I am on the board of the Austin, Texas-based Foundation for a Free Society, and one of our objectives is to put out professional, artistic, catchy videos that communicate the philosophy of liberty in a succinct and fun manner. This video is one of our latest projects and was recently featured on LewRockwell.com. If you think this is a cool idea, why not become a donor to F4FS? Trust me, it’s a GREAT cause. F4FS has been a great supporter of the student group I am involved in, the Libertarian Longhorns, and I can heartily commend them to you.
Isn’t that fantastic? Share it with your friends, maybe you’ll be able to teach them about liberty soon…
Kathryn Muratore, James Ostrowski and I were recently discussing over email one proposal some people are bandying about as a response to the TSA naked scanner abomination (see Kathryn’s blog Stop TSA Scanners). The proposal is to serve the TSA by filing some kind of “Show Cause Order” in federal court, to demand the TSA “give a reason for them to continue to do these searches which are clearly unconstitutional”–thus you bury the TSA in paperwork and back them into a corner using this “Show Causes” maneuver. Now this sounds a little desperate and crankish to me, sort of like all these “common law court” nuisance liens the gold-fringe-on-the-”admiralty”-flag crowd like to file (which may be heroic, though futile, since the states just criminalize it).
But I don’t know; I’m not a litigator. Ostrowski’s view was: “I’m a big believer in direct action and not litigation. The best way to stop this is through a boycott and/or street theater–make fun of this odious practice.”
He has a good point. Earlier this year I was on a panel (discussed here) with Hoppe and DiLorenzo. In response to a question about the prospects for liberty, I noted the importance of economic literacy, in part to deflate the mistaken belief on the part of decent people that the state is necessary and legitimate. Without the tacit support of the state’s legitimacy, it could not exist. And this is why it is important to laugh at the state. Hoppe agreed, saying he has actually considered featuring a libertarian comedian at an upcoming event, and DiLorenzo explained that one reason he often mocks the state and its media cheerleaders is for this very purpose–he gave the example of ridiculing Rachel Maddow in a recent LRC post where he referred to her getting her “panties in a knot”. We need to show these people as buffoons and clowns and to make people take them less seriously. (See also the Mises Daily article Laughing at the Regime.)
So: laugh at them, mock them, ridicule them, jeer them, scoff. Do not take them seriously.
Declaration of Independence (1776): “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”
A Pledge to America (GOP, 2010): “Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.”
If this goes on, related fellow TLS blogger Daniel Coleman to me, in another 100 years it will be “Whenever a subpoint of policy within a government agenda becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to organize a committee to change those subpoints of policy and replace them with better subpoints.”
Liberty Central, the Establishment’s attempt to co-opt the Tea Party, has a poll asking us to grade the Pledge. Head on over there and tell them what you think of it. Fellow TLS blogger Jacob Huebert has a couple ofgood posts on LewRockwell.com about Liberty Central, the Tea Party, the Pledge, and Glenn Beck.
The Liberty Central poll only lets you grade the Pledge as a whole. Here is a quick graded breakdown of important aspects of the Pledge, with short reactions by me in parentheses:
Today LewRockwell.com offers another excerpt from my book. This one is about why government-funded school vouchers aren’t compatible with libertarianism. (Yesterday, LRC ran an excerpt about Ronald Reagan.)
I do understand why some libertarians like vouchers: they rightly feel bad for the actual, real-world children who are forced by law to attend horrible government schools, whose parents can’t afford other alternatives. If the government is going to coerce people, it’s understandable to want to minimize the harm done.
But as I argue in the book, vouchers would do more harm than good. Even if we can’t abolish government schools anytime soon, the best way to rescue as many kids as possible is through private, voluntary means.
Here are two more articles I’ve written on this topic: