Ayn Rand Refuses a Sanction: Truth, Tolerance and the Level of Discourse

The manner in which discourse is conducted in the media and in public speeches and statements made by politicians today is beyond apalling. The insinuations, excuses, lack of respect for the listeners--or in the case of interviews--the person being interviewed, has become the norm rather than the exception, and is expected and even approved of by members of the media, the intellectuals, political hacks, politicians and even some members of the general public. I have discussed this before, even back to the beginning of this blog, and I have wondered about how we had come to this pass, and what values we have learned and taught that would have allowed such a deterioration of discourse, turning it into a kind of anti-discourse in which ideas are never exchanged.

Today, I as I was catching up on my blogging reading list, I came upon a post that featured a segment of Milton Friedman on Phil Donahue in 1979. I had forgotten what a sharp man he was, and how he used humor to his advantage. So I watched the whole show--which can be found in 5 segments starting here. From there I found the whole of a Phil Donahue show that featured Ayn Rand in the same year. Oddly, though I had seen the Milton Friedman episode when it was broadcast, I had missed the Ayn Rand episode of Donahue. My boyfriend at the time told me about it, knowing how much I admired her. I remembered what he said, and it pertains to my topic as well shall see.

Miss Rand had much to say in this interview, and as I watched, I was struck by two things. The first was how much time Phil Donahue spent actually listening to the answers to questions he posed, and how, in his discussion, he endeavored to be fair to the guest, even when it was clear that he disagreed with the ideas presented. This used to be the norm, and now I never experience it--not even with respect to some talk radio hosts that I believe have a point. The other was the very serious way Miss Rand listened to Donahue, often hearing and repeating verbatum his words in order to illustrate her own ideas as well as his. This was a hallmark of Miss Rand's interactions. She was serious about ideas, and would underscore a questioner's words in such a way that he--and everyone else listening--had to realize what he had actually said and what it meant. Often, she would look at the speaker with a shrug, a smile and an intense look that said that she had heard what the speaker was actually saying, but did the speaker hear it?

On this level alone, the episode was refreshing--a blast from a kinder, more focused past, but at the end of the third segment something occurred that got me thinking once again about the nature of discourse, and I got it, finally; the "it" being the value that has been lost in order to allow the ugly sniping that has replaced discourse in the present.

What happened is that a young woman got up to ask a question. But rather than simply ask a question, she added a preamble in which she said:

Questioner: Fifteen years ago I was impressed with your books and I sort of felt that your philosophy was proper. Today, however, I am more educated and I find that if a company . . ."
Rand: This is what I don't answer--
Donahue: Well, wait a minute, you haven't heard the question yet.
(Audience chatter, laughter)
Rand: She's already estimated her position, in my work, incidently displaying the quality of her brain. If today she says she is more educated--
Questioner (interrupting): No, no, no! I am more educated now than I was 15 years ago when I was in high school, before I went to college--
Rand (talking over Questioner): --then, uh, I'm not interested in your biography (unintelligible) wrong context.
Questioner (over Rand):--and read the newspapers.
Donahue: Let her make her point! Let her make her point!
(Audience murmers, talking).
Rand: (gestures and bows, gives floor to Questioner)
Questioner: It's very basic. When a company is allowed to do what it wants to do like ITT, you wind up with Nazi Germany and ITT doing whatever it well please, and any other company in the United States doing the same damn thing! Conglomerates are not monopolies--they can do whatever they want. ITT owns everything from baking companies to telephone companies to munition plants. I mean, I really think that's wrong! And I really think--
Donahue (getting between Rand and Questioner): Miss Rand thinks it's wrong, too. But she thinks it's not a government force that's going to correct the problem.
Questioner: I don't think government force is going to correct the problem either, but she's not--
Donahue: But she says that if we just back away and let the invisible hand to work, and let competition and free enterprise happen according to it's own inclinations--
Questioner: I understand that--
Donahue: We're not going to have abuse--and abuse and evil will fall of its own weight.
Questioner: I don't believe that.


The above can be seen here, starting at 9:53. Watch Rand's expressions and body language closely.



The encounter continues at the beginning of segment 4:

Questioner: I can't believe that because money is power--
(Audience applause, whistles, clapping)
Questioner: --the more power you have.
Donahue: Can we encourage you to make a contribution to this expression.
Rand: I will not answer anyone who is impolite. But, to show you --
(Audience expresses disapproval)
Donahue: She wasn't impolite--
Rand: I do not sanction impoliteness and I am not the victim of hippies. But--
Donahue: Hippies?
(Audience laughing, talking).
Rand:--that's where it started. That the--in the dropping of politeness and the manners.
Donahue: You're equating someone who disagrees with you with impoliteness. That's not fair.
Rand: No, no. If you didn't--
(Audience laughter, calls and applause)
Rand: If you didn't interrupt me, I would have demonstrated what I mean. I will assure you that I am not evading the question. If anyone else wants to ask the same question politely, I'll be delighted to answer.
Donahue: There was nothing impolite! . . . This is the kind of woman we are trying to attract to our television audience.
Rand: Fine. Teach her some manners--I--
Donahue: But Miss Rand--
Rand: I will now repeat what she said: "I used to agree with you, but now that I'm more educated. . ." What does that mean.
Donahue: Well that means that she now has a different view. There's nothing personal about that observation. Don't be so sensitive!"
Rand: I am going to be. I intend to be!
{BREAK}
Rand (after answering another question): --But I want to answer the preceding question. Doesn't anybody want to ask it politely?
Donahue: Uh, well yes.. Ah, sure... ah--your question. . . your question wants this audience to agree with your assessment of the questioner, and I don't think they will. That's the problem.
(Audience applause)
Rand: All of them? Uh--then why do they want to listen to me at all?
Donahue: Alright, does anybody want to. . .? Alright . . . over here. Could you please stand?
Commentor: I' suprised that somebody with the intelligence of Miss Rand could so emotional in her approach.
(Audience applause).
Rand (pointing): I can answer you. I didn't come here to be judged. I came here to answer questions. A question asked in the following form: "I used to agree with you but now that I'm more educated, I don't." It is an insult--
Donahue: All right--
Rand:--which I cannot sanction.
Donahue: All right.
Rand: I am not interested in the woman's history. She didn't have to begin it that way--
Donahue: All right.
Rand:--and that's what I want to register my protest--
Donahue: How do we keep ITT from developing too much . . .
(Here Donahue goes on to ask, and Rand answers the question)


Here is the next half, on segment four--from the beginning to about 4:05.


Here is Ayn Rand's point: that the woman was impolite and that she (Rand) would not therefore sanction the question. That is, Rand refused to ignore the context in which the question was asked, and the assumption that the woman was making, in order to ask the question.

Donahue here misunderstands Rand's intent, and interprets it to mean that Rand will not answer because she disagrees with the Questioner.

