Prof. de La Paz's Guide to Subverting Authority

Article on leaderless resistance

2006-06-23T11:45:00.000-05:00

OK, it's been some time since I've posted any new content here. Been mucho busy these past few months. But here's an interesting analysis of the concept of leaderless resistance, which as the name implies means a decentralized resistance. Such movements can be quite difficult to counter; since there are no leaders, the movement can not be disabled by their removal. They are also resistant to informers and other information leaks. On the other hand, without a leader they may not be as effective as they could be, and the movement could be more susceptible to downswings in motivation and/or morale. With little to no communication between members or cells, they also run the risk of different elements acting at cross-purposes. The above article looks at the use of leaderless resistance in various, mostly violent, movements.

Torture and the decay of gov't

2006-04-18T16:33:00.000-05:00

While there are, sadly, quite a number of apologists for torture in this country (most of whom appear to be conservatives who argue its necessity for the all-encompassing "national security"), the good majority of Americans are still repulsed by the notion, and sickened that our gov't should engage in it, or even appear to engage in it.

Torture, secret prisons, and imprisonment without charge or trial were, pre-9/11, things that only dictatorships engaged in. (One could very well argue that that is still the case....) They are, in and of themselves, terrible acts of pain, suffering, and gross injustice for their victims. There are, however, reasons why even those not involved in it should oppose it. The damage done by such practices are not confined to their victims, but also infect the offending gov't with the seeds of its own eventual downfall: secrecy & unaccountability, destruction of vital checks & balances, a dampening of citizen engagement, undue presumption & practice of power, and the inevitable abuses and corruption that follows from any and all of these.

The dynamic between citizenry and gov't can be a fragile one. If the citizenry gets free reign over gov't, you get tyrannies of the majority, and gov't run by desires rather than reason. France would seem to be a good example of this, with its whiny citizens calling national strikes for any little thing they don't like, and the gov't usually caving in. At the other end of the spectrum, with gov't having free reign over the citizenry, you have dictatorship, kleptocracy, and brutal rule. The examples of this are all too numerous.

It is probably much better to err on the side of a too-powerful citizenry, though the results can be the same: a tyranny of the majority can be every bit as harsh as a dictatorship of one. Oddly, though, the two also have a similar root cause. In both cases, the gov't has too much power. Who wields that power, a leader or the masses, is less important than the fact that too much power in the first place always leads to bad results.

The ideals that America was founded on recognize this key fact, and our Constitution is one of the few ever to place explicit limits on the power of gov't, as well as to set up checks and balances against the accumulation and abuse of power. The Founders knew that the way to maximize both liberty and prosperity was to minimize the power of gov't. Checks & balances, accountability, and transparency were all designed to keep gov't from growing into the monster that so many previous regimes had.

Torture. Secret prisons. Imprisonment without charge or trial. Widespread, secret surveillance of citizens. These are acts that no just, healthy gov't should ever engage in, for any reason. They are a sickness, an infectious agent that can turn a healthy gov't into a deranged one, a responsible one into an unaccountable one, and a gov't for the benefit of the people into a gov't that exists only for its own benefit. For several years now America has been sliding down the path of gov't decay. It's time we stopped it.

In Houston, it's 1984 again

2006-02-17T12:32:00.000-06:00

Police cameras in private residences? That's what Houston police chief Harold Hurtt wants. This article details his stated desire to require police surveillance in all new malls and apartment complexes, regardless of pre-existing crime levels (in fact some of the places are in safe neighborhoods), as well as in some private residences of known troublemakers. I wonder if such private-residence cameras would be removed if the person moves, or is found not guilty. My guess is, no friggin' way....

Chief Hurtt's idea to put video surveillance in private residences is not new. As far back as 1948, at least one guy also raised the idea in a novel of his, though most people not in law enforcement generally recognize it as not exactly a good thing. Hurtt must have had an urban public school education, where if such concepts and literature are presented at all, they are often not done so in the negative light they deserve to be in. (Many public schools, especially but not limited to urban ones, seem to be evolving into small models of what an Orwellian police state should look like.)

Addendum: this Yahoo poster pointed out another 1984 parallel, and in hindsight it should have been an obvious one: the use of manufactured wars by gov't to stir up support for itself, both patriotic and financial.

A new blog from Yours Truly!

2006-02-01T16:32:00.000-06:00

I've decided to start another, personal blog. "Live.the.Future's Space" will be in addition to, not in place of, this blog. I am not, repeat not abandoning this blog, nor do I even intend to lessen the frequency of my posts here. (Yeah, yeah, I know I already post infrequently enough here.)

The reason I've started another blog is that I'd like to keep the focus of this one on topics of a political science, anti-authoritarian, and/or otherwise subversive nature. My newer blog, by comparison, will be about damn near anything I care to put into writing.

Yet another gov't abuse: wiretapping

2006-01-22T21:45:00.000-06:00

I had hoped to keep my blog at least somewhat free of simple, plain-ol' opinion pieces, but hey, isn't that to some extent what blogs are all about? Well anyway, here are my thoughts on this issue.

Here it is early 2006, and one of the top news stories is Emperor Bush's authorization of wiretaps without a court order. The big question many are asking is, was it legal for him to do so? His defenders and apologists say yes, he can do whatever the hell he wants.

