Anarchoblogs

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on the exploitation of xenophobia and tribalism to encourage the violent violation of property rights, liberty and reason itself.

by Ron Paul

23 Aug 2010 | LewRockwell.com

Is the controversy over building a mosque near Ground Zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “Ground Zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill-conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.
The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam—the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society – protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near Ground Zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding an investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque – a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

Ron Paul represents the 14th district of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Filed under: National News, Political Science Tagged: constitutional rights, Cordoba House, First Amendment, Ground Zero Mosque, Islam, libertarian, liberty, Middle East, neoconservatives, New York City, Park51, property rights, racism, religion, Republicans, Ron Paul, War on Terror, xenophobia

While researching the new backscatter X-ray naked-body scanning machines that the federal government is placing in airports around North America, I came across a commenter on NJ.com who claims the scanners infringe on his freedom. Is he right? Are the scanners being forced on travelers against their will? Can enterprising individuals offer a competing security service? Who is paying for these $170,000 scanners, and how?

Luckily, the government agency in charge of these things (the TSA) affords us the rare privilege (at least on paper) of opting out of this government program. You can choose an aggressive rub down instead! And that’s only reasonable, if less than ideal. Airlines will either provide security or go out of business. There are concerns about the full-body scanning machines: they can damage your body with excessive and unnecessary amounts of radiation and they put your privacy at risk. So I’m comparatively quite thrilled that my family only has to be groped in order to travel on an airplane.

The real problem is that government arrogates to itself a monopoly power over passenger security screening. This kind of authority is capricious and unaccountable. It’s simply not practical. There are few strong incentives for honest and fair behavior. If consumers want to purchase their airline security in a different, perhaps more dignified package, they are forcibly denied this option. It’s a one-size-fits-all solution. It’s not like you can go to a different airport and get better treatment. The government effectively owns all the major ones!

Who pays for these scanners? You do – if not through income taxes then through the inflation of your federal reserve note (US dollar) holdings by the Federal Reserve. That’s right, the federal government is running enormous deficits. They fund these shortfalls with debt, much of which is invented out of thin air by the wizards at the Federal Reserve. There’s no opting out of that!

The full body scanners are an infringement of our travelers’ freedom. The government forces individuals to pay for them, whether they fly or not, whether they want them or not. The government claims as its unique privilege monopoly control of passenger security screening. Competing security firms are forcibly barred from competing with the TSA. Airline security is very important, but this is no way to go about it. We need the government to back off and let airlines, airports and travelers find there own solutions, without the use of force.

I am done.

Once upon a time (2 years ago) I had a choice. Two options in my mind of where to go now that my feet had touched dirt after being thrown up into university life for four years. I could follow the fancy of carnal desires and over-leveraged love or, I could fling myself into the complete unknown and follow my dreams of producing a more liberated portion of ground.

Well, it is two years later, and it's high time I give up on the first option and move onto the second. 'Bout damn time, too.

I am going to New Hampshire as a member of the Free State Project. I will arrive the week after labor day weekend.

I am not visiting first. I do not know anyone there personally. I do not have a place to land. I do not even frequent the online forums enough to be known. This is a horrible idea, and I could not be more excited.

Really, I couldn't. I'm on day 11 straight of twelve hour shifts, I don't have much emotional energies left. I'm working the kind of job that makes it abundantly clear for self-removal. @ 7 days/week, avg 60-70 hrs/week. (or 84 like the past two) you begin to lose touch with all the ones you love, no matter how much you fight. No matter how many nights you forgo sleep to stride the town and pretend you are not utterly alone.

Last week starting now. Hallelujah.

That was background, now two things I wanted to cover.

The first, I will be making vids and posting them of my trip and survival in New Hampshire. The whole idea I'm thinking is that if I can do it no job, no home, only connections being receptive free staters, basically nothing but savings and a smile, then anyone can. Believe me, I'll make this shit look easy.

Second, what the bloody ass crunch is the Free State Project anyways? Well, let me tell you, friend. It's an effort to concentrate liberty oriented people in one geographical location to cause the greatest effect on that area's (New Hampshire) society. I want liberty (to succeed or fail) and this is hands down the best way to get it in our lifetime that I can see. I'll go more into it in time, and vlogs, but suffice to say the entire effort is to get the people to New Hampshire. Once there, then you are free to do as you please. Around 1,000 have already made the move and there have been awesome going ons all across Southern New Hampshire in particular. Time to head that way, away from all this misery in Wisconsin. Check out for yourself at http://www.freestateproject.org/ or

or

Until the videos, I'm signing off.