What I noticed is that, despite what has been said about Rand by those who hate her, she is completely genuine in her verbal and facial expressions. She lets anyone watching know that she is being direct, but that she is not angry. She is refusing to answer this woman on principle. Twice, this woman begins her statements by talking down to Rand, a context that Rand then refuses to ignore. The first time the woman speaks, she implies that uneducated, naive people are the only ones who would consider Rand's ideas proper. The second time, she says: "It's very basic . . ." Both of these statements essentially talk down to Rand and her ideas. Despite what Donahue says, they are personal, and change the tone of the conversation. If Rand had ignored the insult and answered the question, she would have given her sanction to the lack of good manners--and good rhetorical skills--of her questioner. Rand would not do that. Had she had the desire, Rand would have made an excellent teacher for young people. She would not have let them get away with such attempts at one-upmanship, however unconscious or subtle, and the kids would have respected her for it.

To understand what Rand was doing in the above interview, I believe that one must understand that Ayn Rand was far more concerned with truth than she was with tolerance. That she was not prepared to allow a lie or an evasion (and this was more likely the latter on the part of the Questioner) for the sake of being nice, or appearing to turn the other cheek. Ayn Rand believed that sacrifice--the act of ignoring or destroying something or someone of greater value to oneself for the sake of a lesser value--is evil. She was a very consistent practitioner of justice, which is the opposite of such sacrifice. Ayn Rand was also consistent in that she would not suffer fools gladly. She understood that tolerance of the bad is destruction of the good; that tolerance of foolishness means ignorance of wisdom; that tolerance of evasion is the destruction of truth. It was her contention that sanctioning a non-value drives out value, and that this is what is evil about such tolerance. Ayn Rand was definitely not PC.

And this brings me to the issue of how reasonable discourse has been driven out in favor of empty rhetoric, lies and insults. As I watched these YouTube segments, I saw that the value that underlies political correctness is unlimited tolerance. People have many rationales for tolerating being lied to and being continuously insulted by those who wish to replace argument with empty words. One that the collectivists have much exploited, is the desire people have to appear to be tolerant. The leftists use this through continual accusations of racism and other calumny applied to anyone who is not tolerant of the course state of discourse today. And the reluctance people have to being labeled as intolerant--whether it is true or not--makes such labeling an easy way to control people who desire the good opinion of others, no matter who they are and what they believe. You may have noticed that Rand does not care about the good opinion of others unless she respects them.

Tolerance has been treated as a primary virtue: that is a virtue that must be practiced without limits. And among people of good will, a certain amount of tolerance for differences in beliefs and practices is necessary, as well as is tolerance for differences in taste and preferences. It is also important to have some tolerance for the errors of knowlege that people of good will can make, so that we can get along with one another. But tolerance cannot be a primary virtue.

In engineering, tolerance is defined as: "the leeway for deviation from a standard"; and more precisely as "the permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension." These definitions imply that there are limits to tolerance, and indeed an engineer is very careful to calculate the limits to a deviation, because beyond those limits a structure could not stand.

And so it is within the values that we place on behavior and interactions among human beings. To tolerate benign errors of knowlege, differences in beliefs and practices that do not affect the rights of another is within the limits. But should we tolerate destruction of property? The enslavement of women? Murder? Genocide? Is it virtuous to tolerate the culture and beliefs of those who wish to destroy our life, liberty and property? Many of us would respond viscerally with a resounding "NO!"

And yet, what is it we do when we believe that it is proper to treat with murderers and psychopathic and genocidal leaders such as the president of Iran? When we allow such a man to speak to our Congress and to students in our unversities? When we applaud him because it is "nice" to do so? It is wrong to do so because tolerance of evil does mean the destruction of the good. We cannot have it both ways. By tolerating evil, we destroy the good. This is the opposite of justice, no matter how often the leftists speak of justice in social terms.

So it is with the issue of discourse. By giving our sanction to liars, tyrants and murderers, we participate in the decline of polite and reasoned discourse and the discussion of ideas over personalities. This may not seem like a huge concession when compared to murder and genocide. But discourse strikes at the heart of all political interactions, and by driving out truth and justice tbrough tolerance of lies and deceit, we are helping to build the on-ramp to the destruction of our Constitution and our liberty.

Many of us, present company included, have often given our sanction to to the undeserving because we wanted to appear to be tolerant, to be considered "nice". And we have to stop it right now. Being nice is not the equivalent of being good. Tolerance is not a primary virtue, and it is meaningless without limits. What should our children say to us if we allow their freedom and liberty to be destroyed because we wished to appear to be tolerant and nice?

G-d forbid that I should ever need to have that conversation with my kids.

Ayn Rand understood this, and that is why she refused to sanction the woman's question. For the late '60's and '70's saw the resurgence of the loss of justice, the loss of truth in argument, and the beginning of unlimited tolerance practiced out of fear of the bad opinions of others and a desire to appear "nice."

Ayn Rand understood what was happening--did you catch her comment about hippies?--and that is why she stood her ground, firmly. By refusing to tolerate the young woman's question, and persistently pursuing the issue, she taught that audience--and all of us--that tolerance is no substitute for truth and justice.

Justice cannot survive when we bow down to unlimited tolerance.

Watching this episode has brought me an understanding of how we have come to a place where we are afraid to assert the goodness of our values, and why we tolerate behavior that seeks to destroy them. It has made me reflect on my premises and reject those that have brought me to self-censorship for the sake of not offending the indefensible. I have learned something about what to listen for, and how to respond. Certainly, I am not Ayn Rand. My expression of the same ideas will be different, but the goal will be the same: To practice the refusal to sanction an unreasonable assertion by providing a reasonable response and to call attention to the context of such a substitute for discourse, and to the purpose behind the speaker's strategy, which is usually to shift the ground of the conversation away from reason. (In the case of the Questioner above, I believe it was unconscious. Rand reminds me of some of the older European Jewish women I know, who practice both the straighforwardness and manners of a different time). This will require a more conscious attention to not only what is being said, but to the context in which it is presented.

Thank you, Ayn Rand.

Nobody's Right If Everybody's Wrong

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

--Buffalo Springfield, For What It's Worth

When I was 10 years old there were battle lines being drawn. We had a politicians war, unrest in the streets, the sexual revolution--I'm glad I was too young to be in the front lines for that one--and students shot down on campus at Kent State. And sometimes when battle lines are being drawn, when sides are chosen up, and when "paranoia strikes deep" it is easy to forget the principles for which we stand because we tend to be "sayin' Hurray for our side."

It happened then.

And now, 40 years later, it's happening again. Intensity is growing, anger is deepening, and we know that choosing a side is not voluntary. If we don't choose, the line will cross us. And in this kind of climate, it is very easy to forget the principles for which we stand in order to keep saying "Hurray for our side."

A small incident in Albuquerque last week illustrates very well that "nobody's right when everybody's wrong." And how those conditions can create a climate where the temptation is to not think, but to "ditto-head" all the way to the end of the Republic.

This morning I received one of those "I won't back down" e-mails. The message was that something happened here last week, and if I wasn't angry about it, why I didn't belong on the mailer's mailing list. But as I read the story and watched the video it became apparent that this was not exactly a case of cop bashing in innocent protestors. But neither was it a case of innocent cop being harrassed by Weathermen Underground wanna be's. Although I think the protestors were more in the wrong, the cop was not exactly a model of mature rectitude and professionalism.

But I am getting ahead of myself. Judge for yourself.