Those concerned about civil liberties, like the ACLU, say he overstepped his authority, and question why he didn't bother to get court orders for the wiretapping. The law provides, after all, that such court orders can be applied for up to 72 hours after the fact, to allow for time-critical wiretaps.

Still others, say that maybe he didn't have the authority, but hey, it's OK because this is all for the sake of fighting terrorism. Terrorists are dangerous, scary people and if we need to bend the Constitution every once in a while, or even drive a Mack truck through it, then hey, we gotta do what we gotta do. After all, the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.

But in questioning the legality of the Emperor's actions, they have missed the bigger picture. The proper question to ask isn't whether Bush had the legal right to authorize wiretaps without court approval, but the moral right. Do the ends justify the means?

Republicans have often touted the importance of the concept of the Rule of Law--that laws are made to be followed, even if you may personally disagree with them, since no one should be above the law. And yet, time and time again, they have shown a willingness, and even eagerness, to trample on the highest law of the land whenever it gets in their way. The Constitution to them is a pretty little showpiece, but something that shouldn't be used in practice because it only gets in the way of law enforcement. This attitude has reared its ugly head repeatedly in the War on Some Drugs, in efforts to ban or regulate the content of expressions (online sites, "porno" magazines, "offensive" books & artwork, etc.), and now, in the hunt for hidden communists--er, terrorists among us.

(In all fairness, yes I realize that Democrats like Clinton, Janet Reno, and many others in the past and present are also guilty of such attitudes and actions. Many have voted eagerly for the War on Some Drugs, the Patriot Act, and on countless other infringements upon our liberties. The erosion of our civil liberties, though, sure seems much more prevalent and forceful on the Repub side.)

Those who think that the gov't can be trusted with warrantless wiretaps, need to study their history a bit more. For decades the gov't has snooped on people and groups for dubious reasons that have nothing to do with national security or public safety, though both are often offered up as excuses. Civil rights groups in particular are favorite targets, as are vocal dissenters. And beyond mere wiretapping and other intelligence-gathering abilities, the gov't has routinely taken an active role in disrupting these grassroots groups. With no real accountability, gov't agencies often embark on missions of politicking, attempts at social engineering, and personal or ideological vendettas. Such activities are often claimed to be in the national interest and/or as legitimate law enforcement functions, when in reality they are neither.

Now, to get a warrant for a wiretap is not all that hard. The gov't has even set aside a special rubber-stamp court for just that purpose. This court has only turned down a tiny handful of warrant requests out of more than 18,000 made, and even those were later granted after resubmission.

When even this rubber-stamp court protests, that should be a good indicator that you're going too far with the surveillance. That's just what the FISA court did, meekly at first, asking for a few of the wiretap requests to be "modified" starting in 2003. (Roughly 5% of the requests.) With the public revelation of Bush's screw-the-courts surveillance of American citizens, one of the court judges finally resigned in protest in late Dec. 2005.

Still, the apologists would argue, these wiretaps aren't for ordinary, law-abiding citizens, just the terrorists. But from the sheer number of requests, the gov't must actually believe there's a terrorist around every corner. Even the FBI itself agrees that these wiretaps have little to do with protecting America from dangerous terrorists. From an article in the N.Y. Times:

"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

And those are just the "useless" leads. The FBI is much less revealing when it comes to wiretaps for political organizations, dissenters, and civil liberties groups. Bush himself did not personally conduct warrantless wiretaps. But there are those who carried out his orders, who did not see enough of a problem with bypassing the courts to raise an issue about it or refuse to carry out what they may well have known to be an illegal activity. Those people are the true "spooks," the inspiration for an entire sub-culture of crackpot conspiracy theorists and genuine freedom fighters alike. Those "spooks" are the same class of people who train Central American death squads, carry out kidnappings for the CIA, hold American citizens without charge and without access to counsel, and who think torture is an acceptable interrogation technique. They are, in short, the American version of the KGB (only much better funded than their Soviet counterparts).

And yet, again, what about the morality of all this? What justification can there be for such Orwellian mass invasions of privacy when public safety is at most an excuse, and often unrelated to it at all?

Nobody in a free society should feel comfortable with the idea that gov't might be monitoring their communications. That so many apparently do, just goes to show how big a carte blanche this country has given its rulers to erode our freedoms for the self-interest of that same gov't. And, it is an indicator that America is not nearly as free as many would like to imagine it to be.

Needless to say, the fact that your letters, emails, phone calls, blogs, and instant messages may be being monitored and recorded for no good reason (or no reason at all), is a pretty good reason why you and everyone else should be using cryptography whenever possible, even for your trivial everyday communications.

Terrorists may scare us and harm us, but only gov't has the power to take away our liberties. Is it rational to argue that lives lost to terrorism could destroy our nation, but loss of privacy and liberties won't? Buildings destroyed can be rebuilt; can we say the same about liberties destroyed?

Addendum: Here's another article dealing with Bush's assumption of dictatorial powers (by his own definition).

Addendum #2: The founder & publisher of Capitol Hill Blue, Doug Thompson's response to an FBI National Security letter demanding personal information about himself, including traffic data & payment records: "Fuck you. Strong letter to follow."

On alternative forms of representative government:Part 3: Safeguarding liberty

2006-01-22T19:15:00.000-06:00

(Aack! It's been more than a month since my last post. This one has been sitting half-finished as a draft for most of that time. Will try to be a bit more timely....)

What else can we do to keep gov't from sliding down into despotism, bloated bureaucracy, and corruption?

One good means is strict term limits. No politician should ever feel comfortable in his job, and no elected position should ever be a career for anyone. In recent years I have gone from cautious skepticism of term limits, to embracing it more fully than most--I feel four years is time enough for any elected position, and I might even feel comfortable with just a single two- or three-year term.

Even with a minarchist gov't (though to much less a degree), there will still be those who seek to buy influence with legislators, and plenty of legislators more than willing to sell. Current campaign finance reform efforts seek to limit influence-peddling by stomping on the rights of grassroots organizations to petition the gov't, to elect the candidates of their choice, and even to criticize the gov't. Naturally, those seeking favors from gov't simply sidestep such legislation through loopholes or personal connections, while those with legitimate issues are left out in the cold. So rather than putting the burden on the electorate, we need to place it on the elected. By limiting their time in office, we also limit their ability to form the "good ol' boy" networks and easy-access routes with those wanting to curry favors and influence. Term limits also act to stir up the status quo from time to time, injecting new blood into gov't and softening up the monolithic establishment.

There are some who would protest (as I initially did) that term limits reduces the ability of people to elect whom they desire; why shouldn't a favorite politician be able to be re-elected beyond the limits of his term? Again, the answer to this goes back to the saying that the power to do good is also the power to do harm. In our current electoral system, politicians are re-elected almost automatically, but usually not because they're favored. Rather, because they've stacked the deck against any challengers, and rigged the electoral system. (I'm talking about the system itself, rather than vote fraud.) And, the corrupting power of politics can (and usually does) make any good politician go bad, eventually.

Furthermore, candidates should be a fungible quantity; if you could elect anyone, but can find only one candidate who represents your views, then your views aren't electable. Term limits just means you're electing the ideas, not the specific person who holds them.

Beyond the influence peddling, the corruption, and the abuses of power, one of the worst aspects of gov't is the accumulation of legislation like so much detritus. Laws and taxes and regulations pile up on top of one another until the federal code becomes a byzantine mountain of horrors which can bring down a country by its sheer weight and volume. This is partly because many legislators are bill-happy (passing bills gives them a feeling of accomplishment), but mostly because it is now much harder to get rid of bad or outdated legislation than it was to pass it in the first place.

To this end, a good potential solution would be to have two legislative bodies as we do now, but with a significant change--one makes laws, the other repeals them. The former would need a minimum 2/3 majority to pass any legislation, while the latter would need only 1/3 minority to repeal a law. If this seems like it's stacking the deck against any new legislation, well it is. Any truly good legislation should be able to survive both houses. If it lacks the support, or is unconstitutional in any way, or is an undue burden for some parties, then this will greatly increase the odds that even if it gets passed, it will soon be repealed. (Note: giving credit where it's due, this is another idea straight from Prof. de La Paz in MiaHM.)

Of course, a bill may still be repealed by other means, such as by voter referendum, or if it is found unconstitutional by the judicial branch. There would also be no time limit for the bill-repealing house to act; they could vote to repeal a law as soon as it was passed, or years down the road when its bad effects become truly apparent.

Still, even so it may be possible for some bad legislation to squeak by, perhaps (and especially if) the legislative house gets too chummy or offers "incentives" to the repealing house. So what to do? Have an automatic sunset provision for every law passed. Four years maximum, though a bill could be written with a shorter sunset period. After that time the bill must be voted on again, just as if it were a new bill, or be allowed to die. And, it would be a good idea for bills not to sunset during election years, to avoid their being re-passed based on election-year temperaments of both legislators and voters.

The citizenry should still be allowed to legislate on their own through voter initiatives. Such ballot measures, if passed, would still be subject to sunset provisions, and possible repeal by either judges or the repealing house. (Or, through later successful voter initiatives.)

Even so, sometimes Congress will pass some huge monster of a bill which, because of its perceived "must-pass" status (e.g. defense spending, or a highway appropriations bill), will have all sorts of parasite riders attached to it. To cut down on these, such riders should be able to be voted on individually by the repeal-house and excised thusly. Another possible remedy to riders is to give the president a line-item veto. On this I'm still undecided on though; while it could be a good way for a scrupulous president to cut out pork from an otherwise popular bill, it could also lead to abuses of power when a president decides to veto all parts of a bill by his opponents, leaving only those parts put forth by his own party and thus in effect making any party other than his own, irrelevant.