Expect the first video sometime this week.....by next weekend. Editing material now.

WikiLeaks represents a clear and present danger to the United States government’s campaign of murder, occupation, torture, theft, spying and propaganda worldwide. That is why commentators such as Marc Thiessen of the Washington Post so strenuously demand that it be shut down. This is also why you must step forward in support of WikiLeaks, before its founder Julian Assange turns up shackled in a secret CIA prison overseas.

Don’t be fooled! WikiLeaks is a beacon of truth and liberty in a world under siege by the criminal enterprise called the United States government. Assange and his ragtag crew reveal this criminal gang’s secrets to the civilized world so that we might know them for who they are, and act accordingly. WikiLeaks is the latest star in a long series of truth-tellers, muckrakers and whistleblowers that have made ours a more civilized and just society. Its networked model is the future of our peaceful resistance to war, murder and other forms of aggression.

Let’s be clear: the United States government is putting good people in harm’s way. Not WikiLeaks. If WikiLeaks were to reveal a secret list of mafia hitmen and informers, would you accuse them of putting these criminals in jeopardy of being held accountable for their actions? Or would you cheer them for outing evildoers and saving innocent people’s lives? Only a fellow mafia hitman or mafia sympathizer would attack WikiLeaks for this kind of act.

Similarly, don’t stand for any government thug who says Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of leaking the Collateral Murder video to WikiLeaks, should be executed. These thugs aim to swiftly and surely punish anyone who stands up for liberty and truth, to set an example of them so that you will be further intimidated.

The threats against Julian Assange and Bradley Manning are threats against you. While they are among the first to find the courage and wherewithal to stand up against the United Statesian Empire, you or someone you know could be next. Supporters of WikiLeaks would do well to indict Marc Thiessen, and anyone who threatens WikiLeaks, in the court of public opinion. Don’t wait another minute to do so!

Kevin Carson on the average Joe’s daily hell he heaven’izes to endure it tomorrow.

2 Aug 2010 | C4SS

This morning Joe was awakened by his alarm clock.  Thanks to patents, which remove incentives to interoperability and modular design, the clock was designed to be thrown away rather than repaired.  Thanks to “intellectual property” law, as well, the company was able to outsource actual production and then charge Joe a 1000% brand-name markup while paying the people who made it pennies. The clock was powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy—a regulated monopoly operating on the same cost-plus markup accounting system as most other public utilities, including the military contractors who gave us the $600 toilet seat.

Joe then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility; Joe’s water bill reflects a rate structure which provides below-cost water for large-scale industrial use and agribusiness.   Joe watched the news on the kind of legacy broadcast media described by Edward Herman, which thanks to the FCC licensing monopolies is controlled by a handful of corporate gatekeepers.

He watched it while eating his breakfast of General Mills cereal, which thanks to government subsidies was produced at some giant mill in Minneapolis, despite the fact that cereal grains are most economically milled on a small scale near the point of consumption. Joe has no idea what’s in his bacon, because the F.D.A. (at Monsanto’s behest) prohibits labeling food as G.M.O.-free.  Most of what he eats is loaded with high-fructose corn syrup, and what little “fresh” produce he eats is shipped from a giant plantation thousands of miles away, thanks to U.S.D.A. subsidies.

Joe took pills which were declared safe under an inspection regime originally created at the behest of the drug cartel itself, the inflated costs of which serve as a useful entry barrier and thereby benefit incumbent producers.  He paid a 2000% markup on the pills thanks to government-granted patent monopolies.  Joe’s medical plan stopped paying for prescription drugs because his weak union has been making more concessions at every contract renewal.  The Wagner Act criminalized most of the really effective techniques, so unions like Joe’s are forced to fight by the bosses’ rules.

Joe drives to work on a government-subsidized highway system, built under the supervision of former auto exec Charlie “What’s Good for GM” Wilson.  Joe’s commute takes almost an hour.  Thanks to subsidized freeways and subsidized utilities to outlying developments, it’s artificially cheap to build monoculture bedroom communities far removed from where people work and shop.  And thanks to zoning laws and other regulations against mixed use development, it’s extremely costly to live near your employer or be able to walk to a neighborhood grocer.

