Enlightened Liberty

The Danger of Unenlightened Institutions

2006-02-02T11:13:00.001-08:00

I recall reading an essay by David Loy a few years ago that furthered my distrust of the large corporations that many share a distrust of. Titled A Buddhist Critique of Transnational Corporations, Loy presents a vision of such corporations that may be quite unique to those who aren't used to viewing things from an Eastern or spiritual perspective. I reread this essay not too long ago, resulting in a realization that his critique could actually transcend the transnational corporations (I'll call them TNCs from this point forward) he focuses on and apply to all centralized institutions, especially the State.

When it comes to acknowledging the inherent problems associated with corporations, leftists are on the ball and provide some valid and important criticism, although for some reason they're unable to acknowledge similar problems associated with the State. As Rad Geek pointed out in a post he wrote awhile back, pro-State leftists simply don't see the reality of how government works, partly due to a democratic mysticism that holds agents of the State as being more enlightened than others. Government bureaucrats are just as fallible and corruptible as people in the business world.

Returning to Loy's essay, it is clear that his view of the State isn't entirely clouded by such mysticism since he ackowledges how modern corporations and the State grew up together, like "Siamese twins". He further emphasizes their relationahip with the following:

This incest needs to be emphasized because we tend to forget it. We distinguish between government and the economy, but at their upper levels there is usually little effective distinction between them. Today governments still get their royal share of the booty -- now it's called taxes. On the one side, states today need to promote corporate business because they have become pimps dependent upon that source of revenue; on the other side, transnational corporations thrive on the special laws and arrangements with which states promote their activities.

While Loy goes on to make a very valuable critique of TNCs, I am disappointed that he either failed or chose not to put two and two together and apply his critique to the State as well.

He begins the critique by distinguishing corporations (the word coming from the Latin word corpus or corporis, meaning "body") from living things with material bodies. Despite being different from human beings in this regard, Loy points out the similarities between people and corporations, such as that both happen to be dissipative systems. He then brings Buddhist thought into his analysis by showing how the Buddhist concept of anatman, or "non-self", makes the parallel between corporations and people deeper than it may appear on the surface. With such parallels being acknowledged, it must also be acknowledged that both corporations and people are subject to the same sorts of problems. When it comes to dealing with such problems, Loy reveals the fundamental difference between corporations and people:

The difference is that corporations are legal fictions. Their "body" is a judicial concept -- and that is why they are so dangerous, because without a body they are essentially ungrounded to the earth and it's creatures, to the pleasures and responsibilities that derive from being manifestations of the earth. You may prefer to say that corporations are unable to be spiritual, for they lack a soul; but I think it amounts to the same thing. As the example of Bhopal shows, a corporations is unable to feel sorry for what it has done (it may occasionally apologize, but that is public relations, not sorrow). A corporation cannot laugh or cry; it can't enjoy the world or suffer with it. Most of all, a corporation cannot love. Love is realizing our interconnectedness with others and living our concern for their well-being. Such love is not an emotion but an engagement with others that includes responsibility for them, a responsibility that if genuine transcends our own selfish interests. If that sense of responsibility is not there, the love is not genuine. Corporations cannot experience such love or live according to it, not only because they are immaterial but because of their primary responsibility to the shareholders who own them. A CEO who tries to subordinate his company's profitability to his love of the world will lose his position, for he is not fulfilling that financial responsibility to it's shareholders

My purpose in bringing all of this up is to show that the State is subject to the same analysis. The body of the State is just as fictitious as those of TNCs. The State is unable to laugh, or cry, or love. Heck, the State is even less inclined to apologize for it's actions than TNCs are. The State feels no responsibility to it's subjects (what, did you think that we're not "subjects"?), only to it's own preservation and the preservation of the various special interests that grease it's wheels. As Rad Geek stated, the belief that government is different than corporations due to the whole representative democracy thing is a myth, especially when you consider that bureaucrats are appointed, not elected.

Loy then discredits the notion that there can be such a thing as an "enlightened" corporation, for it it just not possible for a non flesh and blood entity to achieve such a state. Once again, the same conclusion must also apply to the State. No amount of electing "the right people" will change the inherently flawed nature of the State and give it the sense of responsibility that only living beings can have. Loy sums up the dangerous implications of relying on such entities quite well when he states that:

...the destiny of the earth is in the hands of impersonal institutions which, because of the way they are structured, are motivated not by concern for the well-being of the earth's inhabitants but by desire for their own growth and profit.

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about ExxonMobil or Leviathan, it's all the same.

Loy then concludes that:

We cannot solve the problems they create by addressing the conduct of this or that particular corporation; it's the institution that's the problem. I do not see how, given their present structure, we can repair them to make them more compassionate.

I'm afraid that the same prognosis also applies to the State. No amount of reforms, whether it's switching from communism to state capitalism or from state capitalism to social democracy or whatever, will eliminate the fundamental dangers inherent in such concentrations of power that all states wield. Even a supposedly benevolent design for such a centralized beast will ultimately be perverted by the imperfect nature of human beings.

This is an instance where an enlightened spiritual perspective has helped to shed light on the danger of such institutions. The critique of TNCs is undoubtedly easy for leftists to identity with, while applying the same critique to the State makes it relevant to libertarians. Of course, now the two sides need to focus upon the fact that there is more than one type of institution that poses a threat to our freedom and our well-being.

For a thoroughly worthwhile read that focuses more on the State's relevance to such a spiritual critique, I recommend checking out an essay published on Lew Rockwell.com today by Jeff Knaebel. It's called Remembering Gandhi, and he makes reference to the same critique made by David Loy:

We have abdicated our moral sovereignty and outsourced our personal responsibility to corporations and to the State. These are both non-human entities without heart, soul or conscience. They are machines, abstract legal constructs. They cannot feel pain, cannot love, experience empathy, touch the moist grass of this earth with their bare feet, hear a birdsong, or scratch a puppy’s ear. Yet, by operation of sovereign immunity and the corporate veil, their anonymous members can make secret decisions that destroy thousands, millions of lives, and they remain personally unaccountable.

The State has no ears for Nature, it hears not the cries of earth and her creatures; it cannot respond to Nature. It would be wise for us not to forget, in our pride, that man IS nature. The State responds only to the self-interest of its power, and to money. We expect individuals to lead a life of reasonable morality. The State has no morality.

Nonviolence and Freedom

2006-02-02T08:32:00.000-08:00

Some important insights from Chris Matthew Sciabarra on nonviolence.

Suffice it to say, there is an internal relationship between hatred, fear, anger, and suffering, and, often, the transcendence of one brings forth the transcendence of all.
I think what the Kings focused on was not "loving one's enemy" per se, but the practice of a positive alternative in one's opposition to evil. Nonviolent resistance is not equivalent to pacifism. It is not the renunciation of the retaliatory use of force; it entails, instead, the practice of a wide variety of strategies—from boycotts to strikes, which remove all sanctions of one's own victimization. One refuses to be a part of a cycle that replaces one "boss" with another. One repudiates real-world monsters, while not becoming one in the process. For as Nietzsche once said: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
Nonviolence is not a social panacea, and sometimes it is absolutely necessary to use violence in one's response to aggression. But much can be learned about how to topple tyranny from the lessons provided by the theoreticians and practitioners of nonviolent resistance.

To me, anarchism is based on a moral commitment to nonviolence (which is not the same as absolute pacifism). As Whitehead remarks in Adventures of Ideas:

The creation of the world -- said Plato -- is the victory of persuasion over force... Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals...

Now the intercourse between individuals and between social groups takes one of these two forms: force or persuasion. Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion. War, slavery, and governmental compulsion exemplify the reign of force.

The Cost of War

2006-01-24T19:56:00.000-08:00

(Hat tip to Catallarchy)

A new study by Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz pegs an estimate of the total cost of the Iraq war at $2 Trillion. How much is $2 trillion?

"I heard the Bellagio here in Las Vegas was in the 2-3 billion dollar range to build. $2 trillion is enough money to build 600-1000 Bellagios. On a gambling related note, if you bet $1 million on blackjack hands, and it only took 1 minute per hand, and you did it 40 hours per week, and lost EVERY one of the hands, it would take about 16 years to burn through the $2 trillion."

"Imagine if the new Washington MLB team had to play in a unique, brand new stadium for every home game for the next 35 seasons. For 2T, we could cover that."

"You could pay Dr. Evil's ransom 2,000 times."

"Bank of America claims to have 16,000 ATMs. If you visited each BOA ATM and took out $20 each time, you'd have to visit each BOA ATM 6,250,000 times."

"You'll be set with a 40 ouncer of malt liquor and a meal at Taco Bell every day of your life for next 913 million, 726 thousand, 27 years."

"If you made the average US wage in 2004 it would take you a little more than 56,103,263 years to make 2T.
Had you been collecting that amount since the split of the common ancestor between apes and humans, you would be about a tenth of the way there."

"Roughly a year's spending for the federal government. All of it. For one year."

Courtesy Reason Hit and Run.

But the winner comes from Catallarchy: "If I had 2 trillion dollars, I’d do 4 million chicks at the same time. And I think if I had 2 trillion dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money."

Fool Me a Hundred Times, Shame on Who?

2006-01-02T21:08:00.000-08:00

Christian Sandström writes of the important link between poverty and socialism in Africa.

Karmatalism

2005-12-24T11:57:00.000-08:00

Karma is infinitely complex but the basic doctrine is simple: you get what you give. Blessings find the compassionate while the selfish are haunted by misery.

The elemental fairness of karma is illustrated by its appeals to people well outside the realm of Buddhism. There is something about it that just feels right. It is not surprising that karma echoes in the legal system of every nation and the moral code of every religion.

Capitalism is the perfect incarnation of karma in economic form. It has just one simple rule: you must give in order to receive. But the kind of giving matters too. Give services in higher demand or scarcer supply and you will receive greater riches. In this way society provides an incentive for people to produce things that are greatly desired or in short supply.

