I established the journal Libertarian Papers three years ago, in Jan. 2009.¹ Over this time we published 127 articles and kept improving, expanding our editorial board and innovating–from volunteer narrations to print-on-demand and ebook versions.² As I noted recently, Matthew McCaffrey, previously the Managing Editor, has agreed to serve as the journal’s Editor starting with Vol. 4 (2012). I’ll serve as Executive Editor.³

Matt has announced a few changes:

There have been some recent alterations to the Libertarian Papers website which may be of interest to readers and authors. Below are listed some of the most significant changes:

 And the first four articles for 2012 have just been published:

1. “The Role of Work: A Eudaimonistic Perspective”, by Michael F. Reber

2. “The Internal Contradictions of Recognition Theory”, by Nahshon Perez

3. “Norms and the NAP”, by Kris Borer

4. “Recompense for Fear: Is Forced Russian Roulette Just?”, by David B. Robins

1. Welcome to Libertarian Papers! ↩

2. Libertarian Papers at Six Months; Libertarian Papers: Fifteen Minutes that Changed Libertarian Publishing; Libertarian Papers, Vols. 1 and 2, Now Available in Print and Ebook ↩

3. Matt McCaffrey Named Editor of Libertarian Papers. ↩

Here’s a somewhat funny article from Gizmodo that points out Newt’s misplaced fear of a EMP attack from Iran, North Korea or some other member of the Axis of Evil. (Saudi Arabia, the brutal Islamist dictatorship, which recently began talking about getting nukes, doesn’t count since the dictators are BFFs with the Bush family.)

The theoretical possibility of an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) attack will be familiar to people who keep a 1955 Chevy and a Faraday cage in the back yard “just in case”, although few people sit up nights about it since the actual threat is virtually non-existent. Except in the mind of Newt Gingrich.

Newt’s paranoia reminds me of a portion of Errol Flynn’s interview with Robert McNamara in The Fog of War. McNamara points out that the US in the early 1960s began to call for nuclear arms limitation deals. The US had a huge advantage in nuclear arms at the time (and still does), and the US figured it could keep that advantage by putting in place a limit or ban on the testing of nuclear arms. McNamara noted that the hawks in the administration were dead-set against any limitations because the Soviets would cheat by secretly testing nuclear bombs. Hiding nuclear explosions is somewhat difficult to do, so the hawks were asked just exactly HOW the Soviets would cheat.

Their response: “They’ll test nukes behind the moon.”

Even the warmonger McNamara found such a contention to be beyond the pale of Cutis LeMay-style nuclear paranoia. Newt, on the other hand, makes people like McNamara seem reasonable.