What Happened:

There was a heavy metal concert, Rob Zombies, at the new Hard Rock Cafe Albuquerque, which is not in Albuquerque at all; it is at the Casino on the Isleta Pueblo. Apparently, some Christians disapprove greatly of metal, or maybe of any rock music, because a small group of them appeared with signs and an attitude and stood a few yards away from the concert goers who were standing in line waiting to be admitted. The Christians, not content to carry signs that told the crowd they were going to hell, were also telling the people in the crowd that they were going to hell. Loudly. And did I say with attitude? The crowd was getting angry and shouting a few choice words back at the Christians. Enter a young deputy sheriff, J. Goff. He told the Christians that this was private property and that they would have to leave. The Christians began to argue with him, claiming a non-existent right to free speech and presence on private property. The deputy persisted. The Christians continued to both incite the concert-going crowd and argued with the deputy. With attitude. The concert goers began to look as if they were getting ready to throw things at the Christians. The deputy told them once again it was private property and that they had to leave "right now" or they'd be arrested. As the Christians finally began to leave, video-taping all the way, they also began to tell Deputy Goff that he need to repent or go to hell. Goff--apparently channeling attitude from the Christians--began to mock them saying that he was an unbeliever and that there is no god. He also incited the concert crowd further, asking them if they wanted the Christians to leave or stay.

There was Attitude. There was Unprofessional Behavior. Christians were violating private property rights. A deputy was acting like a snotty teen-ager.

Nobody was right. Everybody was hot.

You can read the story here. (The local paper didn't cover it, though there was a discussion on one of the local afternoon drive talk-shows). There is a You-Tube video associated with the story and that can also be found here. The video was taken by the Christians and in this case, sadly, shows the depths of their ignorance of individual rights. And even more sadly shows the shallowness of the deputy's understanding of his job.

But given the powder keg our nation is sitting on now, we have to keep our heads, and our principles. This is not a free-state vs. police state issue. This is an issue of private property rights and the initiation of force against concert goers by inconsiderate Christians. And I believe that in the present incendiary climate, we cannot get hot under the collar, we cannot be spoiling for a fight while ignoring our principles.

So when the guy who e-mailed me and a dozen or so others, saying:

"There's so going to be a fight" and " if this doesn't make you really, really mad then let me know so I can remove you from my address book",

I sat down and wrote a letter back to the whole list.

Because I refuse to be required to agree with the emotion of the day, and allow it to cloud reasoned defense of principle. Because we can't afford to start a fight over anything less than bedrock principles. And even then, we cannot afford to throw the first punch.

Here is what I wrote:

Given what was said in the WND article--and shown in the video--both the deputy and the protestors were in the wrong. The protestors do not have a constitutional right to trespass on private property for any purpose, but must have the permission of the property owners in order to protest. Clearly they did not, as they had not purchased tickets, and the law was called in to enforce the property rights of the property owners. Being Christian does not excuse one from the responsibility to respect the right to life, liberty and property of others.

However, the deputy needed to handle the situation in a professional manner, and his personal beliefs should have had nothing to do with the situation at all. It really should not have mattered why the protestors were violating the private property rights of the Hard Rock Cafe, only that they were.

It is clear from the beginning of the video that the protestors did not respect the private property of the Hard Rock Cafe, and they had not purchased the right to be on that property in the form of a ticket. Such a purchase is a contract, which requires the ticket-holder to follow the policies of the business that owns the property. The protestors were not only violating property rights; they were also inciting the crowd attending the concert, and the concert goers were responding, and the situation was escalating. In such situations, one particularly nasty gesture or statement could begin a riot. Crowds are not rational. The protestors were not only endangering the concert goers, they were endangering themselves. In such situations, a peace officer has the obligation to get the offenders--in this case the protestors--off the property as quickly as possible. When the protestors heard that they were invading the private property of another, they had the obligation to obey the peace officer or face arrest.

However, by injecting his personal beliefs into the situation, this deputy needlessly increased the tension and insulted all citizens (those who were present and those who were not) who pay his salary. Those citizens have a right to complain about the situation. At the same time, the citizens can request a particular disciplinary action, but they cannot demand it. Peace Officers, like any other laborer, sell their time to the employer--in this case, Bernalillo County--via contract. That contract will generally refer to departmental policies for discipline. The department and Bernalillo County are therefore obligated by contract to follow those policies, which may or may not allow for the deputy to be fired. Those conditions may (and probably do) have contingencies for the type of offense, as well as the record of the officer. The officer also most likely has the right to a disciplinary hearing, and legal representation, as well as arbitration, should he believe that the discipline received is not according to contract.

Overall, this situation was very different from the situation in Michigan in which Christian protestors were handing out copies of a bible to Muslims on a public street. There, the Christians were on public property, and they were not initiating force against anyone; the crowds there were able to refuse the interaction, which is their right.

As Patriots who respect the Constitution, it is incumbent upon all of us to respect the rights of others, to behave in a civil manner and to respect the law that protects our rights. As human beings, it is incumbent upon us to treat other individuals with good will, and to abjure the initiation of force against them and to respect their liberty to disagree with us. Being a Christian does not entitle anyone to violate property rights and incite a crowd. To say otherwise is to sanction mob rule, which is the opposite of the Republic based upon individual rights and the Rule of Law that has been bequeathed to us. All of us must respect the rights of others, including their right to disagree with us peacefully. We must be very careful to exemplify in every way the values that we claim to represent.

Since I am not a Christian, I cannot say what Christian ethics would require in this situation. But I can say that Christians do the Patriot movement no favors if they refuse to respect the rights of individuals who do not subscribe to their sect's particular beliefs. It is clear from the World Net Daily story that some Christians believe that Heavy Metal music is sinful, and others don't.

As a mother, though, I would say that good manners and polite discussion and persuasive arguments are more likely to get the attention of those one disagrees with than rudeness and force. Or as my first-grade teacher used to say, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." We all get passionate from time to time, but that does not mean it is the best method of persuasion in every time and place.


So many people claim that they stand for liberty, for individual rights, and for the American values. But so many of them appear to have no idea what liberty is, or what individual rights mean. They believe that it is permissible to violate the rights of others because they have "the truth" and therefore can force it upon everyone else. They believe that their rights supercede the rights of others--that rights do not belong equally to all individuals.

These Christian kids were not only initiating force against the property owner, they also videotaped their lack of respect for the rights of the concert goers, their lack of good manners, and they also revealed their embarrassing lack of fundamental knowlege about freedom and liberty. They have the right to free speech--absolutely. But the property owners are not slaves. They are not required to provide protesters with a platform to make that speech.

The concert goers have a right to choose their activity and engage in it without being verbally assaulted without recourse. They paid for the privilege of enjoying that right on the private property of the Hard Rock Cafe. And because of that payment, the Hard Rock Cafe was obligated to remove protestors.

"Paranoia strikes deep,

And into your life it will creep.

It begins when you're always afraid . . ."

If we are to restore the Republic, we must be zealous defenders of liberty. We cannot create paranoia within ourselves by convincing ourselves that peace officers are against us, without considering the parameters of the law. We must stand on the principle that every individual enjoys that same liberty that we expect, even if we do not like him or agree with his activities and choices. We have no right to initiate force against him. And we must know and practice the core principles that created our liberty.