Another good defense against monster bills, and a good legislative practice on its own, would be to have a strong "Read the Bills Act" (RTBA). Every potential bill to be voted on for passage, must be read in its entirety (no summaries), at a normal speaking speed, before the legislative house. Any legislator wishing to vote for its passage must be present during the entire reading, and in person--simply allowing one of his aides to be present in his place would not be counted. The bill would be read in its entirety all at once, with no breaks for eating, using the washroom, or sleeping. (This would not apply to any legislator wishing to vote against its passage.) While this may seem a bit harsh (you'll excuse me if I'm lacking in pity for the well-being and comfort of those who would be my master), something very similar to this was actually the rule for juries in early America. As it applied to both guilty and innocent-leaning jurors, though, it was done away with to avoid the possibility of a bathroom-inspired quick guilty decision.

Finally, there is the problem of gov't creating many new bureaucracies and agencies which are accountable to no one, in practice if not in theory. One way to make such agencies accountable is to make the job positions electable by the voters rather than appointments of Congress, and every position would have the option of "nobody." If "nobody" gets the most votes (not necessarily a majority of votes), then the job position is eliminated.

Now, here's the real kicker: any registered voter who does not vote for a person to hold a job position in a gov't agency, their vote is counted as "nobody." Thus in order for a Congress-created agency to survive, its members must be approved by a majority of all registered voters, not merely all voters who actually vote for that job position. This would, of course, make it much harder for gov't agencies and bureaucracies to survive at all, and that's the intent. If some function is really all that important, then either the people will vote to have those positions filled, and/or said function will simply be done in the free market by enterprising individuals who see a need to be filled.

This would also have the effect of making gov't employees more humble and responsive to the public.

Note that this last proposal of electing gov't workers probably wouldn't be acceptable in the modern-day U.S. or any other nation, given the huge number of people working in gov't jobs. (Even in America, sadly, the federal gov't is by far the largest employer in the nation. For a free country, this is wrong in so many ways....) Election-day ballots would be nearly as thick as phone books and would take hours to fill out (assuming you actually wanted to vote for all the various positions). If such a system were to be implemented, though, we would see a precipitous drop in bloated gov't (call it "major liposuction with a stomach stapling thrown in"), and transfer of many of the most desired functions to the free market.

There could be some job exceptions made, especially if this is being implemented in a present-day country (as opposed to being implemented from the beginning in a new country). Those in the military would not need to be "voted" in (or to remain in), as the decision whether to join the military should be up to the individual wanting to join, subject to the military's normal qualification process. Some emergency workers might also be exempted, at least until such time as their job can be privatized.

As I have shown with all these ideas, the job of safeguarding the continuing liberty of a society is not something that can be solved with any one proposal. It is, however, one of the most important jobs that we, as a society and as individuals, can partake in.

On alternative forms of representative government:Part 2: A more enduring democracy

2005-12-16T17:06:00.000-06:00

So the question remains, how can we create a form of government which maximizes freedom for all, minimizes abuse and corruption, while still remaining accountable to the people, and resistant to eventual decay? I maintain that this is best accomplished with a minarchist democratic republic.

There is a common perception that giving money and power to gov't is good, because it allows the gov't to accomplish more. The problem is, abuse and corruption are attracted to money and power like flies to rotting meat. The very nature of gov't makes this an inevitability. Eventually, governments will take (more of) your earnings, your property, your labor, your liberties. The power to do good is also the power to do evil, and the power to do great good is a sure temptation (and frequent excuse) to do great harm. It is simply unreasonable to expect any politician, never mind politicians as a whole, to always act altruistically.

One obvious, yet often disregarded, means of minimizing the bad aspects of gov't, is to minimize its money and power. This means limiting its size, scope, ability to tax, and ability to legislate. In addition to directly scaling down the amount of bad taxes and legislation, by making it more difficult to tax and legislate it becomes more probable that those bills that do survive to become law, will likely be of a better quality. Furthermore, by limiting the scope and power of gov't, it becomes more limited in the amount of corruption and abuse it can perform, as well as becoming less appealing a target for influence by those outside it seeking those "special favors" that lead to pork and corruption.

Thomas Jefferson got it right when he proclaimed that the "government which governs best, governs least." Most functions which society deems essential are much better handled in the private sector, and having a minimalist gov't (a "minarchy") helps ensure that gov't performs only those services it is absolutely needed for, as opposed to services which some people would merely like for gov't to perform.

A minarchist gov't will take longer to become bloated, but we still need more protections to prevent it from engaging in things it has no business doing. One method is to give it a Constitution which clearly delineates its powers and duties, and even more importantly, spells out those things which a gov't is forbidden to do. The American Constitution was a good starting point for this concept, though it has exploitable loopholes and was vague enough that our gov't now safely (for it, not for us) ignores most of it. For an idea of what a more solid Constitution might look like, you can look at one of my efforts of a few years ago, as well as the Constitution and Laws of the now-defunct Oceania Project.

So far, what I've described is a constitutional minarchy, or a minarchist republic. But this leaves out how those in gov't got there; it could be a monarchy (heh heh--a minarchy monarchy!), dictatorship (though that tends to be at strong odds with minarchism), oligarchy, democracy, etc. I would argue that the best of these, ensuring the most accountability with all other factors being equal, is a democracy.