If you want a new iPod you must give up something, usually a few hours of labor, in exchange for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Capitalism is ridiculed because it is not a kind master. Socialist professors and their disciples decry the unfairness of a system that makes them work for their livelihoods. Their dream of something-for-nothing has no place in a capitalist society.

They desire a release from the demands of karma. They want the result without the sacrifice, the blessings without the work.

The Socialist dream will always remain mist and illusion. Reality does not comply with their demand of something-for-nothing. Everything must be paid for by someone. When they demand something-for-nothing, socialists are really demanding the ability to force someone else to pay for what they consume.

Their mentality is akin to the pickpocket and the slave master. They should beware: whenever people have taken what they desire by force from their fellowmen the gods of karma have not been kind.

Freedom: Political and Psychological

2005-10-05T06:29:00.000-07:00

James Leroy Wilson over at Independent Country has an interesting post on the connection between psychological and political freedom. A sample:

But if a soul can be crushed by the State, it could just as easily be crushed by something else; if the State doesn't impose the obstacle, something else will. Getting rid of the State will not get rid of peer pressure, religious guilt, manipulative spouses, dishonest bosses, or other problems in life. Some people overcome these obstacles to live a full, contented life. Others do not. And those who do not, will never really be "free" no matter how much taxes are cut or how many laws are repealed.Freedom is about overcoming. Not overcoming the external forces, but overcoming the negative thoughts in our own minds.

The goal of Buddhist practice, as I see it, is to achieve a kind of freedom, fulfilment, and peace that is not dependent on external or internal forces. Thus enlightenment is the freedom that comes from the cultivation and expression of wisdom and compassion. Removing the State or any external obstacle will not be sufficient. Even a just society will still be in samsara so long as we are in bondage to greed, hatred, and ignorance.

Sick

2005-09-05T19:37:00.000-07:00

Two newlyweds get arrested for having meth. While awaiting trial they receive treatment and counseling, enabling them to kick the habit. They are very greatful. They are still sentenced to life in prison.

Cases like this are a powerful argument for the "treatment instead of prison" crowd. In this case it would have saved two people their lives and taxpayers about a million dollars in incarceration costs.

The War on Drugs makes me sick.

Ahimsa and Non-Aggression (Part 2)

2005-09-01T16:49:00.000-07:00

In my last post I gave a little background on the Buddhist (and Hindu and Jain) virtue of ahimsa, or non-injury. The vast majority of “socially engaged” Buddhists are committed to the politics of non-violence and I suspect the majority are pacifists of one sort or another. (Though it should be noted that Buddhism on the whole is not a strict pacifist tradition.) And yet, many engaged Buddhists, especially in the West, assume that the statist Left (statist greens, social democrats, welfare-state liberals, state socialists) is both compatible with the commitment to ahimsa and expresses the greatest political compassion (karuna). (If you think “political compassion” is an oxymoron, you’re certainly on your way to becoming a libertarian!)

There is nothing about Buddhism in particular that makes people more likely to be statists—indeed, I suspect the reverse is closer to the truth. Rather engaged Buddhism reflects the overall statism of our society, and given that most Western converts to Buddhism come from the educated middle-class counterculture (from the Beats to the present) it isn’t surprising that socially engaged Buddhist politics and ethics looks a lot like post-60’s leftism in general. So it’s not that most lefty Buddhists are Stalinists or New Class Democratic Party apparatchiks. Rather, I suspect that they lack a coherent theory and critique of the state. (Indeed, as I’ve written about at length elsewhere, engaged Buddhism is badly in need of sophisticated social theory in general.) Engaged Buddhists are often astute at seeing other forms of oppression and environmental destruction, but often, it seems to me, miss the pervasive oppression of statism. As Mises reminds us in Human Action:

It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

If one is to be committed to ahimsa, one must learn to see the pervasive (if democratically directed) violence, coercion, and fraud that is the exercise of state power. The problem, then, is not that Buddhists are committed to aggression, but rather that much engaged Buddhist thinking fails to see one of the most important and pervasive forms of aggression: state power.

The subtitle of this blog is “where two philosophies of peace meet.” Yet I suspect that most engaged Buddhists would not think of libertarianism (of whatever flavor) as being a philosophy of peace. Hence I think it’s important to highlight the non-aggression principle in this context. According to the non-aggression principle it is morally wrong to initiate force or fraud against another person or persons. Thus libertarians are committed to abstaining from causing invasive harm to others. This makes them natural allies of Buddhists in many respects. But it would be wrong for libertarians to assume that the non-aggression principle by itself automatically yields standard libertarianism. The non-aggression principle goes a long way toward protecting people from the non-consensual imposition of bodily harm, but without a conception of rights both over oneself and over at least some kinds of worldly items (artifacts and natural resources) the principle will be very indeterminate. Buddhism can’t—and, I think, shouldn’t—try to settle these matters. But I think what can be said is that libertarianism in the broad sense (including libertarian socialists, mutualists, geoists, mainstreamers, and anarcho-capitalists) is consistent with both the letter (such as it is) and the spirit of Buddhism. Thus, perhaps the best we Buddhist libertarians can do is point out again and again that statist solutions are for the most part solutions based on aggression and injury, not ahimsa and karuna. (By the way mary Ruwart’s Healing Our World is good on this score and probably would be well received by many engaged Buddhists.)

Ahimsa and Non-Agression (Part 1)

2005-08-24T12:35:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Jacob for setting up a group blog based on two movements that have profoundly shaped my life and thinking. I’m much newer to libertarian thought than to Buddhism and I really haven’t had the opportunity to think through the connections and points of tension. So, I’m looking forward to thinking through these things in a group setting.

(NB: I’m using the “Buddhism” in a broad sense to refer to what I take to be widely shared Buddhist values, insights, and concerns. Buddhism is, of course, internally extremely diverse, so take generalizations with a few grains of salt.)

When thinking about the connections between Buddhism and libertarianism, the first thing that comes up for me is the shared commitment to refraining from harm to others. In the Buddhist tradition, this commitment is expressed through the practice and cultivation of the virtue of ahimsa—literally “non-injury” or “non-harm.” Ahimsa really has its roots in Jainism, but was taken up in different ways by both the Buddhist and the Hindu traditions. In Jainism the full practice of ahimsa is taken to entail absolute pacifism and a strong commitment not to harm any living thing (including insects, etc.). However, the strength and scope of ahimsa are not as great in Buddhism or Hinduism (and that is not a criticism—I think the Jain position is philosophically untenable).

In Buddhism, the practice of ahimsa entails an attempt to avoid or minimize harming others (often including non-human sentient beings) or oneself through body, speech, or mind. Thus ahimsa is definitely both a self-regarding and an other-regarding virtue. In the Yoga tradition, ahimsa is considered to first virtue, that without which no spiritual progress can be made. Of course, in all the Indian traditions (and Buddhism outside India) virtue is taken to be a matter of degree, rather than an all-or-nothing quality.

So, in Buddhism one of the absolutely central ethical teachings is to refrain, insofar as possible, from harming others. And clearly this includes using coercion or the threat of coercion against non-harmful others. And further, since in Buddhism ends and means must be consistent, it is not morally acceptable (generally speaking) to harm others in the promotion of otherwise good ends. Indeed, in some ways we can see Buddhism as being centrally about the cultivation of wisdom (prajna) and compassion (karuna). Yet, the point is not simply to promote those values—that is, to make sure, by any means necessary, that the world contains to greatest amount of both wisdom and compassion—but rather to exemplify and cultivate wisdom and compassion in one’s own life. Thus even if using harm against peaceful others would have good consequences, it would still be immoral from a Buddhist perspective because the harmful action would exemplify himsa (injury) rather than a-himsa (non-injury).

Furthermore, when it comes to Tantric traditions (such as Tibetan Buddhism and Japanese Shingon) there is a strong emphasis on a plurality of paths to enlightenment. One is to work with one's own particular dispositions, history, temperament, etc. (basically, one's karma) in order develop a particular practice. And since ultimately one's liberation is one's own responsibility--another person can't enlighten you any more than he or she can be creative for you--ahimsa is taken to entail a broader tolerance toward a diversity of spiritual paths.

What I think most “socially engaged” Buddhists fail to see is that government action always entails the use or threat of force against one’s fellow human beings and is therefore himsa, not ahimsa. The state, then, is that institution that claims a monopoly on the “legitimate” use of himsa within a given territory. As practitioners of ahimsa, then, Buddhists should be extremely skeptical of the state.

Thou Shalt Not

2005-08-23T17:21:00.000-07:00

The Christian faith is full of wisdom for one who has the patience to listen to its teachings. Said the Christ:

"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

The clear, peaceful teachings of the Christ make the warmongering cries of those that raise his banner even harder to stomach. Mr. Pat Robertson, how can you say you are the spokesman of Christ? How does your speech follow his teachings? How can you stand in front of admiring crowds and read to them the words of Jesus above, when you advocate the execution of Hugo Chavez, saying:

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it...It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

Free Trade vs. Forced Charity

2005-08-21T08:02:00.000-07:00

Tyler Cowen writes:

Total tsunami foreign aid from the U.S.: $908 million

U.S. tariff revenue from Sri Lanka, Thailand, India, and Indonesia: $1.87 billion

That is from Foreign Policy, September/October issue.

Which is true compassion, allowing people to trade freely or "gifts" of foreign aid? Let's examine two states of the world, one in which the US allows Southeast Asian countries to trade without tariffs but does not give foreign aid and the current state of the world.

No-tariffs, no aid:

Winners: US taxpayers, US consumers, foreign business owners and wage earners.

Losers: US government, foreign governments

Tariffs with Foreign Aid:

Winners: US government and friends, foreign governments and friends.