Joe begins his workday.  He’s doing the work of a downsized person in addition to his own, the work environment is becoming increasingly hostile and authoritarian, and the micromanagement increasingly demeaning.  He finds his face sore from the fake smile he constantly displays to reassure the bosses he’s got his mind right.  He got no COLA raise last time around, and his insurance copay and deductible are higher.  (It all gets back to the union thing above).  The bosses sometimes drop hints about closing the plant down and moving to China, which is a whole lot more profitable thanks to World Bank subsidies to the road and utility infrastructure the offshore factories need, and thanks to W.T.O. enforcement of “intellectual property” law that corporate headquarters use to maintain control of outsourced production overseas.

Joe pays his bills with legal tender created by banks, under the state-granted power to loan the medium of exchange into existence out of thin air and then charge interest on it.

After work Joe finds his kids back home from the public schools, where they’re being processed into human resources who will cheerfully take direction from some authority figure behind a desk for the rest of their lives—just like Joe does.  While they were there, the kids were taught about the wonders of Our Free Enterprise System  (suitably adjusted, of course, by government action to protect us from corporate power run amok).

When Joe goes to sleep, if he’s a conservative, he will thank the beneficent Free Market for all the good things he enjoys.  If he’s a liberal, he’ll give thanks for the interventionist state as a bulwark against unbridled corporate tyranny.  And he’ll get a night’s rest, preparing for another day of serving the unholy corporate-state alliance that rules his life from cradle to grave.

Kevin Carson is a research associate at the Center for a Stateless Society, contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective. Mr. Carson has also written for a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.

Filed under: Political Science Tagged: anarchism, anti-Statism, average joe, corporatism, culture, daily grind, Democrats, fiat money, free market, free trade, intellectual property, libertarain, liberty, market-anarchism, patent monopoly, psychology, relativity, Republicans, society, subsidies, US

Julian Assange posted a complete answer to the question he’s frequently asked: Do we need WikiLeaks and why? He holds back no punches and points the finger at conspirators who create the need for reasonable skepticism and authoritarians who create the need for light-bearers.

Continue reading at Little Alex in Wonderland …

I think you’ll like this. Give it a listen.

Julian Assange, Daniel Ellsburg and Nic Robertson discussed “The Afghanistan War Logs” leak, Monday evening.

Part One (7:16):

Part Two (5:33):

Part Three (5:23):

The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, discussed the whistleblowing site’s most recent leak of over 90,000 U.S. military records on “Larry King Live” at CNN, Monday evening.

Sunday evening, The New York Times (NYT), the London Guardian and German weekly Der Spiegel revealed WikiLeaks granted them access to the documents spanning from 2004-09. It is being called the largest leak since Daniel Ellsburg leaked the Pentagon Papers, which exposed U.S. government secrets of its war in Vietnam.

Mr. Assange, earlier today, said the leak exposes “evidence of war crimes” committed by the U.S.-led coalition under the Bush and Obama Administrations. Mr. Ellsburg later joined the broadcast in support of WikiLeaks.

Nic Robertson, senior correspondent at CNN International, referenced an intelligence source saying the leak is “old bad news in a new bad time”—mainly of Pakistan intelligence puppeteering the Afghan militant resistance networks. Later in the episode, Mr. Ellsburg remained to participate in a panel discussion with former NATO Europe Supreme Allied Commander and retired U.S. General Wesley Clark, former military intelligence officer and fellow whistleblower Anthony Shaffer and Rolling Stone contributing editor Michael Hastings—whose recent exposé of the counterinsurgency doctrine in Afghanistan displayed its only foreseeable result as “perpetual war“.

In response to the common red herring question as to WikiLeaks’ being ‘allowed’ to leak documents, Mr. Assange responded to a reporter at an afternoon London press conference:

Well, it’s a matter about whether the coercive power of the state should be used to stop people sharing information, who have no direct connection to the source of the information. You can’t use the coercive power of the state to stop people spreading rumors, to stop people discussing political life, and sophisticated U.S. jurisprudence understands that. And that is why you have things like the First Amendment, which takes the press outside the legislative process, because in the end it is the communication of knowledge which regulates the legislature, which creates the Constitution.