But what kind of democracy? There are many types, degrees, and styles. Here in the US, we have a representative democracy with each representative representing a given geographic area, which may be a state (senators), county (county board), town (mayor), district (congressional representative), precinct (councilman), etc. In many cases when an area has several representatives, that area is divided up into smaller areas which are represented by each member of the governing body. In theory, this is supposed to be done according to population, so that each representative represents roughly an equal number of people. In practice however, incumbents re-draw boundaries to give them the populations they would prefer to represent, such as mostly blacks or mostly rich people. This is referred to as gerrymandering. It is essentially reverse-democracy: the politicians are, in a very real sense, choosing their voters for their own advantage. Thus, voters' votes count for even less, as the outcome is already largely decided.

So why not simply remove the geographic component of representation? This was one of Professor de La Paz's big ideas presented in Heinlein's "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" novel. (You know, the one this site is built upon? :-) Simply have each representative be a representative of X number of people, or alternatively X% of the population. Anyone in the area of governance can vote for any person. There is no ballot qualification process; any person able to get X number of votes gets a seat in the legislature. If a candidate can get 2X number of votes, he gets 2 votes in the legislature. Anyone could run, meaning that rather than just having candidates of some parties on the ballot, you could also have people who represent a particular trade, or social cause. These would be "single-profession" or "single-issue" candidates. Many people might prefer such candidates, as currently with the party system you get candidates who try to be all things to all people. Removing the geographic constraint on representation means a candidate can focus his efforts on a particular group of people who can be more assured that he will be their best choice.

Removing geography from the democratic equation would also have a benefit in eliminating the need for gerrymandering. Now, people could choose the person they felt best represents them, without the worry that they might be part of the small minority in a gerrymandered district whose vote essentially counts for naught. Politicians should like it too, as the effect for them is much like gerrymandered districting, except that it is still the voters choosing the politicians rather than vice versa.

An example of how this might play out was briefly sketched in MiaHM. On Luna, anyone getting 4,000 signatures on a petition could have a seat in the governing body. 8,000 signatures, and he'd get two votes, and so on. Presumably these signatures would need to be verifiable to prevent double-voting. Then you could have a representative body where one person represents, say, I.T. professionals, another represents some racial minority group, another some religious denomination, another represents a pro-gun group, another represents pro-trade business owners, another environmentalists, etc. Choose the issue that's most important to you, then either find a candidate who fits the bill, or get together with like-minded individuals and pick one from within your ranks. Your candidate is not limited by geographic area or party affiliation.

In some areas we have something much like this already, where people elect candidates "at large." This is still bogged down by a discriminatory ballot qualification process though, and often the number of people being elected to the at-large body are not numerous enough to give voters all that diverse a selection. Voters are still limited to voting for candidates based on political parties and the broad, nebulous ideologies they encompass. Still, I believe at-large voting to be an improvement over geographic-based systems that are prone to gerrymandering.

So thus far I've described several elements for making a gov't more accountable and representative: minarchism, a limiting Constitution, and a particular form of democracy that is more accurate and less prone to corruption. Next, I'll describe ways to make gov't safer, and more resistant to decay.

On alternative forms of representative government:Part 1: Democracy's shortcomings

2005-12-15T15:48:00.000-06:00

What factors make for the best government, one that best represents the interests of the people while also protecting them, their rights and their property? And, perhaps even more importantly, how can a gov't continue to work well, minimizing the waste, decay, corruption, and abuse that inevitably comes to infest every gov't?

History has shown that democracy itself is insufficient for good government. In theory, the people can vote out bad politicians, but this is hardly the case in practice, because the politicians are very adept at stacking the deck. Here in the US, campaign finance laws which the politicos tell us is to keep out special interests and PAC's, in fact has the direct (and, some say, directly intended) effect of making it very difficult for grass-roots organizations and challengers, and nearly impossible for third-parties, to effectively challenge an incumbent.

In a blatant act of antidemocratic unfairness, the Dems & Repubs have also rigged many state and local election laws to require third party candidates to gather many times more signatures than candidates for the two major oligarchies--er, parties. In addition, many election boards are stacked with Dem & Repub party hacks who will vigorously challenge any non-establishment candidates. In my home state of Illinois, a few years back a Libertarian candidate was denied placement on the ballot after the Board of Elections (filled with party hacks) arbitrarily declared more than 60% of the 60,638 petition signatures to be invalid. (You can read further about this travesty here.)

Incumbents have further cemented their positions by barring criticism of them, in blatant defiance of the First Amendment, within 30-60 days of an election. This was the intention of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, which like many other bills, was sold to the public as being for their benefit when it is in fact a direct assault on some of our most basic and essential liberties.

The result of all this? Congressional incumbents now have a re-election rate of >98%. This is not democracy. This has got to change.

Even beyond the atrocious degree of stacking the deck for elected positions, it is also the case that in most governments, most gov't positions are unelected. Either the person is hired through some process, or appointed. Governments in the US and around the world are known to be places where a person can work all their life with a pretty darned good amount of job security. (Many gov't workers are unionized, but even beyond this, govt's tend to be very monolithic institutions.) This combination of being unelected and hard to fire leads to several ill results. First, it creates a much lower standard of accountability than you find in the results-driven private sector. Second, it encourages gross inefficiency, since there are few if any incentives to increase productivity beyond the minimum required to do the job. And third, this encourages gov't workers and agencies to maintain the status quo; not only is gov't monolithic, but it is self-perpetuating in being monolithic.