Liberty Song Saturday: America--The Song

There are these Saturdays that never wake up . . . yesterday, it was a monsoon Saturday--hard rain, fog and then drizzle gently falling. And I took a full Shabbat. So, maybe I should change my theme to Liberty Song on a Sundae this week . . . (Geek Alert: You have to have read Lucifer's Hammer to get that one!).

This week, no parody but a real, honest to goodness country song. I was born in northern Illinois, but grew up south. I can speak Chicago--though that's getting harder all the time!--but I can also speak Harrisburg, and Cairo and Kentucky. The soft, drawn out vowels that are not quite southern. I can speak country, because I grew up in McLean County Illinois, surrounded by Mennonite farmers, German and Irish railroaders, and Jewish merchants; Americans all.

This song was inspired by Ellis Island. And sometimes, I swear I forget the trouble they went through, not so long ago, so I could be born on these shores and have the liberty to make the stand I am making. Although I doubt they understood the philosophy of natural rights, or knew the words of the Declaration, they understood that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness would be theirs if they left everything they knew, to take that dreadful trip in steerage across the Atlantic:

". . . but the weariness and worry must have faded from their eyes,
to behold that lady arising in the sky,
Oh, can't you hear them cry:

America, I hear you calling me,
Sweet land of Liberty,
I'm on my way!
America, beckoning with open arms,
I long to feel the warmth of Freedom's flame!
G-d had given hope a name,
America!"

This week--America: The Song by Dustin James




Dustin says:
"This song has no political agenda. It does not scold the way we are or lament the way we were. It is a simple tribute to a remarkable country by one deeply grateful citizen. . . "

I hope those ones who came before me, they who took a risk so that I could have freedom, will be proud of what we do to claim the liberty they risked everything to obtain.

Independence Day 2010: Defiance, Not Obedience!

DONT TREAD ON ME!
That was the motto of the American Revolution.
The rattlesnake represents an animal that will warn a person with the rattle. It will not strike without warning, but if you tread on it, it will STRIKE.

DONT TREAD ON ME!
Is the warning that Americans are now giving, as they go to Tea Parties to protest the abrogation of their liberty through the collectivist agenda of the pols of both parties, the administration and the courts. We will exercise our RIGHTS.

DONT TREAD ON ME!
Is why Cloward and Piven will not work upon Americans.
We will not acquiesce to the imposition of tyranny. We will defy it!
And a new generation is being taught to defy attempts upon their liberty . . .

Ayn Rand wrote:

"A dictatorship cannot take hold in America today. This country, as yet, cannot be ruled—but it can explode. It can blow up into the helpless rage and blind violence of a civil war. It cannot be cowed into submission, passivity, malevolence, resignation. It cannot be “pushed around.” Defiance, not obedience, is the American’s answer to overbearing authority. The nation that ran an underground railroad to help human beings escape from slavery, or began drinking on principle in the face of Prohibition, will not say “Yes, sir,” to the enforcers of ration coupons and cereal prices. Not yet."
From: “Don’t Let It Go,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 213

To which, for the sake of our children, we reply: NOT EVER!

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!

Celebrate the 234th Anniversary of American Independence:

Go Forth and Exercise Your Rights!

Liberty Song Saturday: Every Generation Needs a Revolution . . .

It is a treat to have a brand new song for Liberty Song Saturday, Independence Day Edition.
This is Rise Up! By Jeremy Hoop, and it is featured in the Tea Party Movie.

Despite the overblown fear--what else can you call it?--of the MSM, the Tea Party Movement has been the peaceful rising of the ordinary Americans, those who know that as one sign so aptly puts it: Your Socialist Ends Affect MY Means!
The Tea Parties represent the beginning of the II American Revolution--a Revolution like the first, one that began in the hearts and minds of the people. In Rise Up! Hoop sings:

"Ride with me from Boston to Phili to LA
With reason come marching
With knowledge come drumming
Let everyone hear you
Each soul that is near you
The British are coming! the British are coming!"

How different that is from the Mao-loving, car-burning leftists protesting at the G-20.

Enjoy! And Happy Independence Day! Go to your local Tea Party. Be part of the Jeffersonian Revolution. As Jefferson said (at various times):

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance?"
" Every generation needs a revolution. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion."
--Thomas Jefferson





Happy Independence Day! And in the spirit of our Founders:
Go Forth and Pursue Happiness!

The Meaning of Memorial Day: Reply to a Friend

"In recent decades especially, the connection between American military intervention

and American freedom has become ever more tenuous.

Meanwhile, competence has proved notably hard to come by."

--Andrew J. Bacevich, "Memorial Day for a father whose son was killed

in Iraq", Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2010

Minuteman Memorial, The Green at Lexington, MA

Yesterday, a friend from Continental Congress 2009, who is also a combat veteran, wrote a heartfelt statement questioning the purpose of the deployment of American troops in the undeclared wars the United States has fought in his lifetime, including the war in which he served. He stated that he did not want to participate in Memorial Day activities that would perpetuate the lie that in these wars, our troops are fighting for freedom or dying for our country or our interests. Although his words were published on a private network, they echo what Andrew J. Bacevich, historian, grieving father, and author of the soon-to-be released Washington Rules: America's Path to Endless War, published today in the Los Angeles Times.

These reflections, public and private, have opened up for me the question that I believe many of us in the R3volution struggle with this Memorial Day: How do we honor the loss of our countrymen while at the same time recognizing that the character of America's wars has changed from that of fighting for liberty to that of advancing the interests of a few oligarchs with transnational ambitions?

Certainly the men whose names are written in stone on the Lexington Minuteman Memorial, who died rather than allow themselves to be disarmed, were fighting for their liberty and that of their families and posterity. And just as certainly, we cannot say the same about the loss of the precious lives of those who have been ordered to Somolia, Afganistan and Iraq.

And yet, this year as tyranny unfolds around the world, and the imperial ambitions of our politicians has become evident in a series of disasterous legislation passed, I do not have the stomach to ignore this question further, and distract myself by observing Memorial Day as "a celebration of the beginning of summer", thereby putting the reality of its origin and the dilemma of its current status down the memory hole. I thank my friend, whose identity will remain between us, for pushing me to face the question above squarely and to begin to wrestle with the meaning of Memorial Day in our times.

Here is what I wrote in response to my friend and fellow delegate, edited to suit this post. This is not the end to my questioning, but only the beginning of it:

Dear F.:

In a conversation with a Gold Star Mother from my hometown, I was recently reminded that Memorial Day is specifically to honor the fallen, and Veterans Day is to honor those who served and lived. Maybe, being from the rural Midwest I am too fussy about these things, but I like to keep them separated in my own mind.

As a youngster growing up in rural Illinois, Memorial Day was not a day only for picnics and cook-outs, and it was not a day to celebrate the beginning of summer. Instead, my grandparents still called it Decoration Day, and schoolchildren dressed in their school clothes (remember those?), would be taken to the cemetery, or to the war memoral in the town square, to decorate them with flags and flowers in memory of those who paid the ultimate price so that we might live free, become educated and make something of ourselves.