Losers: US taxpayers, US consumers, foreign business owners and wage earners.

If the policy is made by the US government you know the little guy has to get screwed.

Decentralize for Peace

2005-08-21T07:27:00.000-07:00

The United States military is a ferocious beast. It has a budget of $441 billion each year, as much as the rest of the world combined, greater than the entire annual income of all but 15 countries.

Such a mighty force is not meant for defense. It is meant for eternal war.

There cannot be peace where such a beast exists. Many deluded people think that if we change who is in control then we can modify the beast's behavior. However the power to crush any other armed force in the world is a temptation that few men can resist.

The only way to eliminate the beast is to take away its sustenance. It dines upon the world's largest tax base and takes a firmly entrenched part of the US government's annual budget. If the United States were fragmented into smaller units, the taxing power of the US government would die and with it would go the great beast of war.

Centralization is the problem. The larger a share of global income that a government is allowed to tax, the more pressure it has to engage in bully tactics to achieve its foreign policy aims. Decentralization is the answer. Splitting the world's income among the nations in smaller slices criples any one country's ability to make war.

I'd rather see boys hitting each other with sticks than adults shooting each other with guns. The decentralization solution is analogous.

If supposed bastions of opposition to the current administration such as California, Massachusets, New York, and New Jersey left the union, that would take away %27 of the US government's ability to make war. If anti-war citizens want to make a real difference they can simply stop paying for causes they do not believe in.

There is another solution: eliminate the agressive instincts of mankind. This has been the position advocated by utopians such as the Marxists.

Libertarians, working with the world as it is and not as they wish it were, do not allow themselves such fanciful solutions.

A Meditation

2005-08-10T16:15:00.000-07:00

My life is filled with activity. During the week I wake up before the sunrise. The pleasure of welcoming the light into the world each day only partially compensates for the weariness left in my body by too little sleep. I then drive to work where I remain for nine hours or so. In the early evening I return home. I exercise for an hour, make dinner, read or write, and then go to bed.

On the weekends I am trying to start a business. Recently telemarketers have called me on my cell phone to offer me small business products. This is a bittersweet sign. I resent the invasion of my time and my voicemail, but I believe this means my business license has been approved, as the process involves the public listing of my contact information.

Amidst this storm of activity, it is easy to lose sight of myself and my purpose. Therefore, every now and then I find it necessary to pause. I last did so a week and a half ago.

I meditate. I let my consciousness dwindle down to a single point, focused solely on my breath. I forget my worries about the future and my embarrassments about the past. I let go.

I am. Simply. I exist only in the present moment. No more, no less.

In this moment of pause, this bardo, I become peace. I slowly widen my consciousness to embrace my surroundings with peace in my heart. My mind is filled with truth and light.

As my eyelids drift apart, I find myself in a small, chic coffee shop on Atlanta’s chic west side. Chic art hangs upon the chic brick walls of the converted warehouse (a chic thing to do). A man, who I have seen before, sits to my left staring at his laptop computer. I wonder what he is reading, and if he recognizes me. Behind me and to my right I hear the sound of two young ladies in a discussion about life, religion, and truth. I think they will fare well in this world; they know the right questions to ask. A few other patrons sit in front of computers, scattered around the seating area. I wonder what sort of persons they are. I wonder what they care about, if they have families, and what they are doing with their lives.

I cradle a warm mug of tea in both my hands. My eyes come to rest upon it. Slowly, I take a sip. I let the hot liquid sit on my tongue as I contemplate its flavors. With the beverage still in my mouth, my sight falls on the moistened bags of herbs from which the tea was produced. They sit upon a saucer on the arm of my chair.

Now that I have taken a sip, the herbs in those tea bags and I have become one. They are distinct from me, and I from them. I can see them sitting eight inches from my right arm. However, through the intermediate medium of hot water we have become interconnected in a real way. I have tasted of their essence.

My awareness lifs itself away from the tea, now coming to rest once again on my fellow patrons. We, too, are interconnected, like the tea bags and I. We do not have an connecting medium of water, but of air, light, and sounds. Through our senses we take the essence of others to be part of our experience and thus part of our lives, our very selves.

To them I am a young man sitting on the couch, meditating, reading, and drinking a cup of tea. To me, they are two young ladies pondering the meaning of the universe, men typing at their computers, and friends completing a homework assignment together. Each of us has touched the others’ world. We are interconnected in a very real way.

The whole of human society is a giant cup of tea from which we all drink. Each of us will become part of a countless number of people.

Earlier, I had been reading about the concept of interconnectedness in Thich Nhat Hanh's book "Anger". I did not understand his teaching and put the book down, puzzled. I only reached an understanding of interconnectedness when I experienced it directly. My meditation opened the way to insight.

With that, a spirit of peace came over me. That spirit would last for the rest of the night, eventually carrying me off into a gentle rest.

Beginner's Buddhism

2005-08-09T17:17:00.000-07:00

Anonymous asked in a comment to my "Dharma and Freedom" post:

"...could you provide some links pertaining to Buddhism that one could learn more about the religion from? Maybe a primer to Buddhism type post?..."

This is a question that I hear a lot. I have written a short note addressing this very question, which you can access at my blog:
http://zenwind.blogspot.com

I thought that, rather than take up a lot of space here and rather than burying it in the comments section, I would post the blog link instead. If anyone else has additional suggestions on intros to Buddhism, I know that I would welcome them, for I have so much to learn yet.

-Zenwind.

Follow Up

2005-08-06T22:48:00.000-07:00

Yesterday (August 6th) was the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.

Ralph Raico revisits the tragedy, arguing against the official government interpretation with clear moral reasoning and cold hard facts.

The Guardian shows that the atrocity at Hiroshima was but one of many.

Lawrence Wittner ponders the future of nuclear weapons.

Dharma and Freedom

2005-08-05T08:20:00.000-07:00

Thanks, Jacob, for inviting me to share my thoughts on Enlightened Liberty. I have considered myself to be both a Buddhist and a libertarian for over three decades, so I know that this unconventional mix can indeed work within an individual’s psyche.

Yet, for most of those three decades, I knew of no one else with anything remotely similar to this type of perspective. The internet is so wonderful because it can connect people with common bonds. Thus, I run into you guys.

I have always known many Buddhists who scorn the making of money, who distrust any unhampered free market activity among consenting adults or who disdain libertarian defenses of extreme life-style choices and personal liberty. Many often gravitate toward fascism or other brands of socialism, seduced by an image of a benevolent state (Big Mommy). They imagine that government officials will become benign rulers like the Buddha’s friend, King Bimbisara. Dream on. I think that Lord Acton’s axiom – "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" – fits very well within the Buddha’s teachings.

I have also always known many libertarians (especially in the post-Objectivist circles I traveled in) who loathe Buddhism because they do not understand it and deem it "mystical," negativist, anti-life, irrational, and other such nonsense. The libertarian movement today also has some pathetic wannabe side-kicks who are more truly social conservatives who pick out a couple of libertarian issues they agree with (mostly involving economics) but reject social freedoms for individuals. Many of these conservatives are fundamentalist Christians who think Buddhists are idol worshipers.

Libertarian ideas fit Buddhism well because they promote peace and prosperity to a vastly higher degree than any other social order. People trampled by war, oppressed by the welfare/warfare state and crushed by poverty certainly can benefit from hearing the Dharma, but people living at ease in a peaceful environment and in a high standard of living will be more able to cultivate it within their lives. Notice the increasingly high interest in Buddhism today in the relatively free and capitalist West.

Anti-libertarian systems (e.g., socialism in its various forms, conservativism, etc.) obstruct the Dharma, because, by establishing authoritative control over various spheres of an individual’s life, the state suffocates the growth of self-responsibility -- that self-control needed to aspire upward on a spiritual path.

-Zenwind.

Some enlightened thoughts about liberty and government

2005-08-03T14:24:00.000-07:00

Hello to all of the Enlightened Liberty readers out there.

I'd like to thank Jacob for inviting me to hop aboard this blog for the time being to share my thoughts on libertarianism as it relates to Buddhist thought. This blog is a great idea and a synthesis of such similar philosophies seems long overdue to me.

My first contribution may not directly relate to Buddhism, although it should be easy for y'all to see it's relevance nonetheless. Though not a Buddhist, Mohandas Gandhi and his life philosophy share much in common with those who take the teachings of Buddha to heart. While many people seem to think that Gandhi was a socialist of the statist variety, there is a website out there that provides words of wisdom of Gandhi that seem to challenge that notion. The site is called What Would Gandhi Do?, and it's main page contains quotes dealing with many different topics.

Here are a few of his comments worth noting from the section called "Gandhi on Freedom":

No action which is not voluntary can be called moral.

Any action that is dictated by fear or by coercion of any kind ceases to be moral

Freedom of the individual is at the root of all progress.

Then there's a section called "Gandhi on Government". I'll just go right ahead and paste the entire section here since it is full of good insight.

Government control gives rise to fraud, suppression of Truth, intensification of the black market and artificial scarcity. Above all, it unmans the people and deprives them of initiative, it undoes the teaching of self-help...I look upon an increase in the power of the State with the greatest fear because, although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which lies at the heart of all progress...Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest....We find the general work of mankind is being carried on from day to day be the mass of people acting as if by instinct....If they were instinctively violent the world would end in no time...It is when the mass mind is unnaturally influenced by wicked men that the mass of mankind commit violence. But they forget it as they commit it because they return to their peaceful nature immediately the evil influence of the directing mind has been removed....A government that is evil has no room for good men and women except in its prisons.

Some interesting stuff to digest, especially if you thought that someone like Gandhi would have praised the modern welfare state.

Jacob vs. The Government, Round II

2005-08-02T06:59:00.000-07:00

Being out in the real world for the first time I am directly exposed to harm caused by government. My antipathy towards political power has evolved from a theoretical construct to personal experience. I am witnessing how government often provides a tripping foot but seldom a helping hand.

I had another tangle with City Hall yesterday. I got up at 7 AM and waded my way through Atlanta traffic in hopes of getting a license to do business.

Walking across the marble floor of City Hall, I wondered how much tax money was spent on the spectacular building. The elevator also had a marble floor, trimmed with shiny brass. As the door slid shut, I turned arround and saw a sign that read, "The City of Atlanta, committed to serving YOU."

It was during normal business hours, so the line in the licensing office was short. I filled out the license application form and handed it to the receptionist. "You need to get zoning to sign off on this.", she said and directed me to the zoning office.

I wondered why a man needed to get permission to do business in his own home.

Behind the desks in the zoning office sat grocery carts filled with paper work. Looking at the thick, three-foot long rolls of triplicate forms I was simultaneously happy that I wasn't one of the poor schmucks applying for a building license and filled with pity for those who were.

My adventure in line-waiting ended up being a waste of time. I live across the city line, so I have to go to another City Hall on Thursday and reapply.

There was another guy in line who had it worse than me. He simply wanted permission to build two buildings for himself; he didn't want to sell anything at all. But the city still wanted him to get a business license. He had to sit through all the lines and fill out all the same paperwork that I did simply for permission to use his own land.

I moved in to a new apartment on Saturday. One of my roomates was a day late returning from a weekend trip to a music festival in Asheville, NC. The reason? He was in prison.

While at a music festival he and his friends were caught doing drugs by undercover police officers. They were hauled away in a paddy wagon filled with other non-violent offenders and kept for the weekend in a prison cell. Now he faces hefty penalties, including jail time, unless his attourney can work some legal magic. If he does go to jail he'll certainly lose his job.

More than 80% of drug offenders in the North Carolina penal system were arrested for simple possession.

I wondered why the penalties for drug use should be more harmful than the drugs themselves.

I interviewed at Bear Sterns today for a position providing sales support to their highest volume fixed-income broker. The woman interviewing me mentioned how hard new laws and regulations have made it for them to do business. In her words, the brokerage business "is a lot less fun than it used to be".

For example, the SEC is now limiting the number of accounts a single person is allowed to day-trade on the stock market. Bear Sterns' day-traders will either have to quit their jobs or stop trading their own personal accounts. Their livelihoods have been severely affected, a hidden cost of SEC regulation.

New brokers joining Bear Sterns have to hand over much more information about their clients than they used to, including copies of their driver's licenses. All of the information the brokers collect is carefully scrutinized by the government. Customers, mostly older individuals who are used to having things done their way, are understandably upset.

A Georgia accent, heretofore dormant, suddenly manifested itself in my interviewer, "Big Brotha is heeya", she said.

Most of these new rules come from the infamous Sarbanes-Oxley act. The cost of being a public company rose 45% from 2003 to 2004 for companies with revenue over $1 billion a year as a result of the phase in of Sarbanes-Oxley regulations.

The Buddha taught people about conditioned arrising, a long chain of casuality that shows all suffering is eventually caused by ignorance. In the democratic process, the ignorance and fear of the populace is exploited for political ends.

Following the genuine crimes of the executives at Enron, politicians found out that being "tough on white-collar crime" was good for winning votes. Thus they passed laws that punished thousands of innocent financial workers. In the process, they won praise from media pundits and scored points with constituents ignorant of the financial world.

Citizens, miseducated in government schools from an early age, overestimate the harm and severity of drug use. When a politician promises to levy insanely disproportional penalties on drug offenders they win votes and acclaim. Thus prisons are filled with non-violent "criminals".

7.5% of Georgia's adult population is supervised by the penal system.

And lastly, ignorance of the workings of the free market causes city authorities and residents to think licenses and careful supervision of firms is necessary. They do not see the true cost of the mountains of red tape: businesses not opened, jobs not created, and value not added. Opportunity costs are ignored.

Ignorance lies at the heart of the government beast.

New Author

2005-08-01T04:43:00.000-07:00

I'd like to welcome Freeman, our first co-blogger.

Markets Protect Consumers...

2005-07-28T14:01:00.000-07:00

...even black markets. Putting a giant gaping hole in the "drug money funds terrorism" theory of the National Ad Council, drug lords in Columbia turned down an offer from Osama bin Laden to buy millions of dollars of cocaine with the intent to poison it and sell it to the US. The coke dealers realized that doing so would destroy their market as consumers lost confidence in the quality of cocaine.

If even cocaine dealers work to protect their customers, why again do "consumer rights" advocates insist that we need thousands of pages of federal regulations to keep consumers safe?

Jacob vs. The Government

2005-07-27T19:48:00.000-07:00

I was standing in a line in the business licensing office at City Hall today. The guy in front of me had it really rough. He had paid for a license to sell alcohol back in November but the city hadn’t given him his permit yet. He had called the lady in charge of liquor licenses numerous times and at various times of the day but kept getting her voice mail. He asked if she were in, the man behind the counter replied that she was at lunch. It was 2:30 PM.

In the meantime, cops had issued him several tickets for not having a license.

“It’s the lack of a profit motive”, I said, “They have no incentive to serve their customers.”

As he stormed out of the office he muttered “Good luck” to the rest of us standing in line.

I wondered why a businessman should need a permit at all.

I thought it would be a great idea to sell flowers on the street in downtown Atlanta. At lunchtime and rush hour the area called “five points” is booming. People are everywhere. If I could sell 10 flowers an hour I’d be making profit at a rate of $20/hr, which would be a pretty decent living.

I think I can sell a lot more than 10 flowers in an hour.

I found out from the internet that I need a “public vendor” license in order to be able to sell items on city streets. Undaunted, I went down to City Hall to obtain one. The person sitting behind the desk in the permits and licensing office told me that they were no longer issuing public vendor licenses while the ordinance is being rewritten.

In short: you can't open a business without a license and they aren't giving out any licenses.

City Hall expects that the City Council will finish rewriting the ordinance by late August or so, but there’s no guarantee. They’ll finish rewriting it when they finish rewriting it. After all, they aren’t in business to earn a profit. Whether or not they serve their customers, they still get their customers’ money through various taxes.

I'd be willing to bet that a rich man looking to rent out a few floors in a skyscraper wouldn't be given such a runaround. Too often "pro-business" means pro-BIG business. If the city government wanted to help the economy of Atlanta then they should be enabling small business, not obstructing it.

The City Council is also mulling a ban on panhandling. I wonder if they're working on a 10-step plan to put more people on public welfare.

I applied for my first credit card. My bank approved me for a credit line of $2500. I make about $15,000 a year waiting tables; I am budgeted down to my last dollar. When an unfortunate event occurs, such as my car breaking, it hits me hard. I might not have the money necessary to pay for it at all, even though I have a stream of income to borrow against. A credit card would help me get past the difficulty and amortize the cost over several months.

The fraud department at the card issuing company called me a few days ago. They can’t send my card to my new address because of a federal regulation. Despite the fact that I am able to give them my Social Security number, my mother’s maiden name, and the name of all the other credit cards I’ve ever applied for, they still can’t send the credit card to the address I asked them to without some proof of residence. As I am not the primary leaseholder at my new apartment, I have no proof of residence to give them.

Fortunately, they can send it to my parents’ house because they have a record of my residence there. My parents will in turn ship it to me. I only hope nothing bad happens to me or my car in the meantime while I’m waiting for the card to travel its roundabout route.

Thank you, federal government, for protecting me. From…um…something I’m sure.

Recruiting

2005-07-25T11:38:00.000-07:00

I would love to have a few more Buddhist/Libertarian writers to go in on a group blog with me. Check out my posts on the connection between libertarianism and Buddhism, a Buddhist view of forgiveness, and blind patriotism to get a feel for what I'm looking for.

Peace.

Rooting for the Home Team

2005-07-25T10:43:00.000-07:00

When people judge the actions of the men who run their country’s government they use a different moral standard than they use for the rest of humanity. In America, the actions of men who work under the red, white, and blue banner are allowed to bypass the moral filter that each citizen developed in childhood.

This is very dangerous. There have been many horrible acts in human history that should never be repeated. However, if we fail to apply the moral lessons learned from history to our own government then we allow long dead horrors to resurface in the world- even as we scream with indignation at the smallest human rights abuses occurring in other countries.

This phenomenon does not occur entirely by chance. It is to the government’s benefit to operate outside of moral constraints. This allows them to use whatever means necessary to further their own ends.

Government exploits the senses of nationalism and patriotism to persuade an unwitting populace to blindly follow its direction. For example, there are few people that are capable of killing a fellow human being without remorse. However, there are many who are able to kill “the enemy” without losing sleep at night. A campaign of dehumanization, often accomplished through the careful use of euphemistic labels (such as “terrorist”), is a universal precursor to a government’s war. Otherwise it could never recruit hundreds of thousands of willing killers to its cause.

At the same time the government works to dehumanize its enemies it conducts a campaign of superhumanization for itself. The American government trumpets:

“I am the embodiment of Jefferson, Washington, and Madison! I am the spirit and essence of freedom incarnate! Whatever I do, I do for freedom. When I take your civil rights, I do it for greater freedom in the future. When I occupy third world countries and slaughter their defenseless citizens, I do it for freedom. When I enslave Americans’ descendants to mountains of debt, I do it for freedom.”

In America the sense of patriotism is particularly strong. Many Americans view their country’s history as a blameless, shining example of what a country should be. Each life sacrificed in America’s wars, willingly or otherwise, was a life sacrificed for lady liberty. After all, does not she herself stand on America’s shoreline, holding a torch aloft to illuminate this noble land of liberty as an example for others?

Never do most Americans think the truth: that the men who run their government have always been normal men: selfish, short-sighted, and flawed. The same actions decried as “despicable” when committed by foreigners are championed as “heroic” when done by US government agents.

