Lo-Fi Liberty

It’d be even funnier if it didn’t sting of...

Tue, 06 Nov 2012 04:30:00 -0800

It’d be even funnier if it didn’t sting of truth.

(h/t wkfoster, reddit)

Photo

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:28:00 -0700

Live snarking the first Presidential debate here. Occasionally.

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:08:00 -0700

Live snarking the first Presidential debate here. Occasionally.

"Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth...."

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:44:24 -0700

“Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness.”

- Viktor Frankl

So, this happened today. If anyone was interested.

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:59:00 -0700

So, this happened today. If anyone was interested.

9/11: 25 Indelible Pictures - StumbleUpon

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:32:47 -0700

9/11: 25 Indelible Pictures - StumbleUpon

An artist's incendiary painting is his bank statement - latimes.com

Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:41:20 -0700

An artist's incendiary painting is his bank statement - latimes.com

Let this fellow serve as a cautionary tale to the rest of us,...

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:42:00 -0700

Let this fellow serve as a cautionary tale to the rest of us, who, in trying to distinguish ourselves philosophically from the status quo, must also commit ourselves to a policy of truth. Ignorance of a law has never been enough of an excuse to justify breaking said law. Nor is it any better if such ignorance is willful.

This broken logic has never worked in our legal system, so why should we make exceptions anywhere else? Just because you may not agree (or understand) someone else’s positions does not mean you are afforded a special right to blatantly misrepresent their positions or their evidence. In that case, the commenter of this Hill Post thought it permissible to play with the facts.

I myself do not pretend to understand his reasoning. He may simply be ignorant or he may be doing this intentionally. He could very well be both. But for anyone who remembers the Rally for the Republic, it could scarcely be claimed that Dr. Paul “[kept] his mouth shut and his head down”.

What can we take away from this? It is, I think, rather obvious: no matter how discouraged you may become, no matter how disheartened you may already feel, no matter how strongly you think the first amendment gives you the luxury… you have no moral right to slander others. Doing so not only relegates our cause, but also unnecessarily limits a broad debate full of vibrant opinions to the safety of prescribed views and cheap talking points.

If the facts are on your side, you needn’t worry. To paraphrase Dr. Paul himself, vindication will not come because we can give a great speech, but because we’re broke. Reality has no bias.

Reminder: The Iowa Straw Poll Debate can be seen in roughly 20 minutes on Fox News. Or, if...

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:37:00 -0700

Reminder: The Iowa Straw Poll Debate can be seen in roughly 20 minutes on Fox News. Or, if you’re inclined to watch from your computer, check out the live stream right here.

Edit: It’s live now, folks!

"I love being a philosopher, even though it may sound pretentious."

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:10:00 -0700

"I love being a philosopher, even though it may sound pretentious.":

I am a philosopher. (And yes, even I cringe because of the pretension this statement seems to contain.) It would be better if I were also a philosophy professor, because then I could say I teach. But I don’t teach philosophy. Teaching is only part of what a philosopher does. Research, which consists mainly of reading books and writing books, is also a small part of what I do. The bulk of what a philosopher does is think. I think about politics, art, society, culture, science, music, language, technology, teaching, ethics, literature, history, religion, and philosophy. And yes, I think about the meaning of life. But because I am a philosopher, I can’t unquestioningly rely on the criteria from other fields as justification for either those fields themselves or for the value I find in them. Instead, I have to think about history, for example, without relying on historical methodology. I have to question the value of art without merely resorting to historical or aesthetic or theoretical justifications for that value. I love being a philosopher, even though it may sound pretentious. I wish there were more of us enamored with thinking.

Whole Foods' Ramadan Marketing Headaches | Fast Company

Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:52:00 -0700

Whole Foods' Ramadan Marketing Headaches | Fast Company:

A pioneering Ramadan marketing campaign at Whole Foods has turned into a headache thanks to a handful of vocal anti-Muslim bloggers. The Houston Press leaked an internal company email claiming “it would be best” if Whole Foods did not observe Ramadan in-store, leading to widespread blowback from angry customers who supported the promotion.

