A LITTLE REBELLION

Sharia, Private Law, and the Separation of Law and State

*This article was part of a debate between Jeff Scott and I for PolicyMic. Jeff's piece is here.

When it comes to religion, I am generally pretty agnostic, and oppose the imposition of any religion on myself or others. However, the case against allowing Sharia law to arbitrate disputes is a red herring, distracting from the many problems with the U.S. justice system and ignoring the many benefits that stateless, private law provides.

Unfortunately, the supposed threat of Sharia or Islamic law in the U.S. tends to be used as a bogeyman, where less than 3% of the population will somehow force women to wear burqas and the star and the crescent will replace the stars and stripes. But when one looks at the cases that have arisen in the U.S. involving judges using Islamic law to arbitrate a dispute, this simply isn’t the case. For example, last March, Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Neilsen in Tampa, Florida, used Sharia law to arbitrate a contractual dispute between two Muslim parties. The parties did not seek to impose religious law on others. Other than the fact that Neilsen presides over a government court, funded through taxation, no other parties were affected.

Secondly, U.S. courts leave a lot to be desired for those seeking justice. Many have dubbed the U.S. justice system as a "prison-industrial complex" where millions are in prison for victimless crimes. There is rampant abuse and corruption of police and government courts, and only after you can afford the costs – in both monetary terms and in time lost from employment, family, etc. – can you go to trial. With so much reform needed, should worries over Islamic law really be a concern?

Finally, the borderline paranoia over anything Islamic in the U.S. ignores what Sharia law represents. In practice, it is very similar to English common law: Privately enforced customary law that evolves and adapts quickly. Americans engage in the private arbitration of disputes all the time, and take for granted how easy and cheap this process can be. Anyone who has ever used companies like Amazon or eBay has implicitly participated in the efficiency and complexity of private law. By allowing and encouraging users to "rate" buyers and sellers, Amazon and eBay create a governing system of horizontally-enforced, decentralized order and conflict resolution without government police or government courts. The tradition of Islamic law, the separation of law from state, follows similar principles.

There are, of course, legitimate concerns over Sharia law. On the one hand, much like Judeo-Christian traditions, Sharia advocates giving money to the poor, not gambling, not eating pork or shellfish, staying sober, not charging interest on loans, and dressing modestly. However, around the world, there are also examples of imposing archaic rules requiring death by stoning and the treatment of women. While one may argue that these are inherent in Sharia law, I see these excesses as a predictable result of imposing any set of laws through the state’s top-down structure.

Law, as every good that is necessary for cooperation and civilization, is essentially a private good that arises from the trials and errors of the bottom-up market order that can and should be enforced without state coercion. Any system of rules, whether Islamic, Christian, or pagan, imposed, by force, on others tends to be abusive, too rigid, and should be opposed. But when it comes to Muslims using Sharia law to arbitrate disputes, as long as it doesn’t threaten the rights of others, then there should be no cause for concern.

Ron Paul's 'Phony Populism?'

 

Bill of Rights, RIP

 

This is eerily similar to the Enabling Act of 1933. Also, see Justin Raimondo on how this "National Defense Authorization Act" establishes the legal precedent for presidential dictatorship and is specifically designed to be used not against some foreign boogeyman, but us.

Bill Would Allow Military To Detain US Citizens Indefinitely: the Empire Comes Home, Again

For a while now, the US government has claimed the right to detain and hold terrorism suspects without trial in the name of "national security."Americans shrugged; why, it's only happening to foreigners, and they are backwards Arabs who talk funny and worship a false God.

But empires always have a way of cannibalizing themselves and eventually turning their guns inwards on those they are claiming to "protect." Now with a bill like the one that will soon be voted on in the Imperial Senate, we see an even further shredding of the quickly shrinking sliver of 4th and 5th Amendment protections for the Empire's subjects here at home.

Secret Bill To Be Voted On Today Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At Home Or Abroad

Either Monday or Tuesday the Senate will vote on a bill that allows the US military to imprison civilians with no formal charges and hold them with no trial.