But my education did not prepare me to answer the following: What do you say to a mother or a wife or a child who has lost a child or a husband or a father in wars to which they never should have been sent? This is difficult, and I believe that most Americans do not know and so avoid the situation that would make us uncomfortable.. And so Memorial Day has become something other than honoring our war dead. All of them.

F., we are going to take your suggestion--no TV today. And we had already decided not to have a cookout. That can wait until the Glorious 4th! Today we will have a quiet day with the family, and think about those who died for freedom, and those who died in unconstitutional wars, and remember that each life was precious, and each one ended too soon. Some lost to the evil outside who threatened our liberty, and some to the evil within who shed and blood and treasure for their own wicked ends. In this way, I believe all of our soldiers died as a reminder, at least, that liberty must be defended, whether from within or without.

We have decided to stop today, even from preparations for the crisis that is coming, in order to remember the multitude of lives lost in all of America's wars, the good, the bad, and indifferent. We appreciate your service as well, then and now, and will set aside time to honor it specially on Veteran's day, though we strive to remember it every day.

And we appreciate your service to us today as well, the one you did us with your post about your own questions regarding your service in an undeclared war.
Thank you.

Accusations of Sedition

Lately, we have heard cries of "sedition" from supporters of the Obama administration, and from supposedly objective news reporters, who are showing their partisan colors with every word that comes out of their mouths. These accusations are heaped upon the heads of those who dare to criticize the current occupants of the executive branch, or who characterize their actions as dictatorial or imcompetent. It seems that the supporters of the Obama administration are floating the idea of sedition as a trial balloon for the possible instatement of some new version of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Unlike President Bush, who's support of the Patriot Act shows his contempt for rights but who nevertheless responded to protestors by saying "It's their right", the Obama adminstration has made no effort to correct the zeal of his supporters for tyranny.

Few of those who throw this word around so lightly understand the principles upon which our government is founded, and therefore are ignorant (at best) of the reason why throwing this accusation around is met by contempt from those who are so accused. Earlier today, I responded to the report of such an accusation on a message board I visit infrequently. There, the moderator reported that he was being accused of sedition by the Daily Kos because he had referred to Obama as "Der Fuhrer". And yet only a Fuhrer, that is a tyrant, would supress the free speech of free people via accusations of "sedition."

Here is my comment:

The concept of "sedition" does not properly belong to the legal tradition of a free society. To see why, consider the definition of sedition from Dictionary.com:

1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state.

In a free society, any authority the state has comes from sovereign individuals. The state is not sovereign; it is the individual that is sovereign. And sovereign individuals do not owe allegiance to any state, or to any executive or representative thereof. We owe our honor and loyalty to the Constitution that protects our rights. Our rights do not come from the state, and they cannot be taken away from us by the state. Nor can we voluntarily surrender them. That is what unaLIENable means.

Further, according to the Constitution, the government receives any power it has as a matter of duty and privilege; the government has no rights. Rather, "We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union . . ." have from our status as sovereigns, granted the federal government a limited set of duties and privileges for the purpose of protecting our rights. Since liberty is one of those rights, we are at complete liberty to say anything we want about the government that We the People have created, and that extends to the liberty to criticize and lampoon the president and his appointees. By standing for election, the president has put himself if the public eye and must expect to be roundly criticized at his every move by citizens jealous of their right to free speech. If he can't stand the heat, he should get the hell out of the kitchen, as Harry Truman used to say.

This is why the American people objected so strenuously to John Adam's errant signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, and why one of this cabinet secretaries stated that he could walk from New York to the Canadian border by the light of his own buring effigies. This is why Woodrow Wilson is considered a tyrant who greviously exceeded his duty and violated the rights of those who voiced their disagreement with the US entry into WWI, when he ordered the Sedition and Espionage Act. And this is why the Patriot Act of 2001 is unconstitutional.

Sedition cannot rightly be a crime in a free society in which each individual is sovereign whose rights are protected by a Constitution such as ours.
If Chairman Obama really wishes to rule as the thin-skinned king he seems to identify himself as, he should go to a country that defines its people as subjects, and conduct his coup d'etat there. He will get no sympathy from the proudly free and sovereign people of the United States.

In this blog, as well in other places, I have dared criticize Obama's policies, and I have used words applied to him and his minions that emphasize how tyrannous and dangerous I believe those policies to be. To paraphrase the immortal words of Patrick Henry to the Virginia House of Burgesses in response to the Stamp Act, I now say:

"If this be sedition, make the most of it."

Directive 10-289: Obama Becomes Wesley Mouch

In Atlas Shrugged, the novel by Ayn Rand, the government passed Directive 10-289. It was a directive to make everything fair and equal, and was sold to the public as a remedy for the economic mess that the country had gotten itself into via government interference with business and redistribution of wealth. The New Intellectual Blog provides the full text of the fictional executive order here.

Directive 10-289 can be summarized as a series of regulations that attempt to freeze the economy in place, and to end the "creative destruction" that occurs in capitalism as innovation sustains long-term economic growth while at the same time destroying the economic stability of established companies and their employees that have been operating in the existing business environment. Among the eight points that make up Directive 10-289 are those that freeze individuals at their jobs, freeze prices and wages, nationalize patents and other intellectual property, and require that production and consumption rates continue at present levels. The natural consequences of Directive 10-289 drive the plot of the second half of the novel, as the economy of the United States is destroyed, the infrastructure of business and commerce collapse, and the nation falls into ruin due to the loss of innovation and commerce, manufacturing and the normal economic transactions that make life in a modern society possible.

Although no adminstration in the United States has ever attempted all of the mandates in the fictional Directive 10-289, many of the individual points have been tried at various times since the beginning of the progressive era. Readers familiar with the precepts of the New Deal, or of the attempted economic fixes of the Nixon era will recognize some of them. In general the United States federal government has not tried to freeze consumption and production to mandated rates; rather it tries to nudge producers and consumers into acceptable (to the government) levels of production and spending through the use of subsidies, tax breaks and other such inducements.

In the past year however,
Chairman President Obama has in effect created Directive 10-289 through the passage of a number of laws that put the apparatus in place for the federal government to control a major portion of the US economy. The Stimulus Bill and the Healthcare Act have already been shoved down our throats, and now with the Financial Reform Bill, the government stands poised to control 60% of the United States economy, and monitor not only the health and financial records of the entire populace, but also to monitor credit card transactions and spending habits as well.

That this adminstration intends to dictate to citizens how much money they will be allowed to make, what kind of health insurance they will be forced to buy and what healthcare they may have access to, what financial products they may buy and sell, and what property they may own is now obvious. To flagrantly violate our liberty and property rights through such legislation marks this admininstration's intent to enslave the American people to the service of a fascist socialist new world order that is now clearly out in the open.

In Atlas Shrugged, the men who plan the enslavement of the American people claim to do so out of concern for the "common good." They say things like:

"We must not let vulgar difficulties obstruct our feeling that it's a noble plan motivated soley by the public welfare.

"They fail to recognize that production is not a private choice, but a public duty. They have no right to fail . . . they've got to go on producing. It's a social imperative."

"What we've got to think of is jobs. More jobs for more people."