I recently got into an argument because I condemned the actions of Harry Truman. As President of the United States, Harry Truman ordered the deployment of two atomic bombs on civilian targets. Thousands of men, women, and children were incinerated instantly, turned into organic ash where they stood. They were the lucky ones. Thousands more suffered slow deaths at the hands of radiation poisoning.

My view is the direct opposite of what they teach in government run schools. They teach that Truman’s action was a heroic choice that saved many American lives. With a similar line of reasoning, a friend of mine argued that the massacre of civilians during war may be justified if the reward is high enough. He hesitated to make a judgment in the particular case of Harry Truman’s wartime actions. According to him, the good of saving American troops at least partially offset the evil of incinerating Japanese homes and families, making it a morally nuanced situation.

Other men have used logic similar to Truman’s supporters to justify attacking civilian targets. However, I don’t think my American friends would hesitate to condemn their actions because they don’t bat for the home team.

For example, the name “Osama bin Laden” has taken its place among Hitler and Satan in the pantheon of evil. The reason? He thinks the freedom of the Arab world from Western imperial influences is important enough to sacrifice civilian lives. We might call him the Harry Truman of the Middle East.

As most Americans condemn bin Laden for putting civilians in harm’s way, so too do I condemn Truman. If bin Laden is a “terrorist”, then so is Truman. In fact, Truman’s actions are more indefensible because eventual victory was available through conventional military means. For bin Laden, direct military action, against the most feared armed force in all of history, is out of the question.

Some people might wonder why I harp on a long-gone episode in American history. It's because we still have yet to give that episode the proper moral judgement. Americans have not yet looked at Truman's holocaust and said "Never again!", the way we have at the massacres caused by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Saddam. Americans will not permit the suffering of the innocent except when it is caused by our own government.

We Americans have a perverse and dangerous view of our place in the world. Until we realize that our civilians are not worth more than other countries' civilians and that our leaders do not operate within a sacred halo that allows them to turn ugly sins into holy acts, America will continue to be a source of great global suffering.

Personal Note

2005-07-24T11:36:00.000-07:00

Every time I have to do business with City Hall, I become more of an anarchist.

Truman's Holocaust

2005-07-21T16:19:00.000-07:00

An interesting interview with a scientist that opposed Truman's holocaust:

Q: Would most other nations, including Russia, have done the same thing we did, confronted with the same opportunity to use the bomb?

A: Look, answering this question would be pure speculation. I can say this, however: By and large, governments are guided by considerations of expediency rather than by moral considerations. And this, I think, is a universal law of how governments act.

Prior to the war I had the illusion that up to a point the American Government was different. This illusion was gone after Hiroshima.

Perhaps you remember that in 1939 President Roosevelt warned the belligerents against using bombs against the inhabited cities, and this I thought was perfectly fitting and natural.

Then, during the war, without any explanation, we began to use incendiary bombs against the cities of Japan. This was disturbing to me and it was disturbing many of my friends.

Q: Was that the end of the illusion?

A Yes, this was the end of the illusion. But, you see, there was still a difference between using incendiary bombs and using the new force of nature for purposes of destruction. There was still a further step taken here - atomic energy was something new.

I thought it would be very bad to set a precedent for using atomic energy for purposes of destruction. And I think that having done so we have greatly affected the postwar history.

Q: Would a United States Government today, confronted with the same set of choices and approximately the same degree of military intelligence, reach a different decision as to using the first A-bomb?

A: I think it depends on the person of the President. Truman did not understand what was involved. You can see that from the language he used. Truman announced the bombing of Hiroshima while he was at sea coming back from Potsdam, and his announcement contained the phrase - I quote from the New York "Times" of August 7, 1945: "We have spent 2 billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history - and won."

To put the atomic bomb in terms of having gambled 2 billion dollars and having "won" offended my sense of proportions, and I concluded at that time that Truman did not understand at all what was involved.

London Fallout

2005-07-09T21:14:00.000-07:00

I agree.

To Forgive

2005-07-09T14:41:00.000-07:00

There’s a rock band that has a song entitled “To Forgive is to Suffer”. I think many people share this view of forgiveness. They view it as an act of generosity, accepting harm to one’s self to bestow a gift upon the offender.

But that is not true. When we forgive, we do not do it for the other person alone. We also do it for ourselves. Forgiveness allows us to let go of our anger and to live peacefully.

Anger is a destructive and painful emotion. In Buddhism, it is considered one of the “three poisons”. When someone hurts us, our anger ignites like a flame. If we stay angry, the flame burns higher and higher. It can color our world and haunt moments that should be joyful with negative emotions. Also, keeping the fire burning inside us makes us much more likely to react with anger in other situations.

Sometimes we think that by making the other person suffer, we will relieve our own suffering. This is an ignorant and dangerous point of view. When we strike back at a person out of anger, we cause anger to arise also in him. The fire is spread to more people, growing hotter and causing greater suffering. Anger can very quickly become self-perpetuating.

True forgiveness is like a bucket of cool water. It ceases the suffering caused by a thoughtless act and begins the process of healing. However, more than a decision to forgive is necessary if we are to pursue this course. True forgiveness takes practice and skill.

The first step in forgiveness is to summon a calm heart. When we are hurt, we cannot make good decisions. Our breath is uncontrolled, our eyes water, and our view of the world is severely distorted. The information received by our brains is tainted by our powerful emotions. If we act in this state, it is likely that we will act out of anger and pain.

Breathing meditation can help us reach a state of calm. The breath is the key to the soul. By taking control of our breath we can also seize control of our wild, racing thoughts and emotions. When you are upset, breathe slowly and carefully. I like to use the following mantra when I do this:

Breathing in I recognize my anger
Breathing out I release my anger

This mantra is very powerful and versatile. I have also used it to calm nervousness and fear. Notice the language used. “Release” is a non-confrontational verb. If we view our effort to get rid of our anger as a war or struggle, then it is likely that we will become angry at ourselves if we fail at first. That doesn’t help anything!

Although we have now reached a state of calm, we are not ready to forgive. Someone has committed a hurtful act, and although we are not allowing that knowledge to effect us emotionally, the seed of anger is still sitting in our mind, ready to burst out at another moment.

True forgiveness comes from understanding. Once we understand the person who is hurting us, we can find a reason for releasing any desire we might have to be angry with him.

The next step involves meditating deeply on the other person and trying to understand their actions. When we are angry, we suffer. When another person behaves violently towards us or insults us, he is also suffering. Understanding his suffering is the key to releasing our anger permanently.

As an example, when I think of murderers, rapists, and other violent people, I know that they are very selfish people with a narrow view of life. I know that they can never enjoy the finer things in life, such as loving human relationships. Their selfishness and anger will prevent this. They will hate their families, hate their work, and despise their “friends” when they are not all drunk together. They seek happiness by hurting other people, but they only fall deeper and deeper into misery. I do not feel anger towards such people, but pity. If I could do one thing to such people, I would not want to punish them or hurt them. Instead I would change their hearts so that they could see the great suffering they were causing in themselves and others. Then they could learn to act with compassion towards their fellow beings.

I don’t think that anyone would want to experience the life of Hitler. He was a man driven by anger and a lust for power. He despised other human beings. He must have suffered greatly. He could never find the joy that comes from recognizing the great beauty found in all mankind. Any friends he had must have loved his power and not his being. Given the choice, I would rather experience the life of one of Hitler’s victims than of Hitler himself. At least then I would be able to enjoy the beauty inside of me, even in the darkest situations. Hitler’s victims still had the opportunity to have found some joy in their too-short lives. Hitler did not have that luxury.

In the more mundane and common situations, a friend of us might cause us pain through a thoughtless action. The important thing to remember is that she is still the same wonderful person that you became friends with. When we bring to mind her good qualities, we will realize that her happiness and our happiness is much more important than holding onto our righteous anger. The best way to ensure your happiness is to forgive and continue enjoying the wonderful presence of your friend.

If we have already reacted with anger towards a friend that has harmed us, it can be very difficult to take the first step. We must swallow our pride. They did the original wrong, but we have made the situation must more difficult. The first thing we should do is apologize to them for our wrongly-directed anger.

I had a friend that hurt me. I did not speak to him for several years. I condemned him. However, he was a very good person outside of those few moments when he hurt me, and he did not deserve the condemnation I gave him. I wrote something similar to this to him:

“I am sorry. I was very wrong to be so angry with you. You hurt me, but you are still a wonderful person and a great friend. I should have never harmed our friendship. Please forgive me for acting so harshly.”

I did not suffer from doing this. Instead, I am very happy.

When you are capable of doing that, you have become a holy person. You are making small miracles happen in your relationships. You are very powerful.

Your friend might still be angry with you. She may react to your peaceful words with angry words. You have been thinking about reconciling with her for some time, but she has not had the same length of time to think about it. This can be hard to endure, especially if she caused the original harm. To reconcile with a person that you have already been angry with takes more than a bucket full of peace, it takes an ocean. You will have to be prepared. You will have to meditate. You will have to breathe mindfully. You must become an ocean of peace. Only then can you overcome the great raging fire that you have built.

I will end with a koan that my roommate Robbie (a very peaceful man) once told me.

There was once a famous monk and Zen master that practiced in a monastery in feudal Japan. One day, he was summoned by a great general.

“I send many of my enemies to the afterlife in every battle, yet I am ignorant of it. Tell me, monk: do you know the nature of heaven and hell?” said the general.

“Yes”, replied the monk.

“Describe to me what they are like”, said the general.

“You are too ignorant to comprehend it”, said the monk.

At that, the great general became very angry. His nostrils flared and his face turned red. He unsheathed his sword and prepared to execute the monk on the spot.

“Impudent monk! I am going to kill you!” screamed the general.

