Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

October 24, 2009

The Enterprise & a new Free Liberal

A week ago today I was sipping tea at the Auld Shebeen in Fairfax with Free Liberal publisher Kevin Rollins, talking jive about stewarding the Free Liberal brand. And as often happens, the conversation was supplemented with notebook squiggles and hasty illustrations.

Let me give you a little background: Kevin is currently a graduate student in economics at the George Mason University. And he also fills out a nexus of relationships as the Managing Editor of Econ Journal Watch. To break up the long hours of scholarship and academic drama, Kevin gets nostalgic with reruns of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Can you blame him?

In case you don’t remember, Star Trek: TNG is about these people who explore space and routinely make the stupidest possible decisions when facing the unknown— but you don’t have to take my word for it! Take this episode:

“Someone hacked our ‘droid— or ‘rhoid, whatever —through the galaxy Internet. Then it took command of the ship by mimicking the captain’s voice. Should we blast the ‘rhoid to smithereens with our ray-gun majiggies?”

“No way! He is one of the main awesome characters. If we survive to the end of this episode, the ‘rhoid shall continue as a trusted senior crew member. It would be inhuman to destroy an inhuman mandroid just because he can be hacked a little.”

…or this one:

“We barely survived that encounter with the mysterious cyber-borg ship. What should we do now?”

“The only character who has experience with these cyber-borgs is urging us to get the heck out of here, but I say we send a handful of headstrong, ill-prepared people into their cyber-hive to investigate. It’s our only choice.”

“Make it… so.”

Anyway, they fly around on a ship called the Enterprise, which is the main connection to what Free Liberal is all about: personal, social, and cultural entrepreneurship guided by the liberal values of liberty and community. Even if the characters of Star Trek sometimes suffer from radically reckless disdain for consequences (and the lives of their crew), they get one thing right: every episode they ride their stereotypes raw into new conflict, defying any rational boundaries one might infer, putting their whole enterprise to the test.

So let it not be a surprise that a graphic of the Enterprise made it into our conversation and scribbles about the Free Liberal.

Right now, the Free Liberal site is clogged up with hard-coded content and links that are no longer relevant to the needs of the futuristic free liberal of today. It’s like that episode of Star Trek in which the captain got so busy with grad school that he didn’t write in the star-blog for a very long time. The homepage is like the ship’s bridge, with several well-meaning captains of other vessels at the helm, but they’re not savvy to the specific vocation of the Enterprise: Free Liberal isn’t just a vehicle to publish libertarian luminaries like Paul Jacob, Fred Foldvary, or Ron Paul— the free liberal enterprise has a unique history and mission.

Part of expressing that mission is pushing more of the unique Free Liberal content to the fore, instead of keeping it in the wings or burying it deep in the site’s innards. The captain needs to write in his star-blog again, and when guest columnists challenge core values of the enterprise, the captain should respond.

Another part of expressing the free liberal vision is highlighting the best content from history. This site has been online since 2003, and now has well over 6,000 articles including many features from the now-retired paper version of the publication. Kevin and I talked about flagging those high-quality articles and features that best articulate what the Free Liberal is about, and make them clearly accessible in a new section (which we jokingly called the Q Continuum; the Q is for “quality”). What are your favorite pieces from the Free Liberal of yester-year?

The third part is the site design itself. Over time, we’d like to make the site more like an online magazine, and there’s a whole lot we could do to make the site ready for the next generation of the web. There’s actually so much that we talked about breaking development into small chunks with achievable goals. I asked Kevin if he would be like to redesign the site in the open, with feedback from the community.

He just said “Make it so.”

You can follow the redesign on the Design Opus blog or follow @freeliberal on twitter here. Please submit your favorite Free Liberal features and articles in the comments below!

John Stephens is a Quaker web developer in Harrisonburg, Virginia.

Posted by johnstephens at 03:02 PM | Comments (0)

August 31, 2009

Should Free Liberals Use “The Secret?”

Last week, as part of my ongoing project to expose the secret subsidies to the super rich , I decided to do a review of “The Secret.” I figured the latter would be a nice segue into the former. The “physics” in “The Secret” is bunk and some of the recommendations and beliefs quite dangerous to your sanity, and I reviewed the video accordingly. Nonetheless, I kept asking myself, “What if some of these techniques actually work, but for other reasons?” In particular, what if they could be used for something less selfish than making money rain down on your backyard, for example: increasing liberty and justice in the world?

Let’s visualize the possibilities. “The Secret” teaches about the Law of Attraction. You attract what you think about, especially what you think about with strong emotions. Complain about and dwell on your problems and you’ll get more of them. Spend the time instead dreaming about that shiny new BMW you want, and cartoon waves will emanate from your brain into the Universe, which will then deliver you that BMW in accordance with the laws of quantum physics. It’s like Christian faith without the inconvenience of a judgmental deity.

Okay, I don’t buy the quantum mumbo-jumbo either. The unlucky poor often complain because they are unlucky and poor, not the other way around. Rich people can confidently visualize that new BMW in the garage because they actually have the money to pay for one. And relying on brainwaves to rearrange reality doesn’t pass the giggle test. If everyone applied The Secret, who would take out the garbage? Answer: the Universe would – via ants and rats. No thanks.

