keep us fixed on supporting more government force and power to stop, frisk, and conduct bulk surveillance on everybody at will. What’s a statist establishment to do, to reverse the acceleration of this questioning of government?

Quick answer: perform covert operations and orchestrations of events, to steer us right back in line. These ops, run by intelligence organizations, which range from propaganda to false flag ops, to black ops, are humming along in the background, at home or abroad, and are generally protected by the establishment, which has a large number of operatives embedded within it as it stands. Sometimes the criminal perpetrators are themselves operatives (or assets, or government-shepherded deranged individuals). Consider this website comment about the mysterious Hayat Boumeddiene, the 26-year-old woman on the run (or intel asset, allowed to go free?) and her possible US State Dept connections:

“This is probably nothing, but I found her Linkedin page… and it had the US state dept or consulate in her list of “groups” that she belonged to. (It was in French, but it was very clearly something to do with the US government. It could have been someone with the same name, but the picture looked right and it said she was born in Algeria.)

Anyway, when I went to look at it again moments later and take a screenshot… the US Gov stuff had been taken off her page. Everything else was the same, just no more reference to the United Stages gov. I’m not on Linkedin, so i don’t know how it works, I’m sure you can “friend” different groups for whatever reason, and they probably don’t do background checks on people… but it was odd that it disappeared before I could get a screenshot…”

Whatever the answer about provocateurs like Hayat, the “Paris under attack” week meme had its intended effects on policy and opinion. For now, people in the US have stopped talking about, or against, militarized police, and now may want even more people on watchlists. France may not recognize Palestine, as it recently indicated it would. People’s brains are back to being fixed on a presumed Al Qaeda and ISIS terrorist threat from abroad, instead of the cops committing homicide under color of law at home, and so on. Just keep on scaring folks about groups the West trained, funded, and frequently control. As in Star Wars, “Fear, will keep the outer systems in line.” From Gladio, to Northwoods, to 9-11, lies about Iraq’s WMD, and beyond, the state has never shied from shedding some blood or spreading falsehoods, to get mass opinion to roll its way.

This demonstrates the profound utility covert ops play in Western foreign intervention. Those observant enough can connect the dots about the activities of intelligence agencies in equipping, funding or controlling assets into actions that dovetail into creating pretexts for overt foreign policy and domestic hyper-policing. But the lack of transparency and abundance of cut-outs leave enough room for plausible deniability to keep much of the discussion inconclusive, if someone wants to be infinitely contentious. It’s hard to prove some ops are going on, precisely because everything is kept so secret.

Nonetheless, the gorilla in the room underlying most of these controversies, related to foreign or domestic ‘attacks,’ is the reality of covert operations, orchestrations, influences and machinations. There is an infrastructure for performing or supporting all these false flag and black operations, and an infrastructure of covering in up in the media, the permanent bureaucracy, and the courts.

The main difference between the “mainstream” (establishment-protecting) statist side and the alternative pro-liberty side has been the latter’s partial or comprehensive acknowledgement of covert ops that are typically behind events. We may squabble over specific cases like 9-11 or an assassination, but the main dividing line is WE note the likelihood of covert activity driving events, while a “mainstreamer” NEVER takes the conversation there.

The Paris RPG guys stink to high heaven of being shepherded assets, especially given their known ties to ISIS. They even admitted to reporting in Yemen to Anwar al-Awlaki, whom both Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and Fox News revealed was likely a US asset since at least 2001, acting as one of its chief ‘handlers’ or cut-outs to current and future ‘terrorists.’ To repeat: The US trained, equipped and funded ISIS. The common ‘blowback’ notion is “then they went rogue,” but I see no evidence that ISIS ever stopped being an asset of US/Western intelligence. Their job, like al Qaeda before them, has been to perform false-flag/black ops to justify new or resumed US intervention in the Mid-east. Only when we completely remove ourselves from the theater (both military ops, and all the covert ops) will the killing stop.

Ultimately, people who don’t want to acknowledge covert activity is a relevant factor influencing domestic and foreign policy (always in the direction of supporting a policy of expanded intervention, or more government force) will not concede it entering into the discussion, as it disrupts the “we’re under threat” or “official” framework. This explains why the preponderant data presented for the covert background is not just contentiously challenged, but treated derisively—covert understanding cannot be granted the legitimacy to rival the Manichean interventionist framework, and its official designations of “good guys over here,’ and the bad guys over there.

The truth is, western intelligence operations have been fomenting or false-flagging coups and civil wars across the planet for decades. So how should we foment peace, to counter these ongoing covert tactics? Pro-liberty people should be responding by raising the more complicated reality about our covert actions abroad at every opportunity, and emphasizing the lies the government keeps peddling at home. Hit ’em hard with, where were the WMDs, who forged the Niger document, who almost lied us into war with Syria last year over a non-existent chemical attack, etc.

We’ve been lied to, so let’s up and say so, to break the spell of the pro-war, pro-Big Brother narrative. Challenge claims about threats being just about everywhere, with evidence that we’ve been lied to about threats just about everywhere. Challenge the pro-war, omni-police state framework at its core. Overcome the murky lies and fear mongering, with truth and righteous anger.