Several weeks ago, Whole Foods became the first major American supermarket chain to launch a Ramadan campaign, with a pilot, online-only marketing project conducted in collaboration with frozen food brand Saffron Road. The campaign is still taking place and has not been canceled, according to Liz Burkhart of Whole Foods. Burkhart added that it was “business as usual” for the promotion and that the company is excited about the promotion. Lisa Mabe, a spokesperson for Saffron Road, also confirms the campaign is still on.

If anyone understands the risks of running a highly progressive marketing campaign such as this, it’s without a doubt John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods. After all, it isn’t exactly like the fallout is new to him.

As recently as 2009, he came under fire from his predominantly liberal customers for openly criticizing Obamacare. Now, Mackey’s chain is once again being targeted for this unprecedented Ramadan promotion, although I’d very much doubt the offended group this time around is of the same political persuasion. Indeed, they probably don’t even shop at his stores to begin with.

However, should it turn out that it is the same people, then I guess we know who really is the voice of tolerance and acceptance is here, don’t we? That Whole Foods is the first major retailer in the United States to cater specifically to a Muslim holiday is an explicit vindication of libertarian principles, particularly those involving market discrimination, which father-son politicians Ron and Rand Paul have recently been attacked for. Indeed, it’s not at all surprising that anti-Muslim bloggers have brandished their keyboards and launched a volley of criticism seeped in bigotry. Rather, the real story is the reaction from customers who actually endorsed the campaign, arguably a much larger slice of Whole Foods’ target audience. The best way to deliver democracy is through the free market.

Photo

Mon, 08 Aug 2011 23:56:45 -0700

» Regulate marijuana like wine?

Sat, 06 Aug 2011 23:58:00 -0700

» Regulate marijuana like wine?:

Supporters are gathering signatures for an initiative that would decriminalize marijuana in California for those older than 21. The measure, dubbed the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act, would tax and regulate the cultivation, production and sale of cannabis using grape and wine industry standards[…]

“We’re taking something that’s unregulated and we’re replacing it with a known successful program implemented by the California alcohol beverage control board,” said co-author Steve Kubby, who also helped draft and promote Proposition 215, California’s first medical cannabis law, to California Watch. “We know it works great with wine. It’s already in place.”

I’m feeling subversive today.

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 15:20:06 -0700

I’m feeling subversive today.

Would it be wrong to say I…

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:52:00 -0700

Would it be wrong to say I…

Decriminalization of Drug Use | Greece.GreekReporter.com Latest News from Greece

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 07:40:00 -0700

Decriminalization of Drug Use | Greece.GreekReporter.com Latest News from Greece:

The Greek government made the first big step regarding decriminalization of drug use. Justice Minister Miltiadis Papaioannou presented to the Greek Parliament the basic ideas of a new law concerning drugs. He announced that, for the first time, drug use will be fully decriminalized in Greece, on the condition that the drugs used harm only the behavior and the condition of the user. However, the Minister noted, the possession and supply of drugs and cultivating of cannabis remain punishable actions.

Basically, the idea here is that recreational drug use is now decriminalized, but producing and supplying these drugs are not. Rather, they are demoted to misdemeanors at most. For comparison’s sake, an example of this policy stateside would be the legal status of poppers.

Is this progress? For Greece, I imagine you could claim any lessening of the state’s burden on its citizens as such. If anything, we may now add Greece to a list of other countries, such as Mexico, Holland, and Portugal, that have all endorsed a policy of either blanket decriminalization or legalization. Increasingly then, the U.S.’s rationale for preserving the status quo is thrust into even more doubt.

A Word on Moderates

Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:21:00 -0700

I’ve gone almost a month now without once mentioning the word “moderate” in any one of my posts and for what I think to be a good reason. In the political lexicon, the word is often used to mean temperance, which somewhat tautologically treats moderation in and of itself as a virtue. And it’s true that according to many standards of ethical conduct, it is acceptable, even quite preferable, to be moderate in one’s desires, actions, and rhetoric, as well as a whole host of other behaviors. In other words, the virtue of temperance illuminates the purpose of moderation, and that is balance. As Aristotle always said, everything has its own mean. Surely then, this line of thinking also extends to the political realm, right?