One of the biggest hazards of democracies though, at least of unrestrained ("pure") democracies, is the hazard of the tyranny of the majority. This is the phenomenon where a majority of the population can vote to take away the property or rights of a minority. One common characterization of this is the phrase, "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch." Often, people willingly support such democratic tyrannies, either because they hope to profit from it somehow, or to see a despised minority put (or kept) in their place. Aside from the obvious immorality of the tyranny of the majority (at least from the minority's point of view), there is another big problem with it, and that is that we are all minorities in some fashion. Beyond the common racial or ethnic minorities, there are religious minorities (including atheists and agnostics), economic minorities (ironically it is often the rich who are singled out here), political minorities, cultural minorities, corporate minorities (big companies often use the legislative process to make things difficult for their smaller competitors), linguistic minorities, foreign minorities, etc. etc. etc. If you think about it hard enough, you probably fit into one or more of the above categories who are at risk for having your earnings, property or liberties taken away by the majority. I would conjecture, in fact, that it is only an exceedingly small minority of us who are in the majority in every respect. :-)

So what does all this say about democracy? Is it an evil to be condemned? No. Rather, it is a strong force to be controlled. My personal views on democracy are akin to Winston Churchill's; to paraphrase a quote of his, "democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the rest." Democracy, however, comes in many forms and sizes. In the next part, I will argue the case for my preferred form of government, which might best be called a minarchist democratic republic.

Resources for the Aspiring Revolutionist(last updated: 2/14/06)

2005-12-09T17:10:00.000-06:00

This is a general reference of materials for the budding revolutionist. It will change over time as new resources are added, so be sure to check back periodically.

Books & literature

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein
The Art of War by Sun Tzu
The United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence
1984 by George Orwell
2600 magazine
The Law by Frédéric Bastiat
The works of Thomas Paine
Economics: most anything by Milton Friedman
First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea by Paul Woodruff

Cryptography

Online Resources

A 1981 speech by Wendy McElroy on "Individualist Anarchism vs. Communist Anarchism and Libertarianism"
Some good MiaHM quotes, including some great ones from Prof. de La Paz, here, here, and especially here.
Robert A. Heinlein's real-life inspiration for Prof. de La Paz was widely considered to be Robert LeFevre. Mises.org has many hours of his recorded speeches on freedom available here.
A fairly good & balanced overview of the life & accomplishments of Rose & Milton Friedman.

Other Resources

(none yet)

Understanding "MiaHM"

2005-12-07T11:32:00.000-06:00

For the benefit of those seeking a better understanding of the Heinlein novel this site references in several of its discussions, here is a link critical of the novel. (As a linkrot safeguard, here also is the Google cached version and the Web Archive version.)

Heinlein is one of the premier authors of libertarian political fiction, and indeed of sci-fi in general. He has often been cited as one of the top 3 sci-fi authors of all time, along with Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov. Still, his political views (which are presented abundantly in Harsh Mistress) have earned him an extra heaping of criticism from those who disagree with such views.

In the review by Adam Roberts, he spends much time analyzing the book's political aspects, albeit from a decidedly British viewpoint. The two political views are, unfortunately, rather alien to each other, and as a result Mr. Roberts has some difficulty properly understanding some of the concepts.

Apparently, so do many of his fellow Brits; Heinlein has not been as popular over there as in the US. I think Mr. Robert's assessment that it's because of Heinlein's political views is probably correct.

Mr. Roberts quotes several other (presumably British) critics of "MiaHM" who view Heinlein's later works (especially MiaHM) as "papier-maché backdrops for lectures concerning the author's controversial views." While he immediately follows this up with praise for the novel, later on in his review he seems to criticise the novel for being too political and not more of a straightforward story.

Roberts' criticism of MiaHM begins with his chagrin at a Heinleinian trademark, TANSTAAFL:

The third section is called 'TANSTAAFL', Heinlein's irritating and much-repeated acronym for one of his key belief-values: 'there aint no such thing as a free lunch'.

In one part of the novel, the narrator, "Mannie" is explaining TANSTAAFL to Stu, who remarks that it is an "interesting philosophy." "Not philosophy--fact," Mannie replies. Indeed, TANSTAAFL is an economic fact, not just a "belief-value" as Roberts calls it. Nothing of value is free, though externalizing or hiding its costs may make it appear so to the beneficiary.

Roberts then illustrates the distinctly (or perhaps not so distinctly) British version of his cultural meme when he directly challenges Heinlein's utopian politics:

'Under what circumstances may the State justly place its welfare above that of a citizen?' asks one character, to receive the resounding narratorial reply that there are 'no circumstances under which the State is justified in placing its welfare ahead of mine' [The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, 82]. No amount of anti-social behaviour, of rape, murder, child-abuse, justifies societal response.

First of all, rape, murder, and child abuse are crimes against individuals, not against the State. If these threaten the welfare of the State, it's because some politician is afraid of being voted out of office next election for appearing too soft on crime.