So they lie--some even to themselves--about the true motive for enslaving the people. But some of them know that in reality the issue is not the so-called "common good", it's not the public welfare, the social imperative or even jobs. It's about power. And that power is gained by criminalizing any action that a person would naturally take in the pursuit of his own self-interest.

"We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men.The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

It's the same with the Obama adminstration's collection of laws that add up in practice to Directive 10-289. There's a reason each bill is so long and so convoluted. It is not because any of the publically proclaimed objectives of them need that many pages. Rather, it is in order to slip into the bills the structure that will make ordinary life as free human beings impossible to most citizens; it is to create slaves.

Just remember this as Obama halts one third of US oil production after doing nothing for five weeks, and ignoring the emergency plans for just such an accident as happened in the Gulf. Remember this as he goes on vacation this weekend without answering Bobby Jindal's request for permits to save his own state's coastline. Clearly, his actions are not about saving seagulls and fisheries from oil pollution.

Remember this as he moves to control 60% of our economy, and brings down the economy because of the loss of of fisheries, and the rising price of oil. A member of this adminstration has been recorded as saying that they need the price of oil in the US to equal that of Europe. Remember this when the price of food goes up because oil is the major energy source for its production and distribution across the country.

It's about power. It's about shoving irrational legislation down the throats of the American people in order to put in place an economic-political system that has failed miserably everywhere it has been tried.

Obama has become Wesley Mouch.

Introducing Liberty Song Saturday . . .

Somewhere there's a picture of one of my ancestors in some little town in Poland or Lithuania carrying the black flag of anarchy while singing the Anti-Fascist March.

The word Anarchy means "no ruler" and the idea that my anarchist ancestor espoused was that each person is sovereign over his own life.

Anarchy does not mean "no law", although those who fight for their individual rights are often accused of lawlessness when they oppose oppressive governments.

Anarchy does not mean "no morality." A thoughtful anarchist understands that the nature that endows a human being with individual rights requires the most rigorous of morality--not one of tradition or convenience--but an objective requirement that the individual rights of all must be respected, and that all morality springs from that.


Many anarchists believe in a kind of stateless communism in which all property is held in common.

Other anarchists are radical libertarians who dream of a "libertopia" that is stateless capitalism, in which each person possesses complete sovereignty over herself and her property.

Today's liberty song is called Justice Day and the lyrics are by Claire Wolfe of Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership. These lyrics have an anarchist bent, promoting the idea that when the lawmakers become lawless (rule of men rather than laws), then the outlaw becomes the champion of justice.

"When the criminals, criminals make all the laws,
then anyone breaking them fight just cause . . ."

The song begins with the immortal image from 1984: "You're the boot stomping on the human face--forever - -"

More anarchist imagery is heard with phrases like: " . . .Then out of the darkness the rebels arise, on that day, on that day the outlaw will rise . . ."




Even the person who posted this to YouTube thought it was "leftist", but JPFO is libertarian--and the most radical libertarians are anarchists in the spirit of Lysander Spooner. However, there are those libertarians who think of anarchy as an ideal to be dreamed, but as a matter of policy support minarchy--the concept of a state with very little power--and follow the spirit of the American Founders.

I am a libertarian who has dreamed the anarchist dream, but I also realize that restoring the Constitution, which provides us with a very limited government, is work enough for one lifetime.

Lieberman's Citizenship Bill: An Attack on American Justice

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty

to purchase a little Temporary Safety,

Deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

--Ben Franklin, 1759


Jumping on bandwagons in response to events rather than dealing with issues according to principle is the MO of a venal politician. We have many venal politicians in Washington and in our State Houses. The Progressive Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., has recently indicated how little he cares for the basic principles of American Justice in his proposed bill that would allow the federal government to strip a person of his US Citizenship without a trial and conviction, simply because the government believes that he has "ties" to a terrorist organization. Here is Lieberman, breaking his Oath of Office by proposing a clearly unconstitutional bill:






This bill is one those act now, think later political moves that come in response to an incident--in this case, the failed car-bomb attack in Times Square last weekend. Since the accused car-bomber, Faisel Shahzad, is a naturalized American citizen, he has certain rights that are protected by the US Constitution. When he was arrested, he was given his Miranda Warning, which is familar to every avid watcher of TV cop shows from Dragnet to CSI. The Miranda Warning is a statement from the arresting officer(s) to the detainee, that explicates his due process rights during police investigation and interrogation. We've all heard it:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"

When Shahzad was arrested a firestorm of controversy erupted over the fact that the Miranda Warning was read to him. And so Lieberman, supported by the Scott Brown of Massachusetts proposed that any US citizen who has been accused of "having ties" to a terrorist organization, should be stripped of his citizenship immediately--presumably so that the United States can interrogate him without telling him his rights.

This is wrong on principle, and pernicious as well, and since non-citizens also have certain due process rights in US Courts, it's useless as well.

On principle, the problem is that the United States Constitution guarantees that the rights of any person cannot be removed from him by the United States without due process of law:

"No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. . ." (Amendment V)

Note that it says "no person"--it applies to all human beings, not only to American citizens. However, in the Lieberman Bill, a citizen on the mere suspicion of undefined "connections" to terrorist organizations could be deprived of his citizenship and the rights and privileges thereof, without being even suspected of a crime, let alone actually tried and convicted for one. This is an outrageous violation of the liberty (at least) of American citizens. The due process rights in the Bill of Rights includes the right to presentment or indictment by a grand jury for capital and infamous crimes, the right to be free from double-jeopardy, the right to a speedy trial decided by a jury of one's peers, the right to be informed of the charges to be tried, the right to the assistance of counsel, and the right to be confronted by the accusers and witnesses. The Lieberman bill would make a person guilty by mere association, and strip him of his rights on suspicion of such, rendering punishment before he is tried and convicted.

I suppose this is the logical result of the years of trial by media which has culminated in the popular sentiment that a person who is forced to do the "perp walk" before TV cameras is guilty unless he proves himself innocent. And maybe not even then.

This proposed bill is pernicious because it gives the government unprecedented power to violate the rights of any person that it chooses not to like. How hard would it be to fabricate "ties" to some group or organization that the government decides is terrorist? Gentle Reader, if you think this is far-fetched consider the MIAC Fusion Center Report that placed ties with Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party, the use of the Gadsen Flag, and discussion of the US Constitution on par with domestic terrorism. Talking Idiots Heads on MSNBC have all but accused Talk Radio personalities such as Glenn Beck of commiting sedition ( something that should NEVER be a crime in a free country--but that's another blog).

This bill goes far beyond the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that caused mass protest across the United States, and even beyond Woodrow Wilson's persecution of those who spoke against US involvement in WWI. Under those equally unconstitutional laws, at the least the accused had to be indicted, tried and convicted prior to being stripped of any rights. Joe Lieberman would strip a person of rights before any trial could occur, and even without suspicion of any "crime."

The passage of this law could and would lead to the worst kind of terrorism: terrorism against the people by their own government and the ongoing repression of speech and thought by the state, and the outright suppression and persecution of dissent upon those opposed to specific policies.

Joe Lieberman wants to keep you safe by stripping you of your rights. He claims that this power would be very limited in scope. I remind you that never in history has a government arrogated to itself power that it did not use. In the immortal words of Judge Andrew Napolitano: "It is not government's job to keep you safe. It is government's job to keep you free!"