Earlier in the day at Democracy Now!, Rick Rowley—an independent journalist with Big Noise Films who just returned from a trip to Afghanistan, embedded with a division in the extended Marja Surge—summarized the progression of Washington’s mission toward a secret war of extrajudicial assassinations, night raids and mass kidnapping:

Well, I mean, what these documents show—prove—is that the U.S. military has been whitewashing the war in Afghanistan for years and that most of the media has been along for the ride. They’ve systematically covered up civilian casualties. They’ve covered up the successful attacks by the Taliban and their significance. And they’ve covered up the violent criminality of the security forces that we’ve created there, security forces that are preying on Afghan civilians. I mean, the picture that emerges from these documents is, on the one hand, of an insurgency that is resilient and adapting and that is winning the war on the ground, and, on the other hand, of an Afghan state that we’ve constructed there that looks less like a government and looks more like a patchwork of warlords and criminal gangs that’s extorting the local population and that has become more hated in many parts of the country than the Taliban who they replaced.

A third interesting thing that these documents do is they put flesh on a process that we’ve been tracking, along with reporters like Jeremy Scahill, for some time, of a transition to what some people call a special forces war, an entirely covert and classified war that’s conducted with drone strikes and midnight raids and targeted assassinations, where everything is classified, there are no media embeds, and there’s very little accountability. I mean, I think that is the trajectory that this war is taking right now.

Now, the White House has responded. They haven’t denied anything here. They haven’t even denied the conclusions that people are drawing about how terrible the war has been there. Their response has been that this is old news, we knew about this a long time ago, and that, in fact, Obama’s war, Obama’s surge, the new war that began in December 2009, has changed everything. Well, I came back from Afghanistan ten days ago. And while I was embedded with the Marines in Marja and elsewhere in the country, I can tell you that this picture matches perfectly with what’s going on on the ground there right now. In Marja, which was supposed to be the poster child of this new campaign, Marja—you know, it’s a small farming community where two Marine divisions were sent in to try to prove that this war was still winnable. Those two Marine divisions have been pinned down for months. We were there at the beginning of an operation called Operation Cobra that was sending in reinforcements, a couple extra Marine companies, to try to, you know, push out their security perimeter. But it’s the—Obama’s surge has completely derailed. They haven’t brought security to Marjah. They have one to three kilometers of security around their forward operating bases.

And the biggest disaster is that the government that they were—that they’ve brought in and tried to stand up, the famous government in a box that was going to roll out right after the Marines cleared the ground, has disappeared. The officials refused to deploy from Kabul and disappeared. Only the mayor comes in, Mayor Haji Zahir, who’s brought in by helicopter by the Marines and, like, set down in the middle of shuras and meetings that they set up and then bundled back into a helicopter and flown out. And this guy, Haji Zahir, he’s an expat who lived in Germany for years and spent five years in jail for attempted murder in Germany. I mean, that’s the caliber of people who we’ve brought in to make the leaders of this new—of the Afghanistan that we’re building. I mean, it is an abject failure, as far as a nation-building operation on the ground. And, you know, whether you’re talking about the last ten years of the war or 2010, I mean, the picture doesn’t change.

Gareth Porter, investigative journalist at Inter Press Services and scholar on geopolitics, highlighted the confirmation of Pak intel’s role in the insurgency as “the most politically salient issue”.

As for general rundowns of media and White House reaction, the NYT’s “At War” blog, Greg Mitchell at his Nation blog and Andrew Sullivan at his Atlantic blog put together solid rundowns, if one is so compelled, but beware—as there’s plenty of premature hyperbole yelled around.

Filed under: Af-Pak War, National News, Political Science Tagged: Af-Pak War, Afghanistan, anarchism, Andrew Sullivan, Anthony Shaffer, anti-Statism, Bill of Rights, Bush Administration, CIA, civil liberties, Constitution, covert ops, Daniel Ellsburg, embed journalists, First Amendment, free press, free speech, Gareth Porter, Germany, Greg Mitchell, Haji Zahir, IED's, ISAF, Jeremy Scahill, journalism, Julian Assange, Kandahar Surge, Larry King, libertarian, liberty, Marja Surge, media, Michael Hastings, NATO, NY Times, Obama Adminsitration, Operation Cobra, Rick Rowley, SOF, Special Operations Forces, Task Force 373, UK, Wesley Clark

Kevin Carson on how a financial system’s economic injustice breeds desperate classes.