That said, New Age gurus are good at communication and motivation, or at least they write a lot of books on these subjects. Politics is a game of communication and motivation. So while you might not build a moon rocket using the Law of Attraction, you might be able to attract some votes. Replace those cartoon vibes with sound waves and subtle body language, and the Universe with the body politic, and the hypothesis has promise.

Let’s test this hypothesis with a political group known for its electoral failures: libertarians. What do libertarians attract? What do libertarians think about? Answer: government! Big government. Bad government. Incompetent government. Black helicopters owned by the government. Government taxes. Government jails. Government regulations. Bad! Bad! Bad! Government! Government! GOVERNMENT!! Is there anyone who uses the word “government” in daily conversation more than a libertarian? I doubt it. And what do libertarians get? More government!

What would happen if libertarians thought more about what they want vs. what they hate? What if they did positive visualization? Let’s find out. Let’s do a guided meditation:

The government is gone! Whoo-hoo! Look at your paycheck: no deductions! It’s all yours! Feel the check in your hand. Smell the ink. Nix that: feel the gold coins in your hand. Who needs paychecks when there’s no need for government records? Walk your neighborhood. Feel the heft of the gold coins in your left pocket and the machine pistol on your right hip. Wave to the stoned hippies next door.

Check out your car: V12 land yacht, high-compression engine burning gold ole leaded gas. Let’s hook up the boat trailer; it’s time to go dynamite fishing in the Pamlico Sound. You roar out of town at a satisfying 90 miles per hour; easily, no catalytic converter getting in the way of your exhaust gases. As you blow past the trailer park you see one of the residents has a new rocket launcher. Cool! Turn on the radio. The news says that the shantytown surrounding Raleigh has grown by 50,000 this month – unlimited immigration works. Time for a commercial break: Bedmates-R-Us has some great deals on Laotian teenage girls.

After a fine day of dynamite fishing, you realize it’s time to get back to reading the law books. You have 15 sets to choose from. You need to pick several back-up legal systems since each protection agency has multiple treaties, involving different legal systems. The permutations are endless. Speaking of which, Sam’s Clubs has some really cheap deals on goons, but perhaps the Mafia might be a better choice: more personal service. Then again, there is that redneck with the rocket launcher you drove past earlier…

Hmmmm, maybe libertarians ought to stick to abstraction and negative thinking. Better leave the positive visions of liberty to us free liberals.

So, what would the free liberal vision of liberty look like? What should we visualize? What should we get other people to see?

Posted by CarlMilsted at 07:04 PM | Comments (3)

July 06, 2009

Publishing Opportunity

ALLiance Issue 3 submission deadline is August 1!

It’s that time again. ALLiance a journal of theory and strategy is seeking submissions. Please consider submitting an article, poem, artwork, etc. The only submission guideline I have is that your work fits under ALL’s “mission
statement”:

The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a multi-tendency coalition of mutualists, agorists, voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, radical minarchists, and others on the libertarian left, united by an opposition to statism and militarism, to cultural intolerance (including sexism, racism, and homophobia), and to the prevailing corporatist capitalism falsely called a free market; as well as by an emphasis on education, direct action, and building alternative institutions, rather than on electoral politics, as our chief strategy for achieving liberation.

Ideally submissions will be received by August 1. However, other arrangements can be made. Issues 1 and 2 can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/Christopher%20Lentil. Submissions can be sent to chris@chrislempa.info.

Try this link as well

Posted by MichaelBindner at 10:17 AM | Comments (0)

May 29, 2009

Survey: Help us improve The Free Liberal

Thanks for your feedback! Our survey is closed.

Howdy—

We’ve had several exciting conversations over the past few months toward improving The Free Liberal. This clunkety old site has served us well over the years, but we think we can do it better, maybe even a whole lot better.

It hasn’t been completely rosy. Behind the scenes, this site has caused a lot of despair, heartache, and shattered relationships. Paul Gessing moved to the desert to escape the stress, and Bob Capozzi has to meditate like ninety hours a day just to deal (it gives him the calm composure of a saint though). Don’t even ask about Kevin Rollins. As I write this, he’s cringing in the dark muttering about his “birthday present”.

Just kidding—our editorial team is mostly on the up and up. And yet we know the site needs some serious improvement. But, somehow, you come here and use the site anyway. Thanks!

Anyway, all of this is to say we’re interested in your point of view. Would you be willing to take a few minutes to fill out our very short survey? We want to know what you like about the site, what you don’t like, and stuff like that. There are no personal questions or anything.

This survey is open to readers, TFL bloggers, and everyone. Oh, and feel free to share your questions and thoughts below.

Thanks again! You’re super.

John Stephens is a Quaker web developer and creative professional at Design Opus.

