|
Posted on 03.03.08 by Thomas L. Knapp
The “symposium” feature has never really taken off … so I’m ending it. At the end of this week, this section of the RRND web editions will disappear. Prior symposia will remain archived. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 02.25.08 by Thomas L. Knapp
You’ve heard it before — even if you haven’t been arrested, you’ve heard it on TV shows: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be held against you in a court of law …” Not that the state takes that guarantee seriously when push comes to shove, of course. Property rights activist Lauren Canario found herself institutionalized when she declined to speak to her persecutors. I’ve read accounts of judges attempting to nullify the 5th Amendment guarantee of non-self-incrimination by ruling that if the witness is given immunity, he or she must speak. In any case, activists in Arizona are now advising immigrants to exercise their right to silence. Good strategy or bad? And not just for immigrants, but for all state victims? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 02.18.08 by Thomas L. Knapp
“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none.” — Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451 This represents the old statist thinking: That of the Nazis and the Communists and other failed attempts to forge the millions into an undifferentiated mass. The new statist thinking goes in the opposite direction: Instead of trying to erase the essential questions — freedom versus coercion, individualism versus collectivism — the idea has become to bury them beneath piles of trivial and non-essential questions, then encouraging everyone to worry at the pile of bones rather than dig down in search of the meat. Right or wrong? Discuss. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 02.11.08 by Thomas L. Knapp
No topic this week — but feel free to talk about whatever’s on your mind. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 02.04.08 by Thomas L. Knapp
The “freedom train” analogy is an old one — all us “less government” types together on one journey, with people peeling off as their preferred destinations are reached. Over at Rad Geek People’s Daily, the man himself takes the idea apart, then follows up. I’ve replied elsewhere. What do you think — good rolling stock or train wreck? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 01.28.08 by Thomas L. Knapp
The Bush administration and Congress continue to wrangle over details of an “economic stimulus package” to bring the US out of recession. Naturally, all of the schemes in question rely on tax “rebates” to be paid not by cutting spending and sending you back some of the money they took, but rather by incurring more government debt, inflating the currency, and making every dollar in your pocket worth a little less. Anyone got a better idea? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 01.21.08 by Thomas L. Knapp
Sez Brian Holtz: “It remains a mistake for Libertarian Party reformers and incrementalists to concede that Zero-Aggression ZAPsolutism is the purest or most principled brand of libertarianism — as opposed to most simplistic. … Endless variations on those principled and self-consistent libertarian worldviews can be derived by changing the dials on the many free variables in libertarian theory …. those who believed Rothbard when he told them that the non-aggression principle is ‘the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory’ have been sold a bill of goods. Rothbard may as well have been chanting ‘There is no god but God.’” Anyone care to take a shot at that? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 01.14.08 by Thomas L. Knapp
Micha Ghertner wonders where all those people are going to go. So do I. Do you? Let’s talk it over. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 01.07.08 by Thomas L. Knapp
With Iowa and Wyoming in the bag, and New Hampshire coming this week, the “major party” presidential nomination races are starting to take shape. So … predictions are in order, as are opinions on whether or not there’s anything at all to be salvaged for freedom out of this whole process. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 01.02.08 by Thomas L. Knapp
With the new year, the commencement of RRND’s sixth year of publication, and a general spirit of improvement in the air, I’m asking for your help: - If you run a site or blog that hasn’t been regularly covered in RRND/FND and you think it should be, throw a link at us in the comments on this symposium. I’ll add it to my watch list. - If you’re interested in “stringing” for RRND/FND — submitting news and commentary from your own sites or other sites you visit for publication in our daily editions — drop me a line at publisher at rationalreview dot com. I’ll set you up to use our system. - We’ve changed event calendar systems — you can now directly add your own organization’s events to our listings! For more information, see: www.rationalreview.com/add-your-event-to-our-calendar Our intent is to dramatically improve the scope and quality of RRND/FND over the next year — and you’re part of that program. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 12.26.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Hope everyone is having a great holiday week … and we’re just going to keep it light here and leave the symposium open for random conversation. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 12.17.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Jeffrey A. Tucker has a great piece up at LewRockwell.Com on how the justice system really works. Very informative, although I think he’d find it even worse if he took an even closer look (hint: Most “plea bargains” aren’t to the defendant’s advantage, but simple prosecutorial extortion with threat of sanctions to keep the defendant as far as possible from a jury). There have been various movement efforts to take on the “justice” system (FIJA, FEAR and JAIL all come to mind), but I have to wonder if more concerted — and targeted — action might not produce results. Perhaps a “model city” in which an organization came together to provide competent attorneys, encourage victimless crime defendants to guts it out to jury trials and derail the judicial gravy train, etc. Ideas? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 12.10.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
It’s time for another round of likely upgrades at RRND/FND. Our Gcast podcast fizzled out some time back — the tool proved unreliable, feedback weighed in at zero, etc. — but we’re still interested in doing a podcast of some sort. Recently I’ve had some negative feedback on the formatting of our RSS feeds, and we’re looking into how to improve them. We’re also looking at expanding our MySpace and Facebook presences and moving into new social networking and other areas. So … what tools do you use or find interesting, and how do you think they might enhance your RRND/FND experience or help us deliver that experience more efficiently? Inquiring minds want to know. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 12.03.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Make’em and post’em. Here’s your chance to go on the record with your predictions for 2008. Any topic! My teaser predictions: Either a) GOP presidential nominee John McCain edges Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton next November, with Libertarian nominee Steve Kubby polling a minimum of one million votes, or b) Hillary beats McCain with Libertarian nominee Ron Paul polling 2-3 million votes (i.e. the prediction is contingent upon whether or not Paul seeks the LP’s nomination after his GOP nomination run ends). American League Pennant: Kansas City Royals Nobody’s going to accuse ME of being timid. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 11.26.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
As reported and covered in various commentaries here on RRND/FND, the US Supreme Court has, for the first time in more than half a century, to hear a gun rights case which actually addresses the meaning and effect of the 2nd Amendment: The District of Columbia’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling overturning that polity’s draconian anti-gun laws. The court’s 1939 ruling in US v. Miller has long been used as propaganda fodder for victim disarmament advocates, even though properly read it affirms the right to possession of any weapon with military utility. What do you expect from the court this time around — and what do you expect the real effect to be? Discuss. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 11.12.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
… and into the “law enforcement” frying pan? From the ongoing frivolous prosecution of e-gold to last week’s raid on the headquarters of Liberty Dollar, the US government’s war on alternatives to their little green pieces of paper is in visible escalation. So … where are we really at, and what does the future look like for digital gold, alternative currencies, etc.? I know we have some experts on the subject here, and I’m all ears. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 11.05.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Over at ISIL’s Question Earthority! site, Dan Karlan throws down the gauntlet on global warming. To summarize: It’s real, it’s anthropogenic, it’s a problem, and it’s time for libertarians to start dealing with it instead of sticking our thumbs in our ears, screwing our eyes shut and whining that it’s not true because we really, really, really, really don’t want it to be true. One of today’s news articles highlights that last point: According to a BBC News poll, 80% of individuals around the world are willing to make “sacrifices” (i.e. bend over and cough for the state), and 75% are fine with “green taxes,” to address a problem that many libertarians are still petulantly refusing to acknowledge the existence of or seriously advocate non-statist solutions to. No, I’m not biased or anything. Discuss. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 10.30.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
A year ago this coming Tuesday, the Democratic Party won control of both houses of the US Congress. Granted, that control was not, strictly speaking, exercised until January 1st, but the rhetoric started immediately. Remember how the war on Iraq was going to end, corruption was going to be swept out by a clean new Democratic broom, etc.? Has anything changed? If so, what is it and has it been for better or worse? Discuss. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 10.22.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Sheldon Richman has an interesting new piece up at the Foundation for Economic Education on “what nearly killed liberalism.” Over the years, “liberalism” and political libertarianism have been similarly defined or used interchangeably in some places, and many libertarians still style themselves “classical liberals.” History and etymology aside, is the label “liberal” worth reclaiming from the statist left, or does it make more sense for libertarians to cast that label aside and forge ahead under the newer name (which seems to have been, in turn, burgled from its previous users, communist anarchists, who took it from religious non-predestinationists)? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 10.15.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
In response to my in-line editorial comment on an RRND blurb, DC Collins asks “What is that sound? Could it be? Why yes it is! It is the sound of pogosticks merrily hopping down the street.” Background: A long time ago, on a list far, far away, a number of us had the “owner banning possession of weapons on his property?” argument. I argued from the position that a property owner’s rights are absolute in that respect — analogizing that if the owner requires anyone entering his property to do so unarmed … or, for that matter, naked and hopping on a pogo stick … then the ethical alternatives are to a) comply with the owner’s requirements, or b) decline to enter the property. Others advanced various opposing arguments, including but not limited to the notion that if a gun is inside one’s clothes, it’s on the gun carrier’s property and not the external property being entered, etc. Hey, I have an idea! Let’s have that argument here! Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 10.01.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
First off, thanks to the few of you who have regularly participated in this “symposium” feature. Secondly, consider this an informal poll. Since so few of you ARE participating, I figure that either there’s something I could and should be doing to make it more interesting, or that there’s just not much interest in a feature of this type. Which is it? Should we drop the RRND/FND symposium? Or should we change it in some way to make it more engaging? By “informal” poll, I mean that I’m soliciting your comments, not that there’s a facility with little checkboxes for vote casting. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 09.24.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
One of the reasons I started the “symposium” feature in RRND/FND was to get your input and feedback on projects I’m interested in doing — so I’d be remiss if I didn’t bring you in from the beginning of Tom Paine University: TPU launches on October 1st with one pilot course, “Letters to the Editor 101.” This is sort of a shakedown/beta testing period, and I’m limiting the class size to 10 students, first come, first served. Enrolment is open now, and you’ll need the code “LTE101PILOT” to get into the class. In the meantime, whether you take the class or not, please register at the site and weigh in with your opinions, suggestions, etc. — for example, what other classes would be interesting (”nuts and bolts” or “ideological” — but on the latter, expect a radical orientation)? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 09.17.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