“Stop!” said the monk. “That is hell.”

The general paused for a moment, dumbfounded. He dropped his sword and fell to his knees, covering his face with his hands.

“I am sorry, monk. You are a truly wise teacher. Can you forgive me for the awful act I almost committed?” said the general.

“And that is heaven”, said the monk.

My Hero

2005-07-07T06:53:00.000-07:00

Never get into an argument with Radley Balko. You'll lose.

The Notebook

2005-07-06T17:18:00.000-07:00

I've started a notebook where I write down a thought that I want to keep in mind each day. The act of writing down a phrase feels important enough that I usually do end up being mindful of it. Some of them are quotes, some of them are personal goals. So far, it reads:

-Peace in every step

-This is my one, wonderful life

-I will show compassion to every human being

-There is no way to peace, peace is the way

- I will cherish the joy in every moment

-I will find love for myself

-All I love is impermanent

-Be the change you wish to see in the world

-Feel great, act great

-There is beauty everywhere

FAF!

2005-07-03T11:57:00.000-07:00

Fafnir discusses The Plan.

Enlightened Liberty

2005-07-02T08:20:00.000-07:00

Vietnamese peace advocate and Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh uses the phrase “peace in every step” to describe his philosophy of activism. Similarly, another monk once said, “There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.”

The meaning of these men is clear. Their ultimate goal is peace and brotherhood among the citizens of the Earth. It can only be realized through the path of empathy. It cannot be achieved through violence, anger, or war.

Thich Nhat Hanh’s weapons are his pen and his voice. His arsenal consists of kind, peaceful words and actions. He never condemns anyone, even those who dropped firebombs on the villages of his homeland. He implores his listeners to think of people on the other side of the conflict as brothers and sisters. He fights against the poisonous dehumanization that always accompanies armed conflict.

During the Vietnam War, a community of monks received word that there was a group of civilians caught in a combat zone. The monks leapt into action. They did not rush in to save the civilians with guns, armor, napalm, or helicopters. Rather they walked in a line with a large Buddhist flag held in front of them. Upon seeing the flag and the robes of the monks, the soldiers refrained from firing. The monks surrounded the civilians and led them out of the danger zone. The operation was not without casualties, as stray bullets injured a number of monks. But in the end, the monks were successful in saving the civilians.

That is “peace in every step”. That is true compassion.

A Buddhist might explain the idea of “peace in every step” with the doctrine of karma. Anger is one of the three great poisons. When a person is angry, it generates negative karma which will cause even more negativity to enter the world. Peace, an object of beauty, cannot be the fruit of violent action.

A non-Buddhist might note that when we act angrily towards people they become defensive and hostile. When we begin to view others as our enemies we cause our views to become reality. Violence does not beget understanding.

We cannot force people to be peaceful. We cannot force people to be compassionate. The means and the ends are antithetical.

In light of these beliefs, I find it strange that many engaged Buddhists adhere to the political philosophy of socialism. Some have even run for office with various socialist-leaning Green Parties. As with all harmful actions, the reason behind this is ignorance. Libertarianism has a very small following, so most Buddhists probably have not had contact with its teachings. However, libertarianism’s critique of socialism is unanswerable and much in tune with the Buddhist worldview.

The problem with socialism is that it attempts to use force of arms to engineer utopia. When a person refuses to pay taxes it is not a group of Buddhist monks that go to his door, imploring him to give of his wealth to aid the suffering in society. Rather, a person who does not pay his taxes will find armed men at his door that will cart him away to prison and take his possessions away to auction.

When a Buddhist votes for socialism, when he attempts to carry out compassion through the offices of the state, he is not practicing “peace in every step”. He is encouraging brutality. In this way, the goals of well-meaning and peaceful men are thwarted.

In that the state must use coercion to stay in existence, in that the state’s very definition is “legitimate” coercion, the state is an inherently anti-Buddhist institution.

All of the state’s social programs fail the litmus test of “peace in every step”. If a person is harming himself with addictive, mind-altering substances, the state shackles him and takes him away from his family to spend decades in a prison cell. That is not the way of compassion, that is not the way of peace.

If more Buddhists were exposed to libertarianism, I feel certain that they would find much in common between the two philosophies. Libertarians teach the doctrine of “non-aggression”, namely that no one should use force against his brother except in self-defense. This is similar to the Buddhist doctrine of non-violence. Both are very different from the socialist doctrine of “equality at any price”.

Civil Disobedience

2005-06-24T10:48:00.000-07:00

If this amendment passes I'm taking a trip to DC to burn some flags. You're welcome to come along.

In Other News

2005-06-22T07:36:00.000-07:00

The House of Representatives recently approved a $409 billion military budget for the next fiscal year. This figure doesn’t include supplemental funding for “Operation: Iraqi Freedom”, which has run about $300 billion over the last 3 years.

Including the expense of the Iraq war, over the last three fiscal years the Department of Defense has spent $1.45 trillion, or $480 billion/year. Given that the average civilian labor force over the same time period was 139 million people, the government takes $3470/year out of the average pay check for the purpose of killing people. If your family makes the median income, $1.66 per hour of work goes towards feeding the war machine.

What? You didn't want to spend that much on killing people? That's called democracy.

While We're on the Subject

2005-06-22T07:33:00.000-07:00

Cato also has a piece up about African poverty, here.

The Miseducation of a Nation

2005-06-20T15:47:00.000-07:00

Linda Schrock asks:

"Why are we not providing the children of today with rapid opportunities to become successful readers? Why aren't the children of today, with all of the technology and resources now available, learning to read faster and better than the children of the late 1700's and early 1800's?"

My answer: because education is a state monopoly. Schools have no incentive to improve. In the private sector, companies constantly try to better each other in order to gain market share. A private firm that falls behind quickly finds its former customers in the arms of its competitors. Meanwhile, parents are forced to pay for public schools, whether they are satisfied with the product or not. Public schools are actually better off if parents are dissatisfied with the product. The public school bureaucrats still get tax dollars from the families of home schooled and privately educated children, but they don't have to pay out the expense of "educating" them.

Those industries that have managed to stay out of state control have advanced quite a good deal since the late 1700's (think: horse and buggy vs. Lexus RX Hybrid). Meanwhile, government schools have actually managed to regress over the past 250 years.

By the way, I thoroughly suggest thumbing through the Linda Schrock archives on LewRockwell.com for an inside view on the state educational system. You'll be as horrified as I am at the prospect of leaving your child's development in the hands of leviathan.

Poverty and Government

2005-06-20T07:30:00.000-07:00

Why is Africa so poor? Natural climate conditions? Exploitation by richer, whiter countries? A history of colonization? AIDS?

Or maybe, just maybe, it is the fault of Socialist, Kleptocratic, and Totalitarian governments.

FaF!

2005-06-18T21:45:00.000-07:00

Fafnir answers critics who complain about the United States' treatment of prisoners.

Hey, we're not as bad as Satan. Those whining whiners need to stop whining.

Amazon's missing out on revenue

2005-06-18T19:09:00.000-07:00

I was at Border's book store today searching through a massive array of look-alike books on PHP and MySQL programming. After an hour I finally selected a volume based on a five minute thumb-through, a pretty cover, and a gut feeling. How I wished I had Amazon.com's handy-dandy customer review database there to guide my decision! Then I could look for a book that had an average four star review or better, read through the editorial description, and make my choice.

Amazon.com has a valuable asset in the thousands of reader's reviews they store on their website. Why not make some money by leasing the information out to bricks-and-mortar stores? Most such book stores already have computer terminals spread around that allow customers to search the available inventory. Why not also give those customers access to an easily searchable index of Amazon's customer reviews?

Cool Stuff

2005-06-10T04:54:00.000-07:00

The reason I put these guys in my blogroll is because I get tired of linking to them all the time.

Fafblog! has the best discussion of the commerce clause.

The Agitator takes "it" to a law professor.

In Defense of Advertising

2005-06-09T14:26:00.000-07:00

Advertising is a part of capitalist culture that is much maligned. TV Commercials interrupt our favorite shows. Spam mail fills our email inboxes. Pop-up ads and banners slow down our favorite websites. Crazy hippie leftists complain that advertising causes materialism and drives a damaging workaholic consumer culture.

Even among the society of economists, the usual refuge of the weird and the outcast, advertising gets a bad rap. They call it “rent-seeking” or “an unproductive use of resources”. They insist we’d all be better off without it. Advertising doesn’t create wealth, it merely causes wealth to be shuffled around. In the process real resources are expended, resulting in a net loss to society. Even such libertarian-leaning luminaries such as John Lott and Gordon Tullock have spoken negatively of advertising.

The consensus on advertising is clear: the vile creature should be hung from the yardarm, as soon as the nearest ship with a yardarm is found! But, as often happens, the consensus is wrong. Advertising in itself is not a useful activity, but it has many positive side effects. It is a vitally important means of funding public goods on the free market.

If we transported a mainstream economist to a world that never had broadcast radio, he would claim that the medium could never exist without government funding. Once a radio signal is broadcast there is no means to force listeners to pay for it. A consumer cannot be prevented from listening if he refuses to pay; the signal must be provided for everyone in a given area or for noone. But in the real world advertising, which the mainstream economist rejects, is the magic ingredient. Instead of charging consumers for listening, producers of radio charge advertisers for access to their listener base. While the economist predicts “market failure” and an absence of radio, consumers are presented with dozens of radio stations to choose from, all free of charge.

Advertising is the force behind free radio, free television, and free periodicals like “The Onion”. Advertising is the reason local newspapers are sold for less than the cost of the paper they’re printed on. Advertising lowers the cost of magazine subscriptions. Most importantly, advertising is the driving force behind the information age. If I want to know the name of the band that wrote “Unchained Melody” Google will give me the answer in about 15 seconds with no charge. Why does Google do this for me? Is it just because they're swell chums up there at the Googleplex? Nope. Google gets paid by the few small ads they place at the top of my search results.

So put down that gun and back away from the marketing executive! Advertising is an important part of a free economy.

Update on Raich

2005-06-06T22:27:00.000-07:00

Radley Balko issues a call to action in wake of the Raich decision.

I hate begging for favors from the very ones who oppress us. My preferred reaction would be a few shotguns waved in a few DEA agents' faces (Does it say something about our country that I was afraid to write that last sentence, lest DHS harass me?). But hey, every little bit counts.

Write your goddamned congressman. I'm gonna write mine.

In Summary

2005-06-06T16:25:00.000-07:00

I may not like what you smoke, but I'll defend to the death your right to smoke it!

A Sad Day For Liberty

2005-06-06T11:24:00.000-07:00

"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not… would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
--Thomas Jefferson

“John Ashcroft you should give up now! I am not going to give up my life to you or for you. I will fight you all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to. I promised my children I would do everything I have to stay alive so I can be here for them, even if it takes my very last breath. I am asking you to PLEASE STOP TRYING TO KILL ME.”
--Angel Raich

The Supreme Court reached a tragic decision today.

Mrs. Angel Raich, the mother of two, is a very ill woman (read her story). She suffers from an inoperable brain tumor, a life-threatening wasting syndrome, chronic pain disorders, a seizure disorder, nausea, Scoliosis, TMJ, Endometriosis, a Uterine tumor, and many other documented medical conditions. Medical treatment for Mrs. Raich is complicated by the fact that she is violently allergic to many medications. In 1996 her disorders confined her to a wheelchair. She lived in constant pain. Her son and daughter, ages 8 and 10 at the time, suffered almost as much as she did.

But the tide began to turn in 1996 when California voters approved a state-wide referendum allowing marijuana use with a doctor’s prescription. In 1997, one of Angel’s doctors recommended medical marijuana to her. It was a godsend. Marijuana helped to control the pain and nausea that plagued her. By 1999 she had regained control of her partially paralyzed right side and was able to leave her wheel chair for the first time in three years.

As a result of marijuana, Angel’s life was made livable. Her kids got their mama back. After long years of deepening misery, things were finally getting better for the Raich family.

Enter leviathan.

Although medical marijuana use is legal under California law, it is illegal under the federal Controlled Substances act. Marijuana is listed as a “schedule I” substance under the act, meaning it is deemed a strictly forbidden dangerous substance with no possible medicinal use despite gobs of evidence to the contrary. In 2002, federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents conducted a sting operation, raiding the gardens of medical marijuana patients in California. The agents destroyed the patients' marijuana plants and confiscating their land and property. Deathly ill people were handcuffed and led away by gun toting strongmen.

Angel Raich saw what was happening and refused to give up the one thing that had given her and her family hope. In response to a DEA raid, Angel sued. Her case came all the way to the Supreme Court.

The ethical course for the Supreme Court was clear. People have the right to control what they put in their own bodies. This is especially true when the substances they choose to put in their bodies are responsible for keeping them alive. To stop Angel Raich from using marijuana would be tantamount to murder.

However, the United States is a nation of laws, not a nation of ethics. Ethical standards can vary from person to person, but laws give us an objective, predictable way of ordering society. To decide the fate of Angel Raich, the men and women of the Supreme Court would have to consult the nation's laws.

I must admit my ignorance in this realm. I’m not a lawyer, so when I read words I think they mean what they say. A good summary of the facts and legal issues from a lawyer's perspective can be found here.

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of our nation. The 10th amendment to the Constitution simply states that any power not explicitly given to the federal government earlier in the document is reserved to the states. To me, this amendment is clear and easy to understand. If the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can do something, that means they can’t.

As I don’t recall anything in the Constitution that says that some parts count while other parts don’t, this amendment should mean that the federal government does not have the power to control or ban any substance. Twelve states have passed laws permitting the use of medical marijuana since 1996, and state law should take precedence.

Lawyers call this idea the doctrine of “enumerated powers”. The people who wrote and ratified our constitution thought the doctrine was a sensible and vitally important check on the abuse of federal power. Nowadays, anyone that believes in the doctrine of enumerated powers is considered a right wing crackpot.

The doctrine of enumerated powers may be clearly written into our constitution, but in practice it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says. It matters what the Supreme Court says it means.

The clause which undid the doctrine of enumerated powers can be found in article I, section 8 of the US Constitution. It says that congress has the power to regulate “interstate commerce”. To any student of history, the purpose of this clause is obvious. The writers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that states couldn’t pass tariff laws against each other. They wanted to ensure the free flow of people and goods across state borders, something that had been lacking in the Articles of Confederation, their previous attempt at forming a national government.

During the administration of FDR, the Supreme Court interpreted the interstate commerce clause to give wide power to the federal government. In the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn they found that the interstate commerce clause gave the federal government the power to regulate how much wheat a farmer grew on his own land for his own personal consumption, even if it were never transported across state lines, or even outside his farm for that matter. Their reasoning was that some wheat was sold in interstate markets, so his activities did effect interstate commerce.

If this reasoning sounds a bit convoluted to an ordinary man like myself, that’s because it is. The Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t based in logic or the rule of law, but in furthering the political agenda of Franklin Roosevelt. Since that time, the 10th amendment has been essentially dead. The federal government can do just about anything it wants and appeal to the interstate commerce clause to justify its actions.

In the 1920’s, before the reign of FDR, alcohol prohibitionists had to pass an amendment to the constitution to create a federal ban on the substance. The law did not change between 1920 and 1970, but suddenly no constitutional amendment was necessary. Thanks to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, congress’s power had become nearly unlimited. It passed the Controlled Substances Act, banning marijuana and other substances.

With Angel Raich’s lawsuit, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to curtail the abuse of federal power by ruling that growing marijuana for private use is not governed by a reasonable interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

But the justices -a poor name for such men- sided against Angel Raich in a 6-3 decision today. Like the FDR court, their decision is motivated by a political agenda and neither reason nor compassion.

The responsibility for the pain, suffering, and even death of thousands of people rests with the federal government for prosecuting their insane War on Drugs. The federal government has extended the War on Drugs into a War on Sick People and Their Doctors.

Angel Raich is a brave person for standing up to the federal Leviathan. May more people join her in legal and physical resistance to the growing tyranny of the lawless American police state.

Update

Radley Balko has some great commentary on this case including this gem from the dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas:

In Lopez, I argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general "police power" over the Nation. This is no less the case if Congress ties its power to the Necessary and Proper Clause rather than the Commerce Clause. When agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration raided Monson's home, they seized six cannabis plants. If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers--as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause--have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of "regulating commerce."

2005-06-03T12:31:00.000-07:00

Please bear with me as I screw arround with the Blog templates. Eventually, my site will be beautiful.

It's ALIVE!!!!

2005-06-03T09:21:00.000-07:00

This blog is being reanimated.

A Requiem's Review

2004-12-05T18:31:00.000-08:00

I've become quite enchanted with Mozart's "Requiem in D Minor" over the past few months. The Requiem is a catholic liturgical text meant to be recited as a prayer in memory of the dead. Mozart's grand Requiem composition in the late 1700's follows in the line of musical Requiems meant for church services dating back to Ockeghem in 1460. The grand Requiems of the 19th and 18th centuries were usually commissioned by the family of a noble or aristocrat after his death. Some of the finest music of the time could be heard in the cathedrals of Europe as the grand vaults echoed with the images of horror, death, hope, beauty, and salvation presented in the Requiem mass.

Mozart's Requiem is superb in its construction, running a full gamut of emotions as the composer ponders meeting the divine being (ironically, he himself would die before completing the Requiem). The awesome majesty of the divine is built throughout the first movement, as soft strains of violins give way to massive choruses. The chorus implores the Lord to grant the dead eternal rest, sometimes softly, sometimes begging with an emotional intensity that is breathtaking as the female vocalists soar into impassioned pleadings and praise while the male part holds a somewhat melancholy counter melody beneath them.

In the Dies Irae (Day of Wrath), we get one of the darkest, most aggressive movements of the piece. The images of hell and final judgement are invoked, the world dissolving in fire, as the chorus pleads with God to save them from this awful outcome. The movement exhausts itself quickly, and shortly trumpets break in, waking the dead to usher them before the throne of God. Finally, we hear rays of sweet hope. The composer recovers from the reflex of fear and trembling upon first contemplating the most high and in the gentle strains of the sopranos and baritones he finally feels the first hints of the peace of God.

However Mozart's Requiem is one of the darkest of Requiem compositions. The hope does not remain long. The next movement, "Rex Tremendae", or "King of aweful majesty", emphasizes the power of God, a fearful power. But this movement is more optimistic than the first two, perhaps now the composer recognizes the ability of this power to heal, as well as destroy. The movement ends with the plaintive and haunting sounds of the soprano's imploring "Salve me", or "save me", one of the most memorable moments of the piece.

Hope and beauty returns, as the composer remembers God's love, for the composer himself was the cause of Jesus' pilgrimage and sacrifice. Though he is but a mortal being, tiny and insignificant before the King of aweful majesty, for him the Christ came to give his life in sacrifice. Gentle, bright music marks this part of the Requiem. A prayer of praise and suplication continues at some length, peaceful and solemn, as the musician contemplates the salvation given by God.