Posted by johnstephens at 01:28 PM | Comments (0)

May 25, 2009

How Free Liberals Arm Themselves

Carl Milsted's post about simplistic libertarians reminds me of the Capozzi litmus test for detecting nutty libertoids: Should people be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

This helpful page at freerepublic clarifies the categories of weaponry:

Therefore, it is clear that any tool of self defense you choose must be a tool you can direct to be capable of discriminating between an attacker and an innocent. Clearly, the following tools are capable, with a minimum of care, of being directed against an attacker without jeopardizing innocents:

* Knife
* Club
* Sword
* Dirk
* Mace
* Pistol
* Rifle
* Shotgun
* Cannon shooting ball shot

The following tools are slightly more questionable, since they are somewhat less able to be directed with great accuracy, and thusly are less discriminating. They have a larger chance of violating an innocent persons 'quiet enjoyment' of his property during the suppression of a criminal attack:

* Machine gun
* Machine pistol
* Small explosive device
* Satchel charge
* Antitank rocket

The following tools are completely indiscriminate, and may harm innocent people decades after their use. These tools are completely inappropriate for your right of self defense, since they will certainly violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property.

* Nuclear device
* Large explosive device
* Fuel-air explosive
* Biological weapon
* Land mine
* Chemical weapon
* Booby trap

Free Liberals prefer directed energy weapons...
Free Liberals prefer directed-energy weapons.

/KDR

Posted by KevinRollins at 12:55 PM | Comments (2)

April 30, 2009

"Uncivil Obedience, Disobedience, and Civil Initiative"

This quotation is the title of an essay in Jim Corbett’s book Goatwalking, in which he compares the political theory of Thomas Hobbes and Henry David Thoreau to the philosophy and practice of civil initiative that he developed over a decade of human rights struggle. I’ve just written a short article about civil initiative over on the Opus journal, and I wanted to mention it here because Corbett’s thinking seems distinctly free liberal.

To illustrate, take my grossly oversimplified summaries of Hobbes, Thoreau, and Corbett:

  • Hobbes: Human life without states is nasty, brutish, and short. If we concede to protection by the Leviathan, we are it’s subjects, and must obey its commands. It’s kind of like Cthulhu. Sorry, but that’s the social contract. If you want to renegotiate, your only recourse is revolution.
  • Thoreau: The individual’s sole duty is to conscience, not government commands. States are too often the agents of injustice, and their laws are an obstacle to justice. Questions of right can’t be resolved by democratic legislation, but only by conscientious individuals, who must choose between respect for law and respect for right. When conscience conflicts with law, your options are conscientious disengagement or revolutionary disobedience.
  • Corbett: The common law is formed not by states, but by communities through the exercise of natural rights. Sometimes one must choose between obeying the law and obeying the government—not because the law is an obstacle to justice, but because the government is shattering the legal order by violating human rights. When communities must violate government statutes to protect human rights, their actions must be germane to victims needs and accountable to legal order.

For Hobbes, the fulcrum of social change and civil order is the benign, legitimate sovereign. Thoreau’s fulcrum is the individual conscience. For Corbett, liberty and community are interdependent primaries: masterless communities form the basis for accountability to legal order, which is defined by the protection of natural rights. Naturally ornery, I find Thoreau’s individualism appealing, but I agree with Corbett that only a community can integrate, outreach, and outlast individual acts of conscience.

What kinds of activism have you been involved in?

Different kinds of activism divulge their constituting principles. Lobbying recognizes the sovereignty of states in making law. Conscientious disengagement and revolutionary disobedience repudiate human law in favor of individual conscience. Civil initiative refuses either to forfeit legal order or to plead guilty for resisting government statutes that violate human rights.

I’d like to hear your thoughts and experiences. I welcome you to read about civil initiative, and leave your questions and comments.

John Stephens is a Quaker, artist, teacher, and designer in Virginia. You can find him at Design Opus where he works on media for social entrepreneurship and community peacebuilding.

Posted by johnstephens at 04:32 PM | Comments (0)

December 13, 2008

Free Liberalism as a Creative Philosophy

Reading Micah Tillman's article mocking politicians' lack of creativity made me realize that one of the main things that we do at Free Liberal is offer a different perspective for seeing the world. The aspiration of Free Liberalism is to continually see the world in new, better ways. When we stop being creative we are more vulnerable to the forces that seek to structure our lives and our thoughts -- creating prisons for body and mind.

Posted by KevinRollins at 12:50 PM | Comments (0)

January 10, 2008

Stepping Back from Jefferson

In my recent front page article I dared to suggest that President Lincoln was not as great as many make him out to be. While his actions did lead to partial liberation of Negro slaves, the cost in lives, including innocent lives, was huge. This doesn't mean I side with the Civil War Revisionists who villify Lincoln, however.

Conversely, similar reasoning applies to Thomas Jefferson. While Jefferson deserves praise for his stances on small government, his case for hero status is sullied by the fact that he held onto his slaves. As James W. Loewen points out in Lies my Teacher Told Me, Jefferson's continued slaving also affected his public policies as president.

It is long past time for advocates of freedom to distance themselves from Thomas Jefferson and similar figures. Overall, Jefferson was no more libertarian than Hillary Clinton. Privatized tyranny can be as bad or worse than tyranny by a central government.

Posted by CarlMilsted at 11:13 AM | Comments (1)

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



Advertisement
Free For All -- The Free Liberal Blog