The muse was silent this weekend … so discuss whatever you’d like to! Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 09.10.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
“What?” “The Roman Empire.” If you don’t know the rest, I guess you’re not a Mel Brooks fan. In any case, let’s put a different spin on it: Anti-anarchists love to confront anarchists with tales of the nastiness, brutishness and shortness of life prior to the rise of, and hypothetically subsequent to the fall of, the state. Do you believe those tales? If so, do they change your mind about anything? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 09.04.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Pertinent quote from Henry David Thoreau (it popped out at me in an Arthur Silber piece quoting a Chris Floyd essay): “How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it.” Discuss — I’m especially interested in hearing from those who actively support, or oppose, placing libertarians in elected and appointed government positions. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 08.27.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
One of mine was Aaron Russo, who died this weekend. There are too many others to name, although I’d have to put L. Neil Smith, RW Bradford and Chris Whitten in the same category for the simple reason that they were among the first people I “met” in the freedom movement and that all of them, like Aaron, encouraged me to get involved and offered me opportunities to do so. Who are your “libertarian heroes?” Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 08.20.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
… of any kind (earth-shattering event, new technology, popular ethnic food, you name it). What will it be? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 08.13.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
This is the old “which book” question, times two. The hypotheticals: - You’re going to be stranded on a desert island. You can bring one book. - You have a chance to recommend one, and only one, book to a friend who’s interested in finding out what “libertarian” means. Which book, and why? (Obviously the first hypothetical leaves open the possibility that you’ll pick the latest James Patterson potboiler, but you get the point — this is about “best libertarian books”). Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 07.30.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
[editor’s note: Since the conversation is taking an interesting turn, I’m holding this topic open for a second week - TLK] A week seldom goes by without a story coming to my attention about religious practices ending up with someone in court, in jail, or in the grave. That, in turn, raises a question: When does a religious belief or practice stop being a private matter and become a legitimate public concern? The Zero Aggression Principle looks like an easy answer — no victim, no crime on one hand, and victim, crime (regardless of any religious justification) on the other. But I’ve seen instances of argumentation as to how the ZAP applies. In particular, I’ve seen some libertarians argue that circumcision is a vicious and inexcusable sexual assault, any religious justification notwithstanding, while others deem it a parental prerogative for either health or religious purposes (leading into the even more inflammatory question of whether infants have rights or are mere parental property). The latest story comes from Arizona, where a grandfather was tasered and died after police intervened in what they alleged to be an exorcism ritual, with his 3-year-old granddaughter cast in the role of the possessed. In a statist society, the issue is separation of state. But even absent the state, there is presumably a line separating religious instruction from assault, with the former a purely private matter and the latter a case in which intervention on behalf of a victim is justifiable. Where’s that line at? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 07.23.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Libertarians tend to put a lot of emphasis on issues of disagreement, even to the point of making the case that someone is not “really” a libertarian based on such disagreements (take, for example, the reaction to Randy Barnett’s recent piece on Ron Paul and the war on Iraq). Less frequently — but in my opinion more interestingly — we see examples of people who agree on political issues writing each other (or themselves!) out of the libertarian movement on the basis of antecedent differences: “We’re both in the same place, but I got here from the east, and you got here from the west. One of us is not like the other.” Tibor R. Machan’s new column, “Ayn Rand, libertarianism and ARI,” examines one instance of this phenomenon. There are others. It’s located at: http://www.fmnn.com/Analysis/117/8240/machan.asp?nid=8240&wid=117 Is there any validity to these kinds of anathemas toward others, or self-excommunications? Discuss. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 07.16.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Hey — “I got nothin’.” So how about someone throws something bizarre out in comments, and we take it from there? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 07.09.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Last week’s topic — essentially the question of whether or not a libertarian political party, practicing electoral politics, can effectively advance liberty — generated answers leaning toward “no.” That leads into this week’s question: If not electoral politics, then what? Can libertarianism advance itself as some kind of non-electoral movement? A protest or activism vehicle, perhaps? A counter-economic revolution taking place outside of normal “political” channels? Or was Nock right in asserting that we’re doomed to “remnant” status — keeping the idea of liberty alive in an environment which does not allow for its actual implementation, and awaiting better circumstances? Or something I haven’t mentioned? I’m all ears. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 06.25.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
[Note: I’m holding this topic open for another week … I’m actually planning an article relevant to the topic, and would appreciate the benefit of as many views as possible on it, so that my own argument doesn’t miss any areas that it should address - TLK] “Is a Libertarian Party evil per se? Is voting evil per se? My answer is no. The State is a Moloch that surrounds us, and it would be grotesque and literally impossible to function if we refused it our ’sanction’ across the board. … if the State, for reasons of its own, allows us a periodic choice between two or more masters, I don’t believe we are aggressors if we participate in order to vote ourselves more kindly masters or to vote in people who will abolish or repeal the oppression. In fact, I think that we owe it to our own liberty to use such opportunities to advance the cause.” That’s Murray N. Rothbard, from Konkin on Libertarian Strategy, a reply to Samuel Edward Konkin III’s New Libertarian Manifesto. Discuss. And as a side note, those who prefer dead-tree editions can find the manifesto and Rothbard’s reply (as well as replies from LeFevre and “Filthy Pierre”) in a fine trade paperback edition, cheap, at www.kopubco.com/nlm_trade.html. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 06.18.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
I’m going to turn over this week’s symposium to MJ Taylor at from Reason to Freedom. Link: tinyurl.com/2rvvbc. Please feel free to comment here as well as there. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 06.11.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
This week, we’re asking our readers to participate in a giant demographic data survey conducted by our advertising broker of choice, Blogads. And, of course, to hit us in the comments about how rude and intrusive — or interesting and involving! — that survey is. To take the survey, point your browser at: tinyurl.com/2bkgan Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 06.04.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Some libertarians participate in the political process with gusto; some do so as a means of self-defense; some decline to at all; and some condemn those who do. Question: If one manages to get elected or appointed to public office — anything from school board to draft board to congresscritter — is it worth it from a perspective of protecting or increasing freedom? Can any good come of it, and if so can the good outweigh the bad? Let’s wrestle! Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 05.28.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
E-gold? Liberty Dollars? What “alternative currencies” do you use, and why? Open discussion of alternatives to the Federal Reserve Note — what ones are better, what ones are worse, and why. Feel free to discuss everything from digital gold to labor-based “time currencies,” and the current legal battles between the state and both “alternative currencies” and digital transaction providers. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 05.21.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
A couple of weeks ago, this symposium was dedicated to a general “what would you like to see” question. That didn’t get a lot of response, so I’m going to hit you up again, this time with some give as well as take. We try to be responsive. Really! For example, the other day one of our readers asked for a uniform, easy to find “report a bad link” feature. That’s done — if you look at the bottom of any post in RRND or FND, you’ll find a clickable link that lets you instantly let us know about bad links. Some other new features we’re considering in the short term and that I’d like your input on: - A “search rationalreview.com” browser plugin. We’re approaching 30,000 posts at the current version of Rational Review’s site, and we may eventually be able to integrate the database from our previous iteration into that search as well. I suspect this might be a valuable “instant research” tool when you’re looking at something on another site and want to find related material. - A daily “RRND/FND podcast” — a five-minute audio wrap-up of the day’s news and commentary, perhaps with a longer weekend edition including extended commentaries and perhaps interviews. Let us know what you think about these ideas — and what other features you’d like to see added or modified. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 05.14.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Libertarian commentators are beginning to weigh in on the latest “health care reform” proposals — for example, see the latest from Steve Trinward at The Medical Freedom Channel (www.isil.org/channels/archives/8723) and Ronald Bailey at Reason (www.reason.com/news/show/120134.html). I suspect most of this publication’s readers will find all of those proposals insufficiently liberating from state intrusion, or even “market-oriented” (i.e. still statist but more “efficient”). Time for a discussion … how do we implement “the libertarian transition to a free market in health care?” How will we get there, and what will it look like when we do? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 05.07.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
The “major party” presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle have now held their first debates. Impressed? I didn’t think so. In any case, the content of these debates should be of interest not only to those who practice “real politics” — i.e. the electoral horse race — but also to those who want an inside view of what comes next in the round-robin game of “shaft the public.” I’m interested in your opinion of which proposals will sink, which ones will swim, and what we can expect from the eventual winners. A transcript of the Democratic debate is available at: A transcript of the Republican debate is available at: Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 04.30.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
I try to make it a point every year or so to solicit reader suggestions for improvind Rational Review News Digest and Freedom News Daily. Here’s your chance to tell us what you think we should add, dump or change. Have at. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 04.23.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