Also, reflecting what I've noted is a common European mindset, Roberts confuses "societal response" with "State response." (Or assumes that they are synonyms.) This is a crucial distinction: on Luna, crime does receive a societal response, namely, from those involved in or witness to the crime, and/or from the decentralized, non-governmental judge & jury system. This response is simply not a State response, as there is no State per se to make and enforce laws. (Being a former penal colony, the Terran Authority leaves it to the colonists & former inmates to police themselves. The surprising result was more, not less civility.) It's very much akin to hiring a private security firm to guard your business rather than relying on gov't police.

Roberts continues:

It is not that his imagined society is soft on crime: punishment is swift and capital on Heinlein's Luna, but it is meted out by friends and family of victims rather than by the State. If a rapist and murderer can find himself a friendless, family-less victim, he can do what he likes.

He apparently skimmed past the part of the book where this is explained. First of all, victimizing an alone person does not mean you get away with your crime. If the victim is a woman, the perpetrator is likely to be shown to an airlock post-haste, sans his space suit. If the victim is a man and the crime is non-fatal, he may hire a judge & jury (paying whatever he can afford) to pass judgement. In the worst-case scenario where the victim is a man & he's murdered, with no one to pursue justice for him, the perpetrator undergoes an extreme ostracism, with people refusing to buy from or sell to him. Reputation plays a supreme role in Luna society, commerce, and interpersonal relationships. Many advocates of libertarian societies also stress the role of reputation, the same sort that helps us decide whether to buy a more expensive known brand or go with a cheaper but lesser-known alternative.

Roberts again illustrates the gulf not only between European and libertarian thought, but between European and American thought:

But murder is very far from the worst thing in Heinlein's fictional universe; that honour is reserved for taxation. [....] Such thinking only makes sense within a libertarian context, of course. A social democrat might argue that there are many worse things you can do to a human being than tax him or her: for example, you can torture and execute them (by way of positive oppression),

There are several economic views other than capitalism and socialism, but one way to neatly divide people into one camp or the other is to see whether they view taxation as a form of slavery. From an economic sense taxation is very much the equivalent of slavery, and most capitalists recognize this, even if they still regard it as a necessary evil. In that sense, "mainstream" (non-libertarian) capitalists are in the middle. Libertarians view taxation as evil but not always necessary. Socialists view taxation as necessary, but at most a mild irritant, hardly worthy of being called evil.

While Roberts' rather extreme examples of torture and execution may indeed be worse than taxation, it is much, much harder to do these things to a free man who can defend himself than to a slave indoctrinated to accept the authority of his torturers and executioners over him.

The gulf between European and libertarian/American might reach its widest when he continues,

and you can allowing them to starve, fall sick without treatment or grow old without support (by way of political sins of omission).

The very notion that an individual can "starve, fall sick without treatment or grow old without support" without the State's explicit intervention is alien and repulsive to many Americans and nearly all libertarians. Under socialism food, medical care and retirement are not just services provided by gov't but fundamental rights as essential as the right to breathe. We of a more free mindset realize that these services are better provided in a marketplace environment, but what's more, we maintain that no one has an inherent "right" to the labor, services, or products of another. Should everyone with a car have the "right" to "free" gas and auto repair services, paid for by society at large?

But in Heinlein's universe the weak are tended by members of their family, and if they have no family then -- frankly -- it's better for them to die.

Here Roberts seems to be repeating the old communist propaganda gross charicature portrayal of what life in capitalist societies is like--the homeless lead utterly miserable lives before dying of starvation. The reality, of course, is that the poor in this country have their own microwave ovens and refrigerators, and even the homeless need not fear starvation. Admittedly, Heinlein did not really touch upon the use of private services and charities, which just as in America, would fill in the gaps and provide even the destitute with food and a modicum of medical care. IMHO, I'm kind of glad he didn't; taking the space to do so would have made the story too much the "papier-maché backdrops for lectures" that Roberts earlier praised the book for not being.

By the same token, oppression by one individual (a murderer), by a group (a criminal gang) or by a government (a tyranny) is best avoided by arming everybody -- again, those strong enough to defend themselves will defend themselves, and those too weak to do so are better off dead.

And again, Roberts seems to completely miss the dynamics of Luna society, apparently blinded to it by the statist dire warnings and agitprop slogans such as "might makes right."

Roberts then goes on to analyze whether Heinlein's political commentary is complex and sophisticated, or oversimplified. The other critics he quotes take the latter view, which again, seems to create conflict with these same critics' views regarding Heinlein's stories being mere vehicles for his political views. Well, pick one, will you guys? Some simplification is necessary to keep the story flowing and to keep it from becoming a poli-sci textbook. I would suggest that if any of these critics wanted a poli-sci textbook, they should read one, rather than expecting to find one in a sci-fi story. Methinks Heinlein got the mixture of political theory and story fiction just about right.

Still later, Roberts expounds on the seeming improbability of a culture that treats women as matriarchs even with a 2-to-1 male/female ratio. He thinks it more likely that the most violent in the society would simply accumulate harems for themselves by force, leaving the majority of others without. Roberts yet again seems to forget or ignore other parts of the novel that provide reasonable explanations. In this case, the early history of Luna as a penal colony without guards to keep order meant that in order to survive you had to get along; assholes simply didn't last long. It's quite Darwinian: the violent get weeded out, while those who cooperate with each other and treat each other with respect, prosper.

