Charles’s Las Vegas Anarchist Café is in the news. (CHT François Tremblay.)
Of the two standard tones newspapers take toward anarchists (condescension and alarmism), the story takes the former, which I guess is preferable to the alternative. At any rate, hey, it’s free publicity.
(Also, check out the comments section for the usual mixture of reasoned discourse and yahoo idiocy.)
A couple of afterthoughts:
1) I wonder whether Bovard really is a self-described anarchofeminist like the story says?
2) Hey, wasn’t John Galt “copper-haired”?
The photo displays condescension visually. It’s taken from above, as if from a throne.
That picture sure gives off a cultural lefty vibe!
“So any institution which gives some people control over others is not acceptable to anarchists.”
1. I think that this is just another “anarchist” bullshit. Your DRO’s would have a real control over peaple. So called “anarchism” is just atteritorial competing goverments. Atteritorialism is the only key difference from libertarian minarchism. Why territorial government (Randian no taxes state) is “archon”, but atteritorial is not? Think about it.
2. Where is the difference between private property/communitarian municipalism and state? In both cases you can: restrict competition on territorial dominium, collect rent/taxes, expel peaple from teritory – like it or leave it. Seriously, where is the difference?
Better term for “anarchism” is “oligarchy/polyarchy” of “natural elites”, or communitarian slavery and centralized syndicalist state.
Two different thoughts:
(1) The Galt analogy would work better had the president not said today that, “No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion…” We are hardly living under the rule of a Mr. Thompson.
(2) It is heartening to see attention paid to someone teaching methodological individualism. I just hope that the focus remains on the mindset–not statelessness. After all, what would happen in a world without a state, but filled with people who are psychologically dependent on conventional institutions?
The sub-headline is wrong, unless Radgeek is a law-hating nihilist.
I’ve never really liked reporters since that one B5 episode “The Illusion of Truth”. Mostly the come off to me as either greedy hacks that will write anything to sell a paper, or else mindless servants of the state parroting its dogma and carrying out its instructions (fox news is sort an “overachiever” in that both of these descriptions fit).
What reason do you have for thinking that Obama is talking about the distinction between customary & common law, as opposed to talking about democratic vs. non-democratic regimes (where democracy just means elections and such)? This seems like the most massively charitable interpretation conceivable.
In any case, when the guy dressed like a stormtrooper starts acting like a stormtrooper (as Obama has analogously done by bombing civilians, covering up evidence of torture, upholding rendition, state secrets, and state immunity, and resisting the prosecution of torturers — to say nothing of his disastrous economic policies), I lean toward thinking he is a stormtrooper — even if he starts reciting whole pages from Murray Rothbard, Kevin Carson, or Leo Tolstoy.
3) You can also see Charles performing a magical incantation here.
I should also point out that if you blow the Death Star up while it’s hovering over the Mises Institute, you also blow up the Mises Institute — which seems suboptimal.
Ah, I shall treasure that image forever more.
Hahahah! OK. You didn’t mention that. Maybe then the objective would be (a) to steer it over an administrative building far enough away, then (b) to blow it up.
What reason do you have for thinking that Obama is talking about the distinction between customary & common law…
I’m thinking of his words within the larger context. He’s in Egypt. He’s trying to reconcile Islam with America, Christianity, Judaism, etc. He tells Israel that extending settlements is unacceptable. He tells them that Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own. I know AIPAC members who are losing their minds because of these mere words. I always thought that Stormtroopers supplied unconditional support for Israel. I thought that was a crucial link in the power structure.
You’re right that I’m being overly generous to interpret power-through-consent as customary law. But, if religion/faith/dogma composes some of the glue that holds common law in place, then these cross-religion talks with the world sure do scrape at that glue.
Oops. You were talking about dismantling the Death Star there. Here you’re talking about blowing it up.
Ok, if I ever write something primarily dealing with Charles’ political philosophy, I’m using this image. It totally rocks.
I don’t think drama matters in hermetic magick- it’s all about how concepts bounce off against each other in your mind. For the chthonic variety, this isn’t bad form from what I can see- flow state, palms spread. I was always taught you keep a relaxed position and take off your shoes(=) and socks.
~~
(=)Why is the whole world obsessed with shoes?
Why territorial government (Randian no taxes state) is
You know, the funny thing is that I actually wrote that for the *specific purpose* of dealing with this very argument that you are making, which I have heard before several times. To repeat: anarchism is the negation of social hierarchy and coercion first and foremost — without knowing that, those objections are understandable, but otherwise you’re just playing word-games.