We hear all the time about a shortage of “moderate” individuals in our nation’s capital. That in their absence, our government is tidelocked by polarity and extremism, incapable of doing anything meaningful. And, as the checks stop coming and the bills pile up, it doesn’t take a lot of creativity to imagine how this so-called drought of moderates is to blame for close calls like the recent debt ceiling standoff.

Meanwhile, the polls tell us that the American people are becoming increasingly fed up with these recalcitrant elements, regardless of the fact that no one has universally agreed on which factions are to blame. Indeed, the majority of the incoming congressmen this year were elected on a platform of greater principle, not less. And here we find the American people as divided on this issue as their representatives wrangling with the deficit. Do we mean moderates like Lindsey Graham or Sen. Joe Lieberman? If not, then who? If yes, then who else?

Despite this lack of a consensus on the term “moderate”, apparently no one has any trouble thinking of ways to elect more of them. With the political approval ratings of both main parties at record lows, the mainstream media is finally echoing the sentiments that many of us, who have lived nearly our whole lives disenfranchised by the system, have been saying for a long time: we need alternatives. How to get them? Simple. Just vote third party. Not a kooky fringe vessel of the far right or far left, mind you, but instead a sensible party that represents the core values of Middle America.

Sounds good. Though as well-intentioned as they might have been, history is filled with several failed efforts that would barely even warrant an asterisk in a high school textbook. A few of note in just the last decade or so: the Reform Party, National Centrist Party, Unity ‘08, and Modern Whigs. Now, according to NY Times columnist Tom Friedman, Americans Elect promises to succeed where all of them have failed. Yet solely judging from what came before, it’s already difficult to take them seriously.

Alas, we are going in circles, which we are bound to do until we first decide on what a moderate is. But again, how might we do that? Judging from the terminology used by past failed “moderate” political movements, the one that most frequently gets bandied about is the idea of centrism. Centrism, as denoted by the typical (and obsolete) political spectrum, simply means halfway between two opposites .

Many would argue that the U.S. economy is already a product of centrist — or as Bill Clinton put it, Third Way — policies. However, those same people would probably not agree that this is reflected by the status quo today. Whatever the reason for this might be, it is an ancillary issue. The real question is: can “centrist” and “moderate” be used interchangeably?

We libertarians adopt several positions from both conservatives and liberal perspectives, oftentimes finding common ground in the center of the left-right continuum. For example, some examples of libertarian positions with centrist appeal might be: abolishing corporate welfare, promoting government transparency, or stamping out the bureaucratic troika, waste, fraud, and abuse. Would it then be fit to call us moderates? I’d say no, and I’d have to assume most of you reading this would agree.

Moderates and centrists are fundamentally different. Simply put, a centrist is just someone who supports positions that a plurality of groups may consider beneficial. They may, though not always, differ on the means, but where this is not the case, such policies, I would argue, are even stronger.

Is it purely coincidence that all of these issues usually make for trite campaign platitudes and cliche soundbytes? Of course not. Political consultants make a killing on this simple analysis. All the more important that we are able to dispel what a political moderate is not, and one is most definitely not a centrist.

What is characteristically moderate then? Suppose we looked around. During the recent debt ceiling impasse, one word cropped up more than any other by virtually everyone involved: compromise. In other words, it is a concept inimical to ideological or even “centrist” principles, and it has a strong precedent that reaches back further than American history has even existed. Compromise, as explained by Dictionary.com, means nothing but “a settlement of differences by mutual concessions” or moreover, the practice of making sacrifices to resolve a dispute.

Now, we’re getting somewhere. In association with “compromise”, the virtue of the political moderate takes on a whole new meaning. Moderates still adhere to one partisan solution, albeit they may not buy as extreme a variety of right/left ideology as the radical fringes might. This basically results in someone willing to arbitrarily limit the reach their ideology is capable of having.

A popular moderate stance on something like gun control might be to limit certain guns to everyone or require certain groups to register but others not to, typically based on criminal risk. There is no true consistency here, as there might be even in the pragmatic conservative’s support for gun registration, or on the flip side, a liberal’s willingness to forego concealed carry bans. This type of distinction makes all the difference in the world to big-tent political coalitions, especially the two major parties. Unfortunately, it is also a reality that minor parties like the Libertarian Party, Green Party, and Constitution Party vehemently refuse to recognize.