In the wake of last week’s Virginia Tech killing spree, J.D. Tuccille observed that “[p]eople are at their most vulnerable in those places that pride themselves on disarming residents and visitors” — and suggested that perhaps ” it’s time that those of us who care about our safety stop being so solicitous of rules that put us at risk.” For some reason, that got me thinking about past libertarian “guerilla theatre” actions like the Manhattan Libertarian Party’s “Guns for Tots” program … … What would it take to mount a nationwide campus propaganda effort, encouraging students to carry whether their educrat overseers like it or not? And would such an effort be a good idea? Discuss. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 04.16.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Time to step back from politics, I think. Way back, even … to metaphysics. A few years back, Oxford don Nick Bostrom forwarded “the simulation argument” — an argument that if it is possible to create convincing simulated realities, then we’re probably living in one right now. The nature of reality has always been a hot topic, but the development of our own “virtual reality” technologies (or, more to the point, our anticipation of how much those technologies might improve) has given rise to literature and film genres that take seriously the notion that our reality may not be the, um, real one. Wikipedia has a good overview of that subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality. Check it out, then weigh in with your thoughts … including those on whether or not it matters. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 04.09.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Last week, Anthony Gregory published an essay on LewRockwell.Com on the phenomenon of “libertine conservatives.” I suppose that this article was in turn inspired by a discussion on a “libertarian Republican” mailing list in which one of the usual suspects made one of his usual inane comments, this time to the effect that that’s exactly what a libertarian is. In my view, libertarianism is a political philosophy, the moral content of which is limited to codification of the non-aggression principle … and it’s a political philosophy which can be reached by people who, outside the political realm, may subscribe to various, and very different, moral premises. Your mileage may, however, vary. Discuss. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 04.02.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
There have always been two possibilities: The breach between traditionalist (and usually “Rothbardian”) libertarians and those who believe the feedom movement can be “mainstreamed” through compromise would heal, or it would widen … and the period since 2001 has proven full of opportunities for either of those things to happen. We seem to be moving toward a decision here, as evidenced by the shots the two groups are firing across each others’ bows. The battle didn’t start with these shots, but the tempo of fire certainly increased with a recent Cato Unbound symposium on Brian Doherty’s Radicals for Capitalism, most particularly an article by Virginia Postrel; replies from the Mises Institute’s Karen DeCoster, AntiWar.Com’s Justin Raimondo, and Susan Hogarth of the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus have escalated yet another minor duel into what may be a decisive engagement. Let’s not sit this one out: Everyone from the most strident Nockian Remnantist to the most softcore “mainstreamer” has a dog in this fight. Unleash yours into the pit and tell us what you think: Should the freedom movement resign itself to finally and forever fragmenting along these lines, or should it keep trying to heal itself and build a “bigger tent” together, even at the expense of accepting “libertarians for bigger government” into that tent? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 03.26.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Okay … most readers don’t seem especially interested in the topics I’m choosing. So, just choose something YOU want to talk about, and let’er rip. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 03.19.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Some, however, believe that a particular religious orientation is essential to a sound political orientation — if not to reaching such an orientation, at least to consistently applying it. Orthodox Objectivists, for example, derive their political philosophy from a metaphysics which has no room for the supernatural. Throughout the history of the modern American libertarian movement, this debate has had its effects. See, for example, the discussion of the “Spiritual Mobilization” branch of the movement, the dissolution of the Volker Fund, and the effects of those two things on the movement in Brian Doherty’s Radicals for Capitalism. I’m not really as interested in your own religious beliefs as I am in your opinion of how religious belief as such affects the ability to derive, consistently apply, and work with others in advancing, a libertarian political philosophy. Discuss. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 03.12.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Position Paper #23 of the Guns and Dope Party:
With the recent passings on of Robert Anton Wilson and Kerry Thornley, a discussion of the impact of Discordianism, Operation Mindf–k and other related phenomena on libertarian theory and practice seems in order. So let’s have one. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 03.05.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Not being big on watching television, especially in a weekly series format, I waited awhile … well, actually, I waited five years … to have a look myself. I’ve been watching the series on DVD for a couple of months, and am into Season 4. Is “24″ a “libertarian television program? Not by a damn sight. However, it strikes me as a fairly rich topic field from a libertarian perspective. It paints the government agencies prosecuting the “war on terror” as hotbeds of corruption, leaks, back-biting and incompetence that are always on the edge of collapse despite access to extraordinary powers and voluminous information. Usually, only way anything gets done successfully by these agencies is when someone disobeys orders, goes “off protocol,” or brings in help from outside. A good portion of the time either the penultimate terrorists or their tools are former agents who were wronged by their own governments, or swindlers playing every side of the corporate welfare state graft game. Even those politicians drawn as moral leaders are constantly portrayed as beset by forces of corruption that are inherent to the system itself. The War Party blogosphere has lovingly focused on Jack Bauer’s “clean will” to torture “when necessary.” Many of the show’s detractors have focused on that aspect of the plot line as well. But I see more there. What do you see? Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 02.26.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