In a Libertarian Society . . .

Note: I delivered this speech to the Libertarian Party of New Mexico on Saturday, April 17, 2010.
I wrote it the night before, but I had been thinking about it for a while. My delivery was not great since I had very little practice time. Nevertheless, it was well received. However, they drafted me as Vice Chair anyway. That puts me on the Central Committee. Somebody must not have liked the speech.

In a Libertarian Society

Growing up in a Libertarian household was an EXPERIENCE. Between normal kid and teen activities, my baby sisters and I also regularly attended Libertarian candidate interviews, party county and regional conventions, and Libertarian social events. Those last were real hoots. I mean where else could you experience the combination of politics, smoke and beer that was carefully calculated to bring the situation to critical mass at a carefully indeterminate hour, resulting in table-pounding, chair slamming, and the inevitable walk-out by one or another of the county or regional central committee members. We kids thought it was hysterically funny, unless we were the ones that got dragged out with one of our disgruntled parents.

When we did not have ringside seat for the libertarian contact sport of DEBATE OF PRINCIPLES, we received our educations in Liberty at home or at the mall, where our parents would wax poetic about the wonders of Capitalism and the depredations of those evil twins of Wesley Mouch down in Springfield or over in Washington DC. And whether we were discussing Atlas Shrugged at Papa’s Kitchen Table University—“Where REAL EDUCATION Begins”--or helping our parents get unsuspecting citizens to sign the unlabeled Bill of Rights at the Eastland Mall—where we all got hauled off by the mall staff for distributing subversive materials—(I kid you NOT), we heard the same phrase over and over: “In a libertarian society . . .”

In a libertarian society . . . there will be no Federal Reserve Notes and people will mint their own gold and silver.
In a libertarian society . . . private charity will be responsible for making sure that the bums down on Center Street get a hot meal.
In a libertarian society . . . people will take responsibility themselves for negotiating intersections and a private police force will mediate the resulting standoffs at the corner of College and Fell Avenue.

We heard this so often that my sister Madge started up this joke:
“How many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb? (Pause)
“None. In a libertarian society . . . light bulbs will take responsibility for themselves.”

At very tender ages, my sisters and I swore a solemn oath never to inflict that phrase – “In a libertarian society . . .”—upon our own children.

I did pretty well at it for a while. That was before Ron Paul cured my apathy. In 1988. And the other day, I heard myself say it to my son—down at the DMV. There is nothing like the DMV to make you wish for Revolution. I mean the kind without the backwards “L” and “e” in it.

But I digress. My point is that libertarians have a great many ideas about what a libertarian society should look like. They argue about it a good deal. And sometimes—especially after a morning at the DMV—Libertopia (another Madge-ism) looks wonderful to me. I’ll even take the arms race at the intersection of San Mateo and Menaul. We all have our ideas about what Libertopia looks like, but other than the electoral process, it doesn’t seem like we have a clear idea of how to get there. And you’ve got to admit, all our hard work through the LP at getting people elected at the presidential level has netted us exactly 1 electoral vote. In 1972. And working on electing Libertarians to Congress has not yielded much better results. All of this costs a lot of money, turning our national party into a full-time fund-raising organization, and creating problems for the state organizations. Here in New Mexico, our recent Ballot Access lawsuit was brought in order to mitigate some of those problems.

The idea that local and state organizations should focus on local issues, and get people to volunteer for or be elected to low-level political posts certainly has some merit; these elections are often uncontested, and voter turn-out is low, making it easier to get out the Libertarian vote (large and small “L”), and put someone in office. The trade-off is that these positions also carry very little power to reach and educate the average voter about the advantages of Liberty. Libertarians in such positions become simply cogs in the big-government machine organized and managed for the benefit of the statists in charge.

If we are to ever get to Libertopia, we clearly need a new road map. From the very beginning in 1971, one of the main criticisms of forming the National LP has been that we were starting in the wrong place. (And I can tell you that those arguments were a wonderful source of Libertarian Contact Sport, leaving Central Illinois weekend warrior Libs bruised, battered and bleeding). Libertarians very quickly organized a political party, the objective of which is to get people elected, when it might have started as a social and educational organization, whose objective is to change how people think about philosophical and moral issues related to individualism. This was one of the criticisms that Ayn Rand leveled at the LP from the beginning, but she mixed it up with what L. Neal Smith calls her “Russian Grandmother” issues, and couched it in smears and vitriol, to the point where her important message to us went largely unheard.

The result is that our LP has been relatively ineffectual as a political party—and has been quickly shut out of the national and state scenes by the statists on the so-called right, and the statists on the so-called left. Both major parties used their power and clout to teach—with no evidence—that our political structure was founded upon the “two-party system”, removing Liberty entirely from the menu of political options. All this in a country founded on the very bedrock of Individual Rights! The fact that the statists have been able to pull this off speaks volumes about the sad state of American History as an academic field, and as a subject in public schools. (No. I’m not going there. In a libertarian society . . . there would be no public schools and parents would take responsibility for the education of their children.)

These past 40 years we have been wandering in the political wilderness, seeking our freedom at the feet of idols, none of which has the power to grant what we desire. Liberty does not come from the outside; it is a quality that is inherent in the very nature of the human individual. And yet living liberty requires a recognition and respect for natural rights from enough people to form a society.

Does this mean we ought to form our own libertarian societies? Even with all the talk about “going Galt”, the development of “Paulvilles”, and even ideas about floating cities outside the jurisdictional waters of any extant nation-state, this would be a long process, and I am concerned that we do not have much time left to reclaim our birthright of liberty. Not that I would obstruct the free efforts of others in that direction. Laissez-faire! Leave them alone, and see what comes of them. However, the statists have been working towards enslaving us to their purposes for a very long time, and they now have the systems in place to move in for the kill.

But all is not lost! Those years of wandering in the wilderness of elections, where have become ensnared in the pits of the false left-right dichotomy, and gotten lost in the badlands of party power politics, have not been entirely in vain. For during that time, rumors of Liberty have gotten out among the people, and the philosophy of liberty has been disseminated to a new generation. Actually--two new generations.

And help has come from an unexpected source. For as the statists have tightened the chains of our encroaching slavery, so that they become heavier upon us, and Americans have begun to notice. Everywhere, people are waking up, and the fires of liberty are beginning to ignite in their hearts. The sparks are beginning to take hold, and people are beginning to question and protest the loss of their freedom.

Some of you have seen it for yourself. As I have, traveling in New Mexico for the New Mexico Patriot Alliance, and to Illinois as a delegate to the Continental Congress. I have seen big changes among the awakening people from last year to this.

At the Tea Parties last year, the focus was on taxes and on the evil of the Democratic Party Progressives. The concept that salvation would be found by electing Republicans was everywhere. However, even there, the fires of Liberty were being stoked by Libertarians, by Objectivists, by Constitutionalists.

Since the Tea Party movement began last year, the statists have increased the velocity their drive towards fascism, towards socialism, towards whatever you want to call it, and their end game is a world collectivist state.