Why is the whole world obsessed with shoes?
As I recall, this is explained in Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
You would agree that few people understand the distinction between customary law and common law. Those in power–typically–have a vested interest in erasing the line between the two. When someone in power calls attention to the distinction, then it’s probably fair to say that they aren’t typical. I can’t imagine Mr. Thompson saying something like that. Just as I can’t imagine Chancellor Sutler saying something like that. Just as I can’t imagine any character with a vested interest in maintaining the power of common law saying something like that.
I very wise man once said something like this: “Imagine that the Death Star is hovering above the Mises Institute. Would you say that it was necessarily wrong if I dressed up like a Stormtrooper in order to blow up the thing?”
We never consented to the existing power structure. Never. But if we’re to overcome it, then many more people have to become aware of it. Even it that means learning from someone who has infiltrated the Death Star and is dressed like a Stormtrooper.
Not to be confused with the importance of towels.
Well, Bush said some of that stuff too. The hawks mostly didn’t mind because they assumed (rightly, I think) that he didn’t mean it, or perhaps more precisely that he meant it in some constrained and compartmentalised way that would have relatively little effect on policy.
Admittedly Obama talks a better talk on this stuff than Bush does. If we’re lucky, he’ll walk a better walk too — which he might well do, since when you consider how bad Bush was it’s not hard to top him. But “better than Bush” is a pretty feeble accolade.
Here you
steer it over an administrative building far enough away
Heh, I know exactly where I would steer it.
But
The photo displays condescension visually. It
This from Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic.
How would you categorize the peaceful overthrow of a hawkish government? International polycentrism?
Overall, I thought that was as decent a blurb as one could reasonably expect on anarchists.
Testing gravatar feature. Am I personable yet?
I hope there is thick libertarianism involved. I want my chronic mastrubation to online porn to be considered for official left-libby protection.
John-
Of course. Left-libertarianism should support every individual’s right to sexual liberty and- qua grounds, strategic, and consequence thickness- his or her liberation from the irrational prejudices of mankind. Certainly, this includes virtually-aided ‘mastrubation’, altho’ I prefer words such as ‘self-pleasure’. We are sexual beings and the world would be a better place if we were all able to exult in our human potentialities.
Testing… not the best picture, but okay for now.
Gotta love the barely-concealed condescension in mainstream journalism. “Anarchists: They’re not Dangerous, Just Ineffectual.” Still and all, when was the last time Benjamin Tucker was mentioned in the news?
Charles distinguishes two senses of “law,” and affirms the good one and rejects the bad. When he calls an anarchist society lawless he’s talking about the bad sense of law. But you can’t expect a newspaper reporter to follow all that.
We are hardly living under the rule of a Mr. Thompson.
I can easily imagine Mr. Thompson saying something like that too. It wouldn
Charles describes his view in more detail here, and explains why he sometimes calls anarchist society lawless.
For what it’s worth, Charlotte was a sympathetic interviewer who among other things took time to contact Dana Ward before she ever interviewed me, in order to get some background on anarchist ideas. She didn’t miss or misrepresent my distinction between senses of “law”; rather, I used the phrase “lawless order” several times in the course of the interview without stopping to mention the distinction between law-as-general-prescription and law-as-government-edict (although I did mention the importance of private mediation and arbitration along the way), because I figured (rightly, I think) that spelling out the distinction would only introduce complications that couldn’t be very well captured in the story — not because of any problem with the reporter, but simply because of the format of a shot newspaper feature is such that the medium won’t bear the message.
The only thing that really baffles me, actually, is the headline. I mean, yeah, down with “The Man” and all, but my appropriation of New Left argot hasn’t gone that far yet, and I don’t think those two words were ever even uttered in that order at any point during the meeting.
I can’t say for sure but I suspect that some of the weird camera angle business had to do with the photographer having to maneuver so that a participant who didn’t want to be photographed would not end up in the frame. This meant basically trying to scoot in between the audience and me in order to get the shot. I’m sure there was a better solution to the problem, but whatever.
You use mouseover text?
Straussian.
Note to self: learn to use mouseover text. Apply liberally. Page source good place to start.
Almost every image in this blog has mouseover text! Half the time it’s just a flat description but the other half of the time it’s some sort of joke.
See here and here, for example. (The latter I’m especially fond of, though hardly anyone will get it.)