The ACLU reports even US citizens wouldn't be immune as the legislation aims to declare national territory part of the "battlefield" in the War on Terror.

Termed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and drafted behind closed doors by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) the NDAA would:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

 

'I Support the Troops'

End the empire, stop the counterproductive, costly, and senseless wars, and bring the troops home, says Laurence Vance:

Soldiers should know without a doubt that what they are doing is moral, just, and right. Limiting the military to actually protecting the United States is the surest way to do this.

This means no more offensive wars. No more nation building. No more spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun. No more policing the world. No more providing disaster relief. No more dispensing humanitarian aid. No more preemptive strikes. No more bombing. No more extraordinary renditions. No more enhanced interrogation techniques. No more peacekeeping operations. No more enforcing UN resolutions. No more regime changes. No more assassinations. No more overseas deployments. No more foreign military bases. No more containing communism. No more opening markets. No more enforcing no-fly zones. No more training foreign police and armies. No more invasions. No more occupations. No more foreign wars.

I support the troops. I support the troops not being put into positions where they face unnecessary danger. I support the troops not fighting senseless foreign wars. I support the troops not being separated from their families. I support the troops not being sent to kill foreigners. I support the troops not being stationed on overseas bases. I support the troops not being misused by presidents, politicians, and military brass. I support the troops not being killed as invaders and occupiers. And I support the troops not killing themselves.

This is how we truly "support the troops."

Blowback in Pakistan

Contrary to what the neocons or liberal internationalists believe, the rest of the world does not hate America for the abstract notions of freedom and democracy or the fact that women can vote. In the same way that we would loathe a foreign occupier, the US government's imperial repertoire of drones, carpet bombs, troops, sanctions, "aid," bribes, and puppet dictators boomerangs back to us. Foreign interventionism breeds hatred and blowback; violence begets violence. Like 9/11, suicide bombers, the popularity of fundamentalist Muslim nutjobs who use US policy as their recruiting tool, and this:

Enraged Pakistanis burn Obama effigy, slam US

Hundreds of enraged Pakistanis took to the streets across the country Sunday, burning an effigy of President Barack Obama and setting fire to US flags after 24 soldiers died in NATO air strikes.

The rallies were organised by opposition and right-wing Islamist groups in major cities of the nuclear-armed country of 167 million people, where opposition to the government's US alliance is rampant.

In Karachi, the port city used by the United States to ship supplies to troops fighting in Afghanistan, more than 700 people gathered outside the US consulate, an AFP photographer said.

They shouted: "down with America, stay away Americans, Pakistan is ours, we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our army", while Pakistani riot police were deployed near the consulate.

If Russian Caesar Medvedev sent drones over the skies of Missouri, stationed troops with bases in South Carolina, took oil from the Gulf of Mexico, forced you to go through checkpoints every few miles, stripped you of any constitutional or legal protections, installed a brutal dictator with spy and torture squads, what would you do?

All Thugs Sound Alike

Glenn Greenwald has a great piece about those who claim the right to coercively govern over the life, liberty, and property of other individuals and the similar array of excuses they make in justification of that power.

Concerning the now infamous scene in which a UC Davis cop casually pepper sprays a line of peaceful protesters:

The UC-Davis Chancellor responsible for the pepper-spraying of her students, Linda Katehi, today went on Good Morning America and explained why she should not resign or otherwise be held accountable: “we really need to start the healing process and move forward.” On a radio program in the afternoon, she expanded on this view by saying: “We need to move on.” So apparently — yet again — the only way everyone can begin to “heal” and “move forward” is if everyone agrees that those in power with the greatest responsibility be fully shielded from any consequences and that their bad acts be simply forgotten.

As Greenwald points out, she must have gotten these mealy-mouthed words from Caesar:

Obama rejects probe on Bush-era torture: “Need to look forward not backwards”

Fri, 2011-07-22 04:37

The Obama White House is still to take a position on his own party’s veteran lawmaker Senator Patrick Leahy’s proposal to appoint a truth and reconciliation commission to launch an investigation into alleged torture of hundreds of ‘enemy combatants’ in U.S. custody.