In a weekend blog entry, I had some things to say about the absurdity of legal firms offering pro bono assistance not to defendants, but to prosecutors (especially in “drug cases”). The first commenter on that blog entry, Robert Noval, takes another tack and makes a very salient point: The incentives in today’s legal system are perverted. There’s no good reason — outside of a sense of justice — for an attorney to actually litigate a criminal defense. Why spend several months and many man hours preparing for, and conducting a trial for one defendant for, say, $5,000 … when ten defendants can be charged, say, $500 each and advised to “plead out” much more quickly and easily? Good point. Now, how do we fix it? Discuss. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 02.19.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Over the last few months, I’ve followed the stories and watched the various escalations and de-escalations of rhetoric between Washington and Tehran. Some people — people whom I normally take at their word –say that war on Iran is virtually a done deal, or even that’s it’s already started on the special operations level. Other people — mostly (but not all) people whom I don’t normally place a lot of stock in the utterings of — say that it hasn’t gone that far. What to you think? What do you predict? And what are your thoughts on what you think and predict? Discuss. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 02.12.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
I’d be surprised if as many as 1 in 100 of RRND/FND’s readers supported any kind of “gun control,” and this feature isn’t about synchronized swimming … so why bring it up? Well, within the freedom movement, there are debates to be had not only about ends, but means. In Monday’s edition, we link to an article by The Price of Liberty’s Susan Callaway on her recent experiences with “open carry.” I happen to think that what Susan’s doing is a great idea. I’m also interested in hearing other people’s ideas for increasing our freedom to keep and bear arms — openly or concealed — and for re-creating a culture in which doing so is considered not only “socially acceptable,” but routine. Share’em! Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 02.07.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Due to our server problems earlier in the week, and to implementation of a new comment/trackback service, we’re skipping the symposium this week. Feel free to comment on that, though — it will help us get a good test of the new Haloscan commenting. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 01.29.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
One of my favorite bumper stickers — available from LibertyStickers.Com, of course — reads “Admit it … our public debate has been reduced to reading each others’ bumper stickers.” There’s some truth in that … and some truth to the notion that television time constraints and other factors have made it more important than ever for one to be able to sum up one’s position or belief concisely. These days, political arguments are made in paragraphs, or even single sentences, more often than they’re made at book, or even article, length. A phenomenon worth discussing? I think so. But I suspect that the thread will quickly devolve into exchanging “favorite bumper sticker stories.” That’s okay, too. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 01.22.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey says “we are all global warmers now.” At least two of the Libertarian Party’s 2008 presidential contenders, George Phillies and Steve Kubby, prominently feature energy and climate issues in their campaign rhetoric. And the new Democratic Congress thinks that those issues are important enough to do toss around during their “first 100 hours” hype-fest, although not important enough to actually do anything real on (see Question Earthority! for my take on that). So what do you think? Teapot tempests, or important issues? Good ideas from the candidates, or more useless posturing? Weigh in. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 01.15.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
As you’ve probably heard, US Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has filed paperwork to launch an “exploratory committee” in preparation to seek the Republican Party’s 2008 presidential nomination. A fairly large field of contenders for the Libertarian Party’s nomination has also emerged. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be any real “libertarian-leaning” Democrats still eyeing that race, but it’s still an unusually active election cycle, and the race seems to be off to an early start. Might as well start talking about it. I know that some of the candidates themselves read Rational Review, and we’ve made a practice of allowing those candidates to publish their campaign statements directly to the site. They’re welcome to comment here, but I’m more interested in finding out what you think about the prospect of pursuing freedom via electoral politics — in 2008, or any other year — and about the candidates now presenting themselves for your consideration. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 01.08.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
So, the Democrats control Congress once again, and they’re allegedly taking their best shot. So far, I’m with Brian Doherty — not impressed. What do you think? Anything good happening there? Anything worth taking note of? Any particular threats? The “100 hours” count only “working” hours, so we’ve got this week and then some to watch and weigh in. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 01.02.07 by Thomas L. Knapp
And so the war drags on: About to enter its 5th year (or perhaps its 17th — I could make a case for that). 3,000+ American and “coalition” dead, an unknown number of Iraqis killed, a former dictator swinging at the end of a rope (maybe) … and no end in sight. Where do you think this thing is going? When do you think it will end, and how? And what will it take? Talk it over. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 12.26.06 by Thomas L. Knapp
… otherwise known as “I don’t have a symposium topic in mind this week, which is sort of a holiday week anyway.” So, just talk if you like, about anything. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 12.18.06 by Thomas L. Knapp
Some years ago, Ayn Rand wrote “The secular meaning of the Christmas holiday is wider than the tenets of any particular religion …” and, although an atheist, expressed a generally approving opinion of the holiday as a non-sacrificial time of joy. This last week got me thinking about the idea of “libertarian holidays.” Saturday was the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party; last Friday was Bill of Rights Day; and the Monday before that the birthday of the Libertarian Party. We also have April 19th (the anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord, still celebrated in Massachussetts as Patriots’ Day; of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising; and of the US government’s massacre of nearly 100 innocent men, women and children at Waco); Independence Day; Constitution Day … And, of course, there are newly invented holidays of the religious or semi-religious type (Kwanzaa, for example), and wholly secular, not to mention jocular. I’m thinking of “Festivus,” created for an episode of Seinfeld, with its “Airing of Grievances” and “Feats of Strength.” A bit faddish, perhaps, but my own city claims to be the center of its continuing celebration. Far be it from me to suggest that libertarianism implies abstension from religion (some atheist schools of philosophy arrive at libertarianism, but atheism and libertarianism are not the same thing nor are theism and libertarianism mutually exclusive), or from observance of religious holidays, but I’m interested in your take on what would best be designated “the libertarian holiday.” Share your thoughts. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 12.11.06 by Thomas L. Knapp