We return once again to fierce images of hellfire, intermingled with soft and beautiful pleas for salvation. Here, the composer strikes up a sharp contrast between the realms of the blessed and of the damned. The composer seems less fearful in the face of eternal doom than before, perhaps now he begins to believe that God is merciful and will show him mercy. The strings enter with a violent maelstrom of a melody while the bass intones with a martial rhythym: "Confutatis maledictis/ Flammis acribus addictis," or "When the accursed are damned to bitter flames". The chaos of the music reflects the chaos and confusion in the minds of the wicked as they struggle to understand their fate through the veil of pain enveloping them. Suddenly, the storm gives way to the ephemeral and peaceful voices of angels, as the female chorus sings "Voca me cum benedictis" or "Count me among the blessed" while the orchestra lies dormant, allowing the vocal melodies to float delicately on the silence, conjuring images of the blessed before the Lord. The orchestra then shatters the placid reflection of the sopranos with the storm-like string line and the reentrance of the male voices. After the voices spar a few times, the orchestra resolves the conflict with an omninous melody, but one without the violence of the "confutatis maledictus" line.

This settles into the last movement of the section, called "Lacrimosa" or "Mournful". The day when the dead are to be judged is mournful, and only God can change the fate of those he chooses out of guilty mankind. The composer is emminently aware of his guilt and of the power and nature of God. Realizing this, he throws himself on God's mercy.

From here the piece takes an entirely new direction, and interestingly enough, a new composer. Mozart died before doing much on the last few sections of the Requiem liturgy. The composer Sussmayer, a pupil of Mozart, finishes the composition, borrowing heavily from the earlier movements and instruction from Mozart before his death.

The composer is through contemplating the day of judgement from the first-person perspective. He has been granted a vision of the allmighty and his power. With this new knowledge in mind, he remembers the purpose of the prayer in the first place, to bid farewell to the dead and to supplicate Christ to grant them salvation.

The music strikes a martial note as the composer recalls the heroic deeds of Christ and the Archangel Michael, giving the composer confidence that they can lead the souls of the dear departed dead through danger and evil and into the eternal light, as they once led Abraham through the harshness of the desert and into the promised land. The tension in the music is now directed against the enemies of the Lord, past and present. No longer does the composer feel his soul or those of his dead loved ones are threatened, because he is sure that the power of God is on his side, and not against him.

This is followed by three sections of uninterrupted praise for the Lord, "Sanctus" (holy) "Benedictus" (blessed) "Agnus dei" (The lamb of God), before the final supplication for the souls of the dead.

The themes of the first movement repeat, the swelling choruses proclaiming the majesty of the divine being. Once again the chorus asks that the dead be granted enternal rest and the "Lux aeterna", the eternal light of God's favor. If earlier the listener had any questions about the splendor of God, they have since been answered. In the first movement the themes were mere assertion, they have since been proven by visions of peace and joy, hellfire and damnation. The statement of the movement goes unchallenged.

"Lux aeterna luceat eis, Domine,
cum sanctis mis in aeternum,
quia pius es.
Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine,
et lux perpetua luceat eis,
cum sanetis tuis in aeternum,
quia plus es."

Amen.

You should check out the piece. It's terriffic and easily enjoyable. I personally own the recording by the English Chamber Orchestra and the John Aldis choir. It's a beautiful performance.

The South Will Rise Again, in Massachusetts!

2004-11-07T22:45:00.000-08:00

The 2004 election revealed that we live in a bitterly divided nation. There is little similarity between the Americas that liberals and conservatives wish to live in. As long as we are forced to choose, the chasm between red states and blue states is doomed to remain indefinitely.

But there is hope for reconciliation. One of the few good things to come out of the election is a new interest in secession among the political left. A mutually beneficial separation would allow both red staters and blue staters to get what they want.

By limiting political units to the level of local communities through secession, people could live how they wished without imposing their lifestyle on the rest of us. If Christian conservatives want to outlaw abortion, homosexuality, recreational substances, and fun in general, let them! If left-coast hippies want to march under rainbow flags, smoke up, and forbid genetically modified foods, why not? My vision for America is a collage of diverse communities representing every extreme in our culture and every point in between. As long as we can all do our own thing, there is no reason why we can’t all get along.

Furthermore, a wave of secessionism would have economic benefits by weeding out costly and stupid government programs. If Republicans want endless warfare, let them pay for it! If Democrats want a socialist cradle-to-grave welfare state, send them the bill! The only reason such imprudent laws get passed is because the government can force their opponents to pick up the tab. If political groups had to face the full cost of the laws they support they would exercise more fiscal restraint and foresight.

Moreover, secession has never been more practical. With the advent of modern communications and other technology, a diverse patchwork of tiny states is economically feasible. Small city-states like Hong Kong can become economic powerhouses by plugging into the worldwide marketplace. Being cut off from manipulation by the federal government does not mean being cut off from commerce. Without the tariffs imposed by the US government, secessionist American communities could become even more prosperous than they are now as part of the Union.

The time is right for a viable, peaceful secessionist movement. Unlike 1860 slavery is a moot point, the butcher of Illinois is not president, and the US military is preoccupied overseas. The ruling Republican regime would love to see California secede, taking its 55 perpetually Democratic electoral votes with them.

This is not the time for Democrats to give up. They should get those “John Kerry ‘04” signs out of the garbage, dust them off, and elect the man president… of New England! The People’s Republic of Hollywood can house all the commies, Jesusland will have its capital in Crawford, Texas, and Libertarianville will be the most happening place on the continent.

The only cure for a divided nation is to divide it even further. US citizens will never agree on everything, so we should agree to disagree.

-Jacob Lyles

Not my best work...

2004-10-24T20:59:00.000-07:00

My pre-election piece:

I despise politicians. Because they win a popularity contest they have the hubris to believe that they have the right to control our lives, limit our liberty, and take away our property.

That’s why I’m voting straight-ticket for the Libertarian Party this election, including a vote for presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. Badnarik is not a career politician; he’s an ordinary citizen who is fed up with what the government is doing to this country. Unlike the politicians running for office, Badnarik promises to respect the right of every citizen to make decisions for his own life, to enjoy the fruits of his labor, and to live in freedom.

Badnarik offers a refreshing change from the major party candidates. Unlike the Republicrats, Libertarians believe that tax money does not belong to the state, but to the people who earned it. Thus Libertarians seek to drastically reduce the size of the federal government by limiting its function to its constitutional responsibilities then returning the money saved back to the people.

In contrast, under the Bush administration non-defense spending has grown by 25%, the fastest growth in over 30 years. The response from the Kerry campaign has been to call for even greater increases totaling trillions of dollars. Both candidates have promised to increase spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget, something that is physically impossible. There is only one word for such promises; they’re called “lies”.

Unlike President Bush, Badnarik knows he is not god. He believes that marriage is a legal contract and a spiritual promise between adults, something that no mortal man has a right to interfere with. Instead of discriminating against unpopular minority groups for political advantage, Badnarik will uphold the American promise of freedom for every individual.

Unlike Senator Kerry, Badnarik knows he cannot avoid economic reality. The Social Security system has $26 trillion in unfunded liabilities, a burden our generation will have to bear. Instead of addressing the issue, the Kerry campaign has avoided it, inviting economic disaster. The younger generation has no choice but to vote for candidates like Badnarik who seek to privatize the system.

Four more years of either Bush or Kerry is unacceptable. Both will continue to spill American blood and fortune upon the desert sands of the Middle East while curtailing our civil liberties at home. However, as Commander-in-Chief Michael Badnarik would pursue a foreign policy of peace while preserving civil liberties. A Libertarian America would seek friendship and trade with all nations, but entangling alliances with none.

As Americans, freedom is our birthright. It is enshrined in the highest law of the land, our Constitution, which protects the rights of the individual against the power of government. If we wish to hold on to the free republic we have been given, we must vote candidates into office which respect our rights and will uphold the Constitution. The Libertarian Party is our only choice for a free, peaceful, and tolerant America.

Anti-War op-ed week of October 3rd

2004-10-04T13:46:00.000-07:00

The purpose of waging war is so that we may live in peace. Our lives do not derive meaning from bloodshed and conflict, but rather from achieving our life goals and advancing the human race.

War is only justified when peaceful coexistence is not possible. One case is when another party brings war to us, such as at Pearl Harbor. In the face of a belligerent enemy peace is not an option. A second case is when another party makes life intolerable, such as the Revolutionary War. When we are reduced to servitude to unchosen masters, it is better to die as free men than to live as slaves.

War is rarely justified, and it is less often wise. The costs of war are horrific. Billions of dollars of goods that would have been used for productive purposes are instead used to make implements of death. Capital, that marvelous thing that raises our wages and standard of living, is burned in the conflagration. Most tragically of all, the cost of war is measured in human lives, including innocent civilians.

Unfortunately mainstream politicians do not treat the choice of going to war as the weighty decision it is. Rather than resorting to violence only for the noblest purposes, they have sanctioned the use of force wherever “American interests” may benefit. Worse still, both major parties now support the doctrine of preemptive war, ensuring that peace will exist only as a temporary and fragile thing in this millennium.

Although the position of our leaders is deplorable, it is not surprising. War is the health of the state. With a fearful electorate politicians are able to roll back pesky economic and civil liberties that limit their power. In times of crisis the federal government metastasizes and never returns to its pre-crisis size. Also, war lets politicians play the hero; history classes regard wartime monsters as some of America’s greatest presidents.

The War on Terror continues an unbroken chain of American aggression dating back a century. As an open-ended war on an abstract concept, it is a license for perpetual conflict. Any political opponent of the United States may be branded a “terrorist regime”. We have long ago lost sight of the true terrorist: Osama bin-Laden. We have also lost sight of the end goal of peace.

As the major party debates continue, the voice of peace is silenced. What we don’t hear is Libertarian nominee Michael Badnarik promising to withdraw American troops from the 150 countries where they are stationed around the globe and to stop intervening in local governments which has made America the target of terrorist groups. While Libertarians would fight to the last man defending our nation, they would not spill a drop of blood nor spend a single dollar on unprovoked aggression.

When the mainstream has abandoned lovers of peace, lovers of peace should abandon the mainstream. When the major parties offer us a choice between war and more war, we should choose neither. We should choose Libertarian.