He discouraged the domestic efforts to probe such illegalities declaring four months after his inauguration in January 2009 that he prefers to look forward, not backward.

Asked to respond to the likelihood that Spanish prosecutors will target officials in the Bush administration for sanctioning torture at Guantanamo Bay Facility, President Obama told the CNN in April 2009 “I’m a strong believer that it’s important to look forward and not backward, and to remind ourselves that we do have very real security threats out there.”

And even Darth Vader is getting in on the action. Via Greenwald's post:

The former Vice President heaped praise on President Obama for his policies of escalating drone attacks, military commissions, and indefinite detention — once known in Democratic circles as “shredding the Constitution” — and then added:

I was very upset when we had talk by the Justice Department about prosecuting the intelligence professionals who’d carried out our policies in the enhanced-interrogation area. They’ve backed off that since. That’s good.

Along with most neocon figures from the Bush era, Cheney has lavished Obama with praise before for his Terrorism and civil liberties policies, but this is the first time that he so graciously expressed his gratitude for being fully shielded for his crimes. Indeed, we should all be grateful, because as President Obama has taught us (though not the Indonesians) — and just as Chancellor Katehi today teaches — the only way we can begin healing and moving forward is if we all band together to shield those in power (but nobody else) from the consequences of their wrongdoing.

Whether Republican, Democrat, or the head of a gun-run school, those that claim the right to initiate force on others may slightly differ on the small minutiae of policy, but they all look out for each other.

The Mind of a Neocon

Former Imperial State Secretary Madeline Albright's infamous comments regarding the US-UN enforced Iraqi sanctions have always stuck with me in how the mind of US foreign policy makers function. When asked if the brutal starvation of over 500,000 Iraqi children was "worth it," Albright, in the calm, undisturbed tongue of a psychopath, states:

 

And as Antiwar.com blogger Matt Barganier points out in a recent blog post, "columnist" David Frum recently expressed doubt about the war in Iraq he fervently, vehemently, and blindly supported back in 2002. Maybe we made a mistake by smashing that country to pieces. Again. Woops. Oh well, at least I didn't have to strap on a uniform and rifle and actually fight, kill, and/or die, no skin off my back. I'll still have my cushy job writing screeds about the next war your son should lose a limb in.

Following up on that post, Barganier adds:

I know it’s bad form to follow up on my own post so quickly, but I fear that I may have shortchanged the enormity of the assertion that “For an Iraqi, there was no price too high to pay to rid the country of Saddam Hussein.” Allow me to riff a bit, with a nod to some of the commenters.

Let’s say that, in an instant, America — no, the whole world — could be magically remade into David Frum’s utopia. I don’t want to imagine what that would be like, and I probably wouldn’t live long enough to see much of it, but whatever. All the evils that Frum deplores could be scrubbed from the planet, and for a relatively small price, in the grand scheme of things: his wife and three kids. (This is not just some far-fetched philosophy-class hypothetical; numerous Iraqis have lost their entire families in the last eight years.) Would Frum pay that price?

I don’t want to speak for him, but I strongly suspect that he would not. He’s not a robot, after all. He surely has normal human feelings for his own family. Faced with the prospect of any harm coming to them, he would likely accept the persistence of “evil” in the world and forgo Frumtopia. (He’s free to correct me on this in comments.)

But Frum doesn’t hesitate to declare the lives of up to 30 million other people an acceptable price. He doesn’t even linger over the matter: 18 words and he’s on to the next issue. Thirty million people. But he means well.

“Sociopath” was far too vague a term for Frum. How about “genocidal maniac with a heart of gold”?

It truly says a lot about American culture and media that folks like Frum, Albright, and the rest of those Beltway chickenhawks have such a huge platform and little to no accountability for the bloodshed they inflict on the world.