At some point, any philosophical system whose advocates wish to implement in the real world must be documented. In some cases, this documentation consists simply of the writings describing the system — adoption is assumed to take place “naturally” sans a specified framework on which to hang it. In other cases, the documentation is explicit — charters, contracts, constitutions, bylaws, and so forth. This week, I’d like symposium participants to discuss some of the historical documentation used in the political organization of societies, as well as documents for prospective current or future use. Paul Wakfer and Kitty Antonik Wakfer have engaged in a great deal of exploration of this area through their Self-Sovereign Individual Project — they’ve critiqued prior government founding documents, laid out their vision of the philosophical basis of a stable, ordered society, and are continually improving a set of documents for the generation of such a society. The Wakfers are not, of course, the only individuals involved in this kind of work. Broadly speaking every party platform or other political proposal bears on it. In the (once again, broadly speaking) libertarian area of political thought, proposals are thick on the ground, from Bill of Rights Enforcement to The Covenant of Unanimous Consent (both of which owe a great deal to L. Neil Smith’s work, literally and conceptually) to Richard Rieben’s Reciprocia. Rational Review’s editors have also proposed a political program. This, of course, is merely scratching the surface. There’s no lack of “master plans” to discuss. Since Bill of Rights Day falls this coming Friday, however, I’m very interested in discussion aimed at that document and its viability. So, some “extra credit” questions to consider and discuss this week of Bill of Rights Day: - Even if observed and enforced, is the Bill of Rights a sufficient framework for a libertarian society? - If so, how can it be enforced? - If not, with what (and how) should it be replaced? Have at it! Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 12.04.06 by Thomas L. Knapp
This last weekend, I had an interesting conversation with a (state-oriented) leftist friend. We disagree about a lot of things. The thing we agreed on this weekend, oddly enough, was why we were talking with the lights off. The lights were off at my home (for the second multi-day stretch in about five months) because of … “privatization.” As a libertarian, I believe that electricity (and all other commodities, services, utilities, etc.) should be provided by and purchased through the free market. As a (state-oriented) leftist, my friend believes that electricity (and at least some other commodities, services, utilities, etc.) should be provided by, and purchased through, government. We agree that trying to split it down the middle brings out the worst of both worlds. In the case of the “privatized” situation with in my area — in which a privately owned, for-profit enterprise enjoys a government-enforced monopoly on the provision of electricity — this has twice in 2006 expressed itself in multi-day dangerous (for some, fatal) blackouts. This week, I’d like symposium participants to discuss that phenomenon … why and how it occurs … and also to propose better ways to move currently “publicly administered” functions into the private sector without such side effects. I’ll describe my own situation in more detail in comments. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 11.27.06 by Thomas L. Knapp
Since at least as far back as Aristotle, philosophers have argued on behalf of, and against, natural law — “law that exists independently of the positive law of a given political order, society or nation-state.” Some arguments in favor of natural law are grounded in religious belief; others in theories of the nature of reality and humanity which stand independent of such belief. And, of course, there are the arguments against natural law, which usually take the form of a utilitarian or consequentialist “results-oriented” argument that whatever result we like is “right” because it’s the result we like, and that no further justification is required. From where do you think that natural law arises from, if you think that id so arises at all? Was it brought down from Sinai on tablets by Moses, or discovered as a categorical imperative by Kant, or identified in the structure of metaphysics and epistemology by Rand … or is it just so much hooey, offered to explain the inexplicable and justify, rather than serve as a rational basis for, our desires? Have at it! Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 11.20.06 by Thomas L. Knapp
Dr. Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate and noted “Chicago School” economist, died last week at 94. Our commentary section has largely been given to eulogy and encomium for Dr. Friedman’s life and work, with the occasional criticism. Let’s talk about Dr. Friedman’s large — and, from a libertarian standpoint, somewhat conflicted — legacy, and his influence on us and on our movement: The good (opposition to the draft and the war on drugs), the bad (he was an architect of income tax “withholding” as an economist in FDR’s administration) and the debatable (school vouchers). For my part, Free to Choose, which Dr. Friedman wrote with his wife Rose, was one of two books that helped me form my early political views. The other was Abbie Hoffman’s Soon To Be A Major Motion Picture. I read condensed versions of both in Book Digest magazine as a child. My memory may be tricking me, but I seem to recall that both condensations appeared in the same issue. In any case, I haven’t been the same since. How and when did Dr. Friedman’s work influence you, and what influence of his do you see in the society we live in today? Discuss! Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 11.13.06 by Thomas L. Knapp
Tired of politics, especially after a two-week election thread? Sorry … instead of switching to a philosophical topic this week, I’m going political again. The brief message below is from David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party. Nolan invites debate. If not now, when? And if not us, who?