For what it’s worth, I thought the latter was hilarious. Not quite as funny though as the time you walked into History of Medieval Philosophy class soaked–it was pouring outside–and you said, “The empirical case for rain is very strong.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! I’ll never forget that one.
I’m embarrassed to have relied on a merely empirical argument.
I’m sure you would have prefaced it with, “since I know–through the synthetic a priori judgment–that walking is an exchange with the environment, and this is a rainy environment..” But it wouldn’t have been as funny.
There’s a purely rational validation of clouds and rain?
Roderick, how do you put a picture on one’s posts on this blog?
It would be very good for the left-libertarian movement if the regulars could put faces to their names- sociobiologically speaking (yech), people remember faces, and we’ll all hang together more effectively if we reinforce community. As Soviet said, most people here have far more in common with others in this public forum of the intellect than they do with those close to them geographically, who are mostly boring farang anyway. Html is the new Latin, and for intelligent people on the cutting edge of history web forums are where people grow up together. By intent or accident, Left Libertaria is a family. Everyone who aids and abets this sense of community is providing a public good, so I would encourage everyone to put their best face forward.
For those, like Kevin Carson and Brad Spangler, who don’t like to be seen in public, we could use tasteful masks such as your bust of Aristotle (actually, you do look kinda like Aristotle). Kevin, for instance, should use a portrait of Mr. J.
I can’t use a photo myself for another two months, until the swelling from my new face dies down. But I’m sure I can find something appropriately tasteful.
BTW, what did Douglas Adams say about shoes? I’ve read 1,2, and 5 of the HHGttG series, but am completely drawing a blank Czech on this one.
There
Yes, you can prove the existence of unicorns this way too. You gotta problem widdat?
LOL!!! Since (a) this is a libertarian site, (b) everyone here has a good sense of humor, (c) the creators of South Park are self-described libertarians, and (d) the topic of pure rationalism has been brought up, then it would only be fitting to share this three part series: Imaginationland. (here, <a href=”http://www.xepisodes.com/episodes/1111/Imaginationland-Episode-II.html”here, and here.
Damn! 2nd episode here.
Roderick,
That picture of Brad is six or seven years old. It also leaves out is ponytail.
There are some pictures of him on facebook, although I think they were all taken by his GF.
“Yes, you can prove the existence of unicorns this way too. You gotta problem widdat?”
No. But oughtn’t I to?
Aster, these moments remind me quite clearly that my sentiments are outside the cultural norms for prototypical males: I loved The Last Unicorn.
Well, reporters don’t generally get to pick their own headlines, I believe.
some of the weird camera angle business had to do with the photographer having to maneuver so that a participant who didn
I
Ah, that put a smile on my face.
They seem to have gone with the “harmless crank” approach instead of the usual black bloc’in anti-globalization vandarchist.
Speaking of which, I wonder if Kinsella approves.
Why so serious? Hope?
Are you saying you’re not a monster, you’re just ahead of the curve, or that, with the magic of diesel fuel and ammonium nitrate, you’re ready right now to blow us all sky high?
Isn’t that the basic description of an anarchist?
I don’t see how I’m playing word games any more than you are. Like I said before, the term “anarchism” has been used in the anarchist tradition (including by people recognised by all sides as anarchists) in a variety of ways — some broader and some narrower. So if anarchist A says “anarchism means being against X and Y, and I’m against both,” and anarchist B says “anarchism just means being against X, but as it happens I’m also against Y” — okay, so they agree on what they’re against but they’re just fighting about terminology, and each has some historical warrant for their usage. It seems like a boring verbal dispute at that point.
Oh dear, I was responding to Kregus! I apologize for the confusion.
Oops, sorry. Friendly fire.
I could never get the “gun = debate” analogy the media constantly uses (i.e. “Clinton is under fire for his controversial remarks”). If you criticize somebody, that’s not the same as attacking them with a firearm, although I have met some people who reacted that way.
They’re probably just shooting from the hip.
Since Lord Hoppe went unmentioned, probably not.
Someone should make an Obama-style poster of Hans Hoppe, with the logo reading “HOPPE” instead of “HOPE.”
‘Lord Hoppe’.
Thank you! We shall subsequently adopt this form of address for all future correspondence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wGR4-SeuJ0
Question: does Lord Hoppe have a formal Deutsch title of academic address? Y’know, the kind he might use to give interviews with Na… European far right publications.