Thankfully, the Internet allows us to read Barganier and countless others in the alternative media who eloquently and brilliantly rip these warmongers apart. It's a thankless job analyzing the mind of a neocon, but is sure as hell is entertaining for the rest of us.

'A Bad Lip Reading' With Ron Paul

'RON PAUL' — A Bad Lip Reading SoundBite - watch more funny videos

Forget what the polls say. When Funny or Die pokes fun at you, you know your message is spreading.

The GOP's Tortured Logic

*This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

In last Saturday night’s Republican presidential debate, the candidates squared off on national security and foreign policy. While the hawkish rhetoric aimed at Iran was not surprising, what was disconcerting was the level of enthusiasm that all but two of the candidates showed for the use of torture.

Texas Governor Rick Perry said he would support it “until the day I die.” Herman Cain advocated for using the “enhanced interrogation technique” euphemism. Other than Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former Utah Governor John Huntsman, the others seemed to compete over who supported torture the most. But the biggest matter that stood out for me was not the illegality or legality of torture, but how an interventionist U.S. foreign policy of the last several decades has turned the issue of torture into the public debate.

The use of torture is illegal and immoral. Matthew Alexander, who oversaw thousands of interrogations in Iraq, argues that torture is completely ineffective at acquiring good intelligence. 

What is a far bigger concern than the use of torture by the U.S. government, however, is the aggressive foreign policy that has bipartisan acceptance among mainstream Republicans and Democrats alike. Torture is simply one issue in a laundry list of problems that result from a foreign policy that focuses on offensive interventions, not defense.

In domestic matters, government intervention into the economy tends to create unpredictable and unintended consequences which are then used to justify even more government intrusion. The same goes for foreign policy as well.

When the issue of torture is brought up, it is usually in reference to terrorist suspects caught by the U.S. government. But as University of Chicago Professor Robert Pape points out in his analysis of terrorism, over 95% of suicide terrorism is a direct response to foreign occupation.

Over the past few decades, the U.S. has stationed troops in the Arabian Peninsula, subsidized foreign dictators, and initiated brutal blockades in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of these interventions are terrorism, which is why planes were flown into the Pentagon and not Switzerland.

And with terrorism come suspected terrorists. In response to these problems caused by government intervention, U.S. policy makers then wisely look to more government intervention to address the problem; in this case, torture, both at home and renditioned abroad.

Torture is a concern, yes, but it is just one small branch of the root of the problem: A global network of hundreds of bases in over one hundred countries, a $1.2 trillion per year military budget, and multiple on-going and open-ended wars.

With a foreign policy that focuses on defense, terrorism, and thus torture, it becomes almost a moot point. As Michael Scheuer, the CIA’s former head of the Osama bin Laden unit, argued in a recent interview with RT, without a U.S. military presence in the Middle East, Islamic radicals would likely go after Arab dictators and quarrel amongst themselves. Not only would we be safer, but every American’s tax bill would shrink significantly.

The real shame behind the issue of torture is not that many politicians support it, but that it is a side effect of, and a distraction from, an interventionist foreign policy that is counterproductive, incredibly costly, and makes us less safe.

The Essence of Government

So the mainstream media is shocked - just SHOCKED! I tell ya - over the "60 Minutes" expose last weekend about how corrupt "our" representatives are. According to the story, many Congress members in both parties have engaged in "insider trading" and profiting wildly on stocks and industries that they knew were soon to be regulated, subsidized, etc.

For example, the saintly Nancy Pelosi blocked a bill that would have prevented members of Congress from benefiting from insider knowledge since they are in charge of regulating industries and thus have intimate knowledge. Coincidentally, the following year, Pelosi padded her already lavish lifestyle with VISA stock during their IPO in 2008 as legislation threatening credit card companies made its way through the House. Pelosi bought stock at $44 a share. Three days later, it was $64 a share, and continued to rise.