26 July 2010 | C4SS

In 1919 Frank Crane pointed out (in “Justice,” one of his Four Minute Essays) that charity was a poor substitute for justice. Charity, he said, is a palliative which leaves injustice—privilege—in place, while helping the most unfortunate. Charity makes it possible for the poor and unemployed to scrape by, thus enabling the system of privilege to continue. But justice makes charity unnecessary by removing the root causes of poverty and unemployment.

Today, we could say of the welfare state and Keynesian fiscal policy what Crane said of charity.

A whole host of statistics indicate that the current recession is unlike any other since the Great Depression. The number of long-term unemployed, and the number of people competing for each available job, are both more than double their levels in the recession of the early 1980s. While I think Obama’s stimulus package probably stopped the free-fall in job loss that occurred in First Quarter 2009—just barely—we can see that as soon as the money stops being spent the economy stagnates again. So we’re probably headed either into the second leg of a W-shaped recession, or into a long-term period of stagnation and zero job growth.

Our old ideas on what it takes to overcome the state capitalist economy’s inherent tendencies toward excess capacity are becoming obsolete. And the causes go back to Frank Crane’s understanding of justice.

Injustice is at the heart of our economic problems.  By making capital and land artificially scarce and expensive, the state forces workers to sell their labor in a buyer’s market and thereby reduces the bargaining power of labor. The owners of land and capital are thereby enabled to collect scarcity rents.

The economic effects are destabilizing. Income shifts from workers, who work mainly to meet their consumption needs, to rentiers with a high propensity to save and invest.  The result is a chronic tendency toward overaccumulation and underconsumption.

At the same time, the state subsidizes the most centralized, capital-intensive forms of production, leading to mass-production industry with overbuilt plant and equipment that’s constantly plagued with idle capacity.

The problem was “solved” for a while by World War II, which blew up most of the plant and equipment outside the U.S. and created a permanent war economy to absorb a major part of the destabilizing economic surplus. But by 1970 the industrial capacity of Europe and Japan had been rebuilt, and the old tendencies toward chronic stagnation were resumed.

Since then the tendencies toward stagnating economic growth, excess capacity, and jobless recoveries have increased from one decade to the next. The economy has become increasingly dependent on speculative bubbles to soak up surplus capital, and on growing consumer debt to absorb excess industrial output.

Given state capitalism’s inherent tendencies toward stagnation, the welfare state and Keynesian demand management are absolutely necessary parts of it.

State intervention creates maldistribution of purchasing power and excess production capacity. Government attempts to remedy the resulting destabilizing tendencies by taxing a small fraction of what was originally shifted from the producing classes to the rentier classes, and giving it to the most destitute portion of the exploited classes, in order to prevent politically destabilizing levels of  unemployment and homelessness.  It runs a deficit during economic downturns in order to provide sufficient demand to compensate for the shortfall in purchasing power.

The problem is that the relative periods of downturn keep getting longer, and the deficit spending required to correct for the chronic demand shortfall keeps getting larger.

Once the state substitutes privilege for justice, it inevitably creates destabilizing tendencies that must be met by one of two possible courses of action. One is to remove the privileges and allow the natural operation of justice, so that the chronic instabilities don’t arise. The other is to add secondary interventions like the welfare state and Keynesian fiscal policy, so the destabilizing tendencies don’t get too bad—and to keep increasing the level of such intervention when it no longer works the way it should.

So to the “conservatives” who want to “cut spending” and “balance the budget,” I give this warning:  Understand the implications of what you demand. If you will  not have a welfare state and deficit spending, you must have a free market — a genuine free market, not the kind of fake “free market” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation call for. You must cease to enforce monopoly rents to the owners of land, capital and “intellectual property.”

If you go only halfway, removing the palliative measures without removing the injustice—if you choose a fake corporatist version of the “free market”—you will only give us another Great Depression worse than the last one.

The choice is clear. If you will not have justice, you must have welfare and Keynesian stimulus spending. There is no third way.

Kevin Carson is a research associate at the Center for a Stateless Society, contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective. Mr. Carson has also written for a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.

Filed under: Political Science Tagged: AEI, capitalism, conservatives, corporatism, dystopia, economic justice, Frank Crane, Great Depression, Heritage Foundation, Kevin Carson, Keynesianism, libertarian, liberty, market-anarchism, monopoly, Newspeak, Republicans, state capitalism, Third Way, US, war spending, WWII