Go for it! [Symposium format note: I’ve given up tinkering with forum software. One reason is that I haven’t been able to find a forum package that integrates with WordPress from a username/password standpoint — everyone would have to register all over again to use it. There are other issues of formatting for the same look, etc., as well. If the historical trend proves out, Rational Review will undergo an entire remodel some time in the next year or so, and I’ve already added integrated forums to the “requirements doc” in my head for that upgrade - TLK] Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 10.30.06 by Thomas L. Knapp
[Note: I’m holding this topic open for a second week … get your final predictions in, and THEN discuss the outcome! - TLK] As the symposium feature develops here, we’ll address a broad range of topics, from the philosophical to the “practical” (as if there’s a difference). This week, it’s light fare, maybe — or maybe not. I’ve made my own predictions about the outcome of next week’s election already. I’d like to see yours … or your reasons for considering the outcome irrelevant, or your arguments against voting at all, or for that matter anything you have to say about the whole “real politics” thing. Have at. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 10.23.06 by Thomas L. Knapp
In an editorial on Sunday, 10/22, Sam Harris of the Boston Globe criticizes religion as a basis for morality. I’m not so interested in his criticism as in his suggested alternative basis. Quoth Harris:
When I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time (and for that matter, each time thereafter), one of my few complaints about it was that the advocates of altruism depicted therein seemed to be more caricature than reality. Nobody, I thought, would really state the altruist ethos so baldly and forthrightly as Ayn Rand had them doing. But there it is in black and white … This symposium is an open forum. If anyone cares to defend the basis for morality that Harris offers, take your best shot. Or if you want to tear Harris apart, go for it. What I’m most interested in, however, is concise and readable arguments for alternative — for the rational individualist basis for morality. Show us your own, or another’s. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 10.09.06 by Thomas L. Knapp
… or, “Once again, a symposium on the symposium.” We have enough readers to sustain a conversation. Y’all even like to converse — I get email all the time from readers about the stories we run, often including political or philosophical argumentation as to why we shouldn’t have run it or why we should have cast it in a different light. What we don’t get are a lot of on-site comments, including in the one area specifically geared to them: This one. And I’d like to know why. Kitty Antonik Wakfer, one of the few active participants in the syposia, has offered some helpful suggestions for eliciting participation, most of which come down to calling more attention to the symposium feature … … but I think there’s more to it that publicizing it. Our readers read everything on either side of the feature, so I’m betting you read the feature topic, too (and Amazon says a couple of you ordered a book featured in last week’s symposium). You just choose not to participate. Um, why? Is it too forgettable? Do your eyes go right past on subsequent days after the first read? Is it the commenting system? Should we move the discussion to a more robust forum format? Are the issues not the ones that interest you? I’d really like the symposium feature to add value to our publication. The evidence that it does so is your participation. So, this symposium topic may be more than a week long … the symposium feature is effectively suspended until I understand how to make it “work” or decide that it can’t and eliminate it. Talk at me. Filed under: RRND Symposia | |
|
Posted on 10.02.06 by Thomas L. Knapp
Arguments for and against separation of church and state have been playing themselves out since long before Jefferson’s religious freedom ordinance for Virginia, the subsequent incorporation of that ordinance in the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights, and his letter to the Danbury Baptists explaining what he intended it to mean. Around the world, the issue of “religion in the public square” continues to top a number of agendas and the sides usually aren’t shy about using ballots — or bullets — to make their arguments. We’ll stick to words here, of course. To start things off, I’ll point to an article on the subject from last week by Tibor R. Machan, one of my own from 8 years back), and to an excellent book-length take on the issue from a Christian Libertarian perspective: Turn Neither to the Right Nor to the Left by Eric D. Schansberg. Most symposia address themselves to at least one question. This week’s implicitly includes several. One that it does not include is the question of whether or not religion in general, or any specific religion, is or might be true. Rather, the main question, starting from the premise that religious belief continues to be a major factor in the lives and beliefs of most humans, is “how s |