John Boehner decided to get in on the action too. During the 2009 debates over Caesar's fascist medical care law, Boehner bought stock in health care insurance companies, all of which made money, just days before the public option was killed. In fact, there is a $100 million industry that exists in DC dedicated to "political intelligence" to help Congress make deals like this. No doubt these two examples are the rule, not the exception.

Why, if a private citizen did this, they would go to jail! goes the media narrative. It is always telling to see the media's portrayal of politicians when they get caught being the crooks that they are and are met with surprise that they aren't "public servants."

Bipartisanship at its finest. This is why I pray for gridlock.

But what doesn't get noticed is that the ability to commit acts which would be illegal if done by private citizens is the essence of the state. Its very existence depends on claiming the right to initiate force on peaceful and innocent people, on placing itself above the moral law that governs private society and the market order.

Theft is rebranded as taxation. Mass murder is referred to as war. Kidnapping is called an "arrest" when done by a cop. No other institutions may be allowed to compete for the services the state monopolizes, and you will pay for these services at whatever price they tell you or else face the threat or application of lethal force. Even if you don't want these services, or feel that, say, the military and police forces are committing vast injustices that you would never condone voluntarily, you must pay. Regulations, restrictions, and edicts must be followed religiously, or else. Ignore of the law is no excuse! The rules they make, of course, do not apply to them.

At the core of state power is this moral Bizarro World. Whether you believe that a state must exist or not, it is the nature of government to use evil means (non-defensive force) to achieve desired ends.

Is it any surprise that Congressmen, isolated from the rest of the country in their DC box of bribes, lobbyists, and thuggery, would abuse this power to initiate force on others? To ask it is to answer it.

The only real surprise is the outrage that comes from the state's stenographers in the media.

Let Banks Fail

I remember when I was just really beginning to educate myself on economics a couple years ago - by reading Mises, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Hayek, Bastiat, and Ron Paul - when the Crash of '08 was occurring. Like the free market Austrian economists had warned, booms that are created by artificially low interest rates, malinvestment, and debt are ultimately unsustainable and will crash.

And as we soon found, it crashed hard. Lehman Brothers went under. The housing market dipped. The stock market fluctuated like a pogo stick, and every Presidential candidate at the time (except for one, of course) supported the Steal Money From Future Generations Because We'll All Be Dead When The Bill Is Due programs, usually referred to in popular media as "the bailouts."

The basic principles of free market economics argues that profits are just as important as losses in an economy. Profits should go to those that earned them, and losses should be borne by those whose risks did not pan out.

It's pretty simple. Businesses that die give signals to the rest of the market to learn from their mistakes, avoid their decisions, or provides an opportunity for an investor to fix the errors of the failing business, purchase it, restructure it, and move on.

This is what should have been done when economic reality finally snuck up on those evil fractional-reserve banksters, but their losses were socialized by the "conservative" Bush. We have to destroy the free market in order to save it, he said. Echoes rang out in the media of the impending horror and doom that would result if our fascist regulatory state was not propped up further.

Sure, things might have been shaky for a bit if the US government would have let the banks fail. The damage done by fiat money and trillions in debt can not be corrected overnight. But the market always has incredible ways of making corrections and liquidating the malinvestment.

For example, I am sure your government school textbooks went into great detail about the major recession of 1920-1921. No? Ya, me neither. Well after multiple years of the war and government expansion of President Wilson, the bust came. The Federal Reserve and the US government did very little to "stimulate" the economy. Within a year, the recession was over.

Fast forward to ten years later, and the US government spent sixteen years pumping money, cheap credit, subsidies, installing price and wage controls, and massive public works projects and the economy still did not recover. It wasn't until 1946 - when the US government drastically cut spending and taxes - that the economy finally got back on its feet again.

All we have to do is look to the example of Iceland to see the differences in how the '08 Recession was handled.

Analysts have noted that continental Europeans would do well to copy the example of tiny Iceland, in how it weathered a financial crisis three years ago which stunned the placid island nation. In October 2008, its binge of bank speculation had reached a point at which the assets of the three largest Icelandic banks — Kaupthing Bank, Landsbanki (pictured), and Glitnir Bank — were 11 times greater than the entire $14 billion GDP of the nation. All three big banks defaulted on $62 billion of foreign debt, and then went belly up, not bailed out by Icelanders. Today the country's economists view that bankruptcy as a blessing in disguise.

Initially, the crash did much damage to the economy. The value of the currency dropped significantly and the government cut back on expenditures. Three years later, however, many - especially in socialist Europe - are wishing they made the same tough choices.

Bloodthirsty Republicans

At last Saturday night's GOP debate on national security and foreign policy, even I was shocked at the level of enthusiasm and support that the Fascistas gave for torture. Other than Ron Paul and John Huntsman, all of them proudly and apologetically advocated using torture.

This is fairly typical. After all, these are Republicans we are talking about. But the biggest laugher I saw was when the Reich-wingers criticized Obama for his supposed prohibition on torture. Michelle Bachmann even said that Obama's CIA is being run by the ACLU!

Either they are ignorant, liars, or both (my money's on the latter). Yes, Obama signed an executive order banning waterboarding and has paid lip service to the idea that torture has no place in a free and civilized society, but talk matters little compared to actions.

For example, Obama's got a torture dungeon in Mogadishu, Somalia:

As part of its expanding counterterrorism program in Somalia, the CIA also uses a secret prison buried in the basement of Somalia’s National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters, where prisoners suspected of being Shabab members or of having links to the group are held. Some of the prisoners have been snatched off the streets of Kenya and rendered by plane to Mogadishu. While the underground prison is officially run by the Somali NSA, US intelligence personnel pay the salaries of intelligence agents and also directly interrogate prisoners. The existence of both facilities and the CIA role was uncovered by The Nation during an extensive on-the-ground investigation in Mogadishu. Among the sources who provided information for this story are senior Somali intelligence officials; senior members of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG); former prisoners held at the underground prison; and several well-connected Somali analysts and militia leaders, some of whom have worked with US agents, including those from the CIA. A US official, who confirmed the existence of both sites, told The Nation, “It makes complete sense to have a strong counterterrorism partnership” with the Somali government.

And in Bagram, Afghanistan:

"Black sites," the secret network of jails that grew up after the Sept. 11 attacks, are gone. But suspected terrorists are still being held under hazy circumstances with uncertain rights in secret, military-run jails across Afghanistan, where they can be interrogated for weeks without charge, according to U.S. officials who revealed details of the top-secret network to The Associated Press.

The Pentagon has previously denied operating secret jails in Afghanistan, although human rights groups and former detainees have described the facilities. U.S. military and other government officials confirmed that the detention centers exist but described them as temporary holding pens whose primary purpose is to gather intelligence.

Just like nearly every one of the previous Caesar's worst excesses - aggressive war, bailouts, stimulus-es, the drug war, PATRIOT Act - torture is part of the current Caesar's imperial repertoire.

The only thing that really differentiates the GOP hawks from Obama is their willingness to thump their chests and embrace their bloodthirsty ambitions.

Troubling US Poverty Stats

This is what nearly a century of fiat money, central banking, and theftrillions of government debt can do to what was once the wealthiest and most prosperous society in history. Via the Economic Collapse blog:

#1 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of "very poor" rose in 300 out of the 360 largest metropolitan areas during 2010.

#2 Last year, 2.6 million more Americans descended into poverty.  That was the largest increase that we have seen since the U.S. government began keeping statistics on this back in 1959.

#3 It isn't just the ranks of the "very poor" that are rising.  The number of those just considered to be "poor" is rapidly increasing as well.  Back in the year 2000, 11.3% of all Americans were living in poverty.  Today, 15.1% of all Americans are living in poverty.

#4 The poverty rate for children living in the United States increased to 22% in 2010.

#5 There are 314 counties in the United States where at least 30% of the children are facing food insecurity.

#6 In Washington D.C., the "child food insecurity rate" is 32.3%.

#7 More than 20 million U.S. children rely on school meal programs to keep from going hungry.