Roberts has trouble not only understanding this, but believing it:

Above all, it is hard to swallow his ubiquitous assumption that a society based on the primacy of the family and a disregard of conventional laws and rules will end up like an idealised American small-town from the fifties, rather than ending up like -- say -- the Mafia.

It may surprise Roberts to learn that it is the "idealised American small-town from the fifties" which is the rule, and the Mafia family that is the exception.

In leaving the political aspects of the novel, Roberts then details two advantages enjoyed by Lunies, though he can't resist a parting shot at noting they are "without price," in seeming contradiction to the TANSTAAFL "mantra." The first is that Lunies have no immediate limits to population growth, in contrast to Earth (and specifically, Bombay) where people litter the ground. Aside from noting that expanding the lunar colonies does have costs in terms of construction and energy usage, nonetheless Luna still has plenty of open space left on it. In its early days (and even today in some areas), America likewise was big enough that overpopulation was not a real concern. Roberts wonders why the cheap burrowing technology used on Luna couldn't also alleviate overcrowding on Earth. Well perhaps it could, but who on Earth would want to live underground? On Luna, underground living is a necessity, what with space radiation and micrometeorites and all.

The second freedom (?) is the "freedom" from gravity, with the moon being only 1/6 G. This is not really a point of contention for Roberts, though he ties it in to Heinlein's "thematic obsession" with immortality:

but on the Moon, we are told, the reduced gravity means that people stay younger-looking for longer and die much older, living perhaps for ever. 'Nobody knows how long a person will live on Luna,' says O'Kelly, 'we haven't been there long enough … so far, no one born on Luna died of old age' [The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, 242]. People older than 120 are commonplace.

Personally, I took Mannie's comments above in a literary or figurative sense, not literal. Maybe that's making more of it than it's worth though.

Much of the rest of Roberts' critique is a fairly good comparison of MiaHM to various American wars. Although the battle for independence in many ways closely mirrored America's own against Britain 300 years earlier, Roberts also points out parallels to the Vietnam war, with the Lunies representing the agrarian Viet Cong, with their lower level of warfare technology and use of guerilla tactics and underground tunnels. Adam Roberts concludes his review with:

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress works much better as a primer of how a small nation of farmers can militarily defeat a large nation of technocrats than it does as a book about Libertarian ideology.

I think MiaHM does both jobs quite well, as both libertarian ideology and as a book of tactics for the budding revolutionist.

Welcome!

2005-12-05T09:54:00.000-06:00

This blog is inspired by my favorite novel, Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. The sci-fi story is a tale of the fight for freedom of Luna colony, a fight which closely mirrors America's own struggle for independence circa 1776. (The novel is even set precisely 300 years later, in 2076.) In the story, however, America has taken on Britain's role of the oppressive imperialist. Many of the "Lunies" of Luna colony are, like early white Australians, convicts shipped there for assorted crimes on Earth, both real and merely political.

The real meat of the story though, are the political theories and discussions bandied about in shaping Luna's new independent society. Lunies are a broad mix of races, nationalities, and political persuasions, but they are united in their hatred of their Terran Authority oppressors.

Professor de La Paz (aka "Prof") is the "thinker" of the Revolution. Luna society is mostly libertarian by default, and this provides fertile ground for his ideas. He seeks to probe the possibilities of ways and methods to set up a society that is not only free, but one which is structured to remain free. Of course, in order to make a society free, first you have to figure out how to get rid of the government oppression & bureaucracy that weigh it down. These are the goals of this blog site.

One of my first articles will be a "critique of a critique" of the novel. The novel's critique I'll be looking at is by a British publishing house, Infinity Plus. As such, the critique comes from an obvious British point of view/bias, and as such leads to a number of misunderstandings and assumptions owing to the wide gulf in thinking between critic and author. My critique of his critique will hopefully clear up these misunderstandings while also adding an additional point of view.

Future articles here will revolve around, but not be limited to, various themes and political & socioeconomic ideas presented in the novel, and their application to modern society. I hope to cover such topics as:

encouraging the use of cryptography,
covert cell structures,
covert communications,
intelligence and counter-intelligence methods for the Aspiring Revolutionist,
alternative political and societal models,
means of bypassing, disrupting, and/or non-violently overthrowing authority,
means of keeping a society free,
links and resources to other sources of info on stuff covered here,
and general concepts of what it means to be free.

That last point is something I will probably not focus too much on; it is not my intention for this site to be another political blog comparing the relative merits of libertarianism vs. statism or capitalism vs. socialism. There are plenty of those types of sites already. It is assumed that if you are reading this, you already have an appreciation for the concepts of liberty, both personal and economic. This site is not intended for those seeking violent overthrow of the government (peaceful overthrow, however, is another matter ;-) ), nor anyone who seeks to have government play a bigger role in our lives or the economy. (Even if for the supposed benefit of "the people;" TANSTAAFL!) On the other hand, neither is it my intention to limit this site's readership & participation to just dyed-in-the-wool libertarians, Objectivists (which I do not consider myself to be), capitalists, and certainly not just Americans.

So welcome to my blog!