This is how such parties artificially increase their own burden on gaining mainstream acceptance. They make no distinction between pragmatic gradualism and centrist positioning versus ideological moderation. The first two are creatures of necessity; the latter should be rightly eschewed and scorned by all.

Remember, those who do cherrypick between left and right positions may not have a unifying rationale that’s readily visible to you, but that does not mean that one doesn’t exist. For this reason, we should not fear or lampoon the centrists, but reach out to them. Those self-styled “moderates”, however, whether they be libertarian, conservative, liberal, socialist, or whatever… run the other way. Compromise on principle is never the only option, nor the best one.

When people think that free markets are the same thing as capitalism.

Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:40:00 -0700

anti-stateaaron:

As anyone who understands the true etymological origin of the word “capitalism” knows, by calling ourselves capitalists, we have taken an ideological epithet and tried to swing it into a positive — just as the early Christians did. On the other hand, history informs us that hijacking language usually doesn’t work. It’s much easier to find or invent a new word that accurately describes what we stand for rather than reclaim one that’s been tainted by negative connotations.

Corporatism. Cronyism. Fascism. Call it what you will, but in reality, it’s all the same.

Private industry pay hikes top government’s

Mon, 01 Aug 2011 23:45:56 -0700

Private industry pay hikes top government’s:

Increases in private industry wages and benefits outstripped those in state and local government in June for the fifth quarter in a row as budget cuts hit public employees, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.

In June, total private industry compensation — pay and benefits — increased 2.3% over the previous 12 months. State and local government compensation rose 1.7% over the same time. State and local government cut 305,000 jobs nationwide from June 2010 to this June.

Increases in just benefits provided by private employers — previously a major plus for those on government payrolls — also topped those for public employees. Benefits in the private sector rose 4% while those in state and local government were up 3%. (Pay typically makes up 70% of compensation and benefits 30%.)

Official London anti-terrorist publication says anarchists should be reported to local police – Boing Boing

Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:40:00 -0700

Official London anti-terrorist publication says anarchists should be reported to local police – Boing Boing:

This wouldn’t be the first time that official government literature has specifically singled out certain political ideologies as a stepping stone to “home-grown radicalism”. Here in the U.S., such behavior has been slowly becoming the norm over the last decade.

You may remember how in 2009 a Department of Homeland Security agency known as the Missouri Information Analysis Center issued a report supposedly identifying various political activists as high-risk suspects, even mentioning followers of specific presidential candidates like Ron Paul and Bob Barr:

“Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups,” the report reads. “It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material.”

The report, to the surprise of no one, drew scorn from many prominent civil liberties groups and provoked responses from a few of the aforementioned third party leaders themselves. Yet if the reaction from the groups in question wasn’t a shock, then perhaps the media silence would prove otherwise. (Then again…)

The agency that issued the report itself was merely one of many so-called “fusion centers”, which are basically anti-terrorism outposts located all across the country. One tally in the same year as this incident pegged the number of such centers at 72, but it’s undoubtedly higher now.

What’s more, the MIAC wasn’t the only fusion center to make the news that year. For instance, Democracy Now discovered in a series of recently declassified documents the case of an operative from one of the outposts spying on antiwar groups in Washington state or however many years. Also in 2009, the Texas ACLU uncovered a bulletin similar to the one issue by MIAC, this time not only calling for the monitoring of peace activists but also several Islamic lobbyist as well. Quite the banner year for civil rights violations it would seem, no?

But, like everything else, a bit of perspective is needed here. Britons have endured for the last several years a gradual erosion of their civil liberties much more than any Americans might currently stomach. From gun control, knife control, and the installation of CCTV on virtually every major city block, it can at times seem like an omen, that we are all destined to live in a surveillance state one day.

What can episodes like this teach us then? If anything, they should give us hope. That many Londoners have not taken kindly to this news is an optimistic reminder that freedom is naturally ingrained in all, and that no matter how much some would try to inculcate the notion of sacrificing it, their task has so far been in vain.