#8 One out of every six elderly Americans now lives below the federal poverty line.

#9 Today, there are over 45 million Americans on food stamps.

#10 According to the Wall Street Journal, nearly 15 percent of all Americans are now on food stamps.

#11 In 2010, 42 percent of all single mothers in the United States were on food stamps.

#12 The number of Americans on food stamps has increased 74% since 2007.

#13 We are told that the economy is recovering, but the number of Americans on food stamps has grown by another 8 percent over the past year.

#14 Right now, one out of every four American children is on food stamps.

#15 It is being projected that approximately 50 percent of all U.S. children will be on food stamps at some point in their lives before they reach the age of 18.

#16 More than 50 million Americans are now on Medicaid.  Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.  Today, approximately one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid.

#17 One out of every six Americans is now enrolled in at least one government anti-poverty program.

#18 The number of Americans that are going to food pantries and soup kitchens has increased by 46% since 2006.

#19 It is estimated that up to half a million children may currently be homeless in the United States.

Ron Paul Against the Chickenhawks

 

Herman Cain: I Love Big Government

The welfare-warfare state is just aye okay to Fed shill Herman Cain, as long as the Reich-wing is in charge of it.

 

 

The Growth and Benefits of Libertarian Youth Activism

*This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

Last Saturday, I attended the 2011 Students for Liberty Northern California Regional Conference in Berkeley, California, which featured speakers, literature, brochures, and activism panels to help understand and spread libertarian ideas. Students for Liberty is a non-profit organization “whose mission is to provide a unified, student-driven forum of support for students and student organizations dedicated to liberty.”

The huge majority of the attendees were in college or in there mid-20s. Events like these demonstrate that the ideas of liberty are incredibly appealing to young people and that the growth of this student activism will greatly contribute to a future realignment in American politics.

Other than the incredible speeches, free literature, and lively camaraderie, what I took away from the conference was the effect that a strong and detailed presentation of complicated ideas had on the people in attendance. When I first became interested in libertarianism in high school, I often heard it called “Republican-lite” and “low-tax liberalism.” Since still only a small percentage of people call themselves libertarians, I wondered if libertarian scholars and advocates could increase these numbers by embracing a moderate alternative to conservatism and liberalism.

Judging from the event, as well as how libertarians like Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his “Campaign for Liberty” have affected public debate, I could not have been more wrong. I did not hear talk of cutting taxes; school vouchers; or cutting “waste, fraud, and abuse.” Instead, I witnessed lectures on natural law, revisionist history, and the intricacies of monetary policy. The conference represented the root of philosophical libertarianism, and the young crowd soaked it up like a sponge and wanted more.

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under" H.L. Mencken

For example, kicking off the conference at 10 a.m. was Professor David Friedman (son of Milton Friedman) on historic examples of stateless, private law, and how justice and disputes could and should be a function of the market. The Hoover Institution’s David Henderson offered a defense of a strict non-interventionist foreign policy and discussed many of the myths behind some of the most popular wars in American history. And closing off the event was author and activist Tom Palmer on the morality of capitalism, not the economic benefits, per se, but the ethical foundations behind liberty and the free economy.

There were no watered down messages, backwards hats, or appeals to our youthful emotions. We were immersed in intellectually challenging ideas, and the speakers were met with applause and engagement.

For too long, politicians have talked to the American people like they were children, feeding them a heavy dose of chants, slogans, and flattery with little substance. This is why I saw such positive reactions; young Americans are tired of being talked down to by politicians and respond to honest debate, challenge, and stimulating discussion. Even members of the Marxist Conference who were invited to sit in on Palmer’s closing speech occasionally nodded their chins.

Events like this are happening all across the country in universities where the youth are eager for something different to the status quo, and their bellies are lit when they hear about the philosophical roots of individual liberty.