And in response, I have noticed that more Tea Party goers are carrying signs that, rather than just vilifying the current administration, and rather than just protest taxes, point to the founding principles of the United States, and the Constitution. Principles that Libertarians can agree—despite those among us who would rather go much further—are nevertheless principles worth restoring.

At Continental Congress 2009, we elected a Libertarian to preside over the proceedings: Michael Badnarik. And he is the real deal. Although there were small coalitions of theocrats and other conservatives, some of whom wish to use the power of the state to enforce their particular theologies and moralities, the majority of the body, and a group of dedicated libertarians (small “l” AND large “L”), worked long and hard to promote the cause of Liberty with good (though not perfect) results.

The work of the Continental Congress 2009 resulted in the Articles of Freedom, which documents fourteen major violations to the Constitution—including such violations of liberty as the income tax, the federal reserve, undeclared foreign adventures in “nation building”, and the violation of private property rights. The Articles of Freedom also include instructions to the federal government and the Sovereign States for the remediation of these violations through such actions as tenth-amendment assertions and restrictions on the activity of the feds to those stated in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. In addition, the States are instructed to protect the people from Federal incursions on their rights through the empowering of the county sheriffs via the Supreme Court decision, Printz-Mack vs. the United States, and through the formation of Constitutional Militias.

Since we do not expect any more response from the present imperial presidency, and the present congressional elite, than the Olive Branch Petition got from King George III and the Parliament, the Articles of Freedom also contain suggestions for Civic Action on the part of Liberty-loving Americans. This civic action is planned to culminate in the withdrawal of support to the federal government by a “goodly number of millions” of patriots create a mass movement to restore their liberty by Constitutional means. A huge goal, to be sure, and fraught with problems in the details and the scope; but the journey to Liberty is not begun by those who nit-pick the problems. The pioneers who settled this country had a saying: “The cowards never started, and the weak died on the way.” If we are to be a force for freedom, we can neither be cowards nor weaklings. And we must begin with the first steps.

Go to Articlesoffreedom.us, sign the pledge, and get your liberty-loving friends and neighbors to do the same.

Continental Congress, the Tea Parties, the Ron Paul R3volution, and state-based patriot coalitions like the NMPA—these are all part of a movement that has coalesced because our present federal government has stepped on the gas in its drive toward an all-powerful, collectivist state.

The LP stands at the edge of its current map—the map of the political process of electing candidates—and now must decide how to expand that map so that we can leave the wilderness, and lead on in the drive towards that “libertarian society” our parents envisioned. Although educational, the political process of electing candidates to offices to serve a statist government, has become (in and of itself) a dead end for libertarians. I submit that it is time to do some back-of-the envelope calculations, and take into account where we actually are, and who is here with us, in order to redraw our road-map to Libertopia; and to include other highways and byways than just partisan political action.

I believe that there are (at least) three ways to get to our goal—a libertarian society—and that we need scouting parties and shovel-ready construction teams working actively on all of them.

One road is the political action highway. This is currently the main LP route to Libertopia, but the road is too narrow to carry the traffic needed to restore the Constitution. It needs to be broadened to include more than elections. Political action entails lifting our voices for Liberty through protests and forums; it requires that we get the unadulterated message of Liberty to the people, one by one, through education and example. The people are waking up—but in their yawning and stretching—they have not yet understood that the coffee needs to be hot and caffeinated. It cannot be a tepid mix of statism with a dash of Liberty. One cannot expect to be free and control your neighbor’s marriage or his money. We know this, and through political action in the broadest sense, we can present an uncompromising philosophical case for liberty everywhere we go, thereby “lighting the fires of liberty in one heart at a time.” (I LIKE that Badnarik quote!).

Another route to Libertopia is the cultural bypass. Our vehicles in the culture are education and entertainment. Speaking for myself, this is the way that the idea of Liberty became real in my pointed little head as a child and young-adult. At Papa’s Kitchen Table University, I read and discussed the founding documents of the United States from a libertarian perspective. And I was given the books and papers that formed the ideas in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson’s Virginia Resolution on Religious Liberty, and the Constitution itself. I read and discussed Locke and Smith, and Bastiat. This education was a powerfully firm foundation for making the cause of Liberty my home in this world—even if I explored other ideas along the way.

The educational aspect powerful as it is does not alone ignite people’s visions of Liberty. Libertopia has been envisioned through novels, stories and movies, and counterexamples in these media can also instruct, by making the horror of tyranny very real. Books like Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress; Smith’s Probability Broach, and classics like 1984, have all influenced the vision of Libertopia, and increased our desire to work toward it. Currently, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, though out more than 50 years, has sold more than it ever has, as people strive to find a philosophical vision of what the world is now, and what it might become. We must get these books into the hands of newly awakened people, and recommend movies like The Matrix series, to get them thinking. We must introduce them to the very vocabulary of liberty, so that they may have a sustaining vision to get them through the hard and rocky way that lies between us and the land of living liberty. The vision thing is important—this is people change their hearts and minds, and commit to ideas.

The third road is that of preparation for Living Liberty. As the statists tighten their grip, their unworkable economic and social systems are beginning to show signs of stress and strain. The mixed economy cannot sustain the spending they need to do in order to achieve their goal. And as the current system falters, their response will accelerate the economic collapse.

This is their weakness and our opportunity. But it comes at a price. We ourselves, as well as our friends and neighbors, and those just beginning to awaken to this reality, are dependent on the workings of this economy. We can fiddle while Rome burns—sitting around and complaining about the evils of the state, and the state of the world—but that will do nothing to get us to Libertopia. The enemies of liberty mean to use this kind of crisis to create their slave-state, and we are meant to be so dependent on them that we willingly give up our freedom for the security of three squares a day.

We, too, can prepare for the inevitable crisis that has been built into our mixed economies. We must be the watchmen at the gate, calling out to the denizens of our current camp in the wilderness that it is time to prepare for the coming battle. And we must prepare ourselves by beginning to live Liberty. We can do this by making ourselves more self-sufficient, and less dependent on those who would be our masters. We can start living liberty by developing alternate, local economies and the means for personal self-defense. On this road, I believe that we will find that even as we are preparing for the worst, we are also developing the best within ourselves; and that when we arrive at Libertopia, we will be ready to live there.

At R3volution March, Adam Kokesh asked the question: Is it time?
In the past two years, as the march to statism has not only continued, but accelerated, I believe that the answer is: Yes, it is time. And I also believe that the years Libertarians have spent in the wilderness have been fruitful, perhaps even because of the pits and blind canyons we have fallen into. We know what roads we have tried, and we can preserve what worked. But the times demand that we come out of the wilderness, and in coalition with others who are fully awake to our peril, we must expand our maps, and prepare for the end game. The battle is on, and the crisis is imminent. The result will be either Liberty or slavery; individual rights or collectivism. This may be a long and arduous road—but our feet are already on the first marches.

One of the sages of my tradition put it this way: “The task is great; the taskmaster is exacting, and the day draws on towards evening. And yet-lo alecha hamlacha ligmor—it is not up to us to complete the task—lo aval ben chorim l’hivote minena—but neither are we free to desist from it.

And at the end of the task—way up yonder, is that shining place—Libertopia!-- where we can sit under our vines and fig trees and begin all our sentences this way:
“Here, in a libertarian society . . .”