Since these ideas bypass Left and Right, as they spread amongst colleges and universities, public debate will soon be framed more in nonpartisan ways. Instead of liberals and conservatives arguing over Lenin’s who-whom question, the spread of libertarianism will frame issues as individual liberty vs. government control and chip away at counterproductive horizontal quarrelling.

Thanks to groups like Students for Liberty, the future of public debate can only get more interesting and stimulating and will help spread freedom to more and more people.

Iran War Propaganda Debunked

It takes Scott Horton just over five minutes to debunk decades of chickenhawk neocon war propaganda.

 

How the Pentagon 'Honors Our Soldiers'

Via Antiwar.com:

Slain Troops Dumped in Landfill, Air Force Admits

One day after the Office of Special Counsel’s report on the “gross mismanagement” of human remains by the Dover Air Force Base mortuary, the Air Force, which heretofore insisted there was no evidence any rule had been broken, is suddenly coming out with all sorts of new information.

The verdict is even more grim than we thought. Lt. Gen. Darrell Jones, the deputy chief of personnel, confirmed that the Air Force had been cremating remains and dumping them in a nearby landfill. Lt. Gen. Jones insists its not that big of a deal though.

“That was the common practice at the time and since then our practices have improved,” Jones said, adding that they only did this in cases when bodies (or parts) were “unidentified” or when the families of the slain told the military to dispose of them.

The previous report confirmed that the Air Force had lost and mixed body parts sometimes, and that in one case they sawed off a slain Marine’s arm so he’d fit in the casket better. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta praised the Air Force for its “thoroughness” in the investigation.

Ron Paul Must Be the GOP Candidate

*This is part of a PolicyMic debate between Jeremy Los and I. I defend Ron Paul, Los defends Romney here.

With primary season only a few months away, the scattered Republican presidential field will likely soon be narrowed down. Although many candidates have gone up and down in the polls in the past few months, I predict that the race will come down to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Given the choice, conservatives have no choice but to support Paul over Romney.

As Brent Budowsky of The Hill argues, several candidates near the top will probably drop out early in 2012. Perry is fading, Cain is dealing with sexual harassment scandals, and Bachmann is mostly finished. Paul has a consistent and growing following that will likely continue to grow since many conservatives dislike many of Romney’s moderate and liberal positions. But even if Budowsky’s predictions are wrong, there are more substantive reasons why Paul’s popularity will continue rise.

Romney: plastic man and corporatist shill.

Out of the GOP field, Paul is the only candidate who differs himself significantly from the rest of the pack. His “Restore America Plan” aims to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget in the first year, abolish five federal agencies, and balance the budget in three years. The rest of the GOP candidates make very minor, if any, suggestions at trimming a government that borrows over 43% of every dollar it spends. He wants to liberate the economy by letting the American people, not politicians, spend their money. Paul’s message should gain more conservative support if they truly value the limited and constitutional government that their rhetoric suggests.

Paul also stands out on foreign policy, where he offers a rational small government alternative to the big government empire favored by both parties. When it comes to Iran, Paul wisely seeks friendship, trade, and an end to threats and sanctions. The other GOP candidates, however, offer a dangerously confrontational stance towards Iran and in foreign affairs in general. Romney’s foreign policy advisors look eerily similar to the Bush administration's foreign policy team. Cain, Perry, Huntsman, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Santorum all want war with Iran (see the hyperlink in each candidate's name for proof).

But according to a recent ABC News story, foreign policy experts agree with Paul on closing down bases in South Korea, Germany, and Japan; bringing our troops home; and having a non-interventionist foreign policy. Michael Scheaur, the former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, enthusiastically supports Paul’s foreign policy approach.

The flaws and similarities of the rest of the GOP field will eventually bring their candidacies down, and with notorious grassroots support, Paul is not going anywhere. This is why I believe that eventually the race will come down to Romney and Paul.

Romney may have the charm, the hair, and many large donors behind him, but his economic and foreign policies offer very little change from the interventionism of the Obama administration. Paul, on the other hand, wants to actually cut spending, lower taxes, and devolve and decentralize power. Conservatives really have very few reasons not to support him.