Monthly Archives: February 2003

NO WAR

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

It appears that the united states government will soon increase the intensity of the war it has been waging continuously against the people who live in iraq for over ten years. Unable to terrorize iraq’s rulers into unquestioning obedience to the american political, economic, and military establishment, the owner of the world’s largest array of weapons of mass destruction will now use this might to further torment the people and ravage the land of iraq, with the intent of replacing the local tyrants with an occupation government run by american generals. As with any attempt to justify a war of aggression, the threat posed by the iraqi government and military to those in other countries has been wildly exaggerated. Even some in the FBI and CIA have disputed Bush’s claim of iraqi ties to al-qaida. But american politicians have never let the truth get in the way of a good war. Remember the Maine?

It is unquestionable that the government of iraq has robbed, murdered, and brutalized those it rules over, as well as the residents of other countries, especially iran. But none of this domestic and international terrorism bothered those who rule the united states until the iraqi military invaded kuwait in 1990. In fact, the american government considered Saddam Hussein an ally during the many years his military waged war against iran.

While they have fashioned themselves as the world’s head cops for a long time now, it is only in recent years that the united states government and military have been able to fully implement their vision of world dominion. They have announced that those who are not with them in their alleged war against terrorism are against them. Being “with” america means endorsing whatever action its politicians and military leaders engage in, and the united states feels free to do whatever it wishes to torment those who are “against” it. It threatens sanctions against countries whose rulers do not comply, and claims the right to cross international borders in hot pursuit of “terrorists.” Like their pirate forbears, american navy ships feel free to stop and board foreign vessels on the high seas if they suspect them of carrying oil or weapons they have declared contraband, ie, those originating in countries whose rulers the american state is on the outs with. And, always, there is the ongoing threat of military attack to achieve american foreign policy goals.

The united states government calls for regime change in iraq. But, of course the new rulers will not have to be democrats or humanitarians, as we have seen in the case of afghanistan, where prisoners are suffocated to death in containers, women continue to be treated abominably, student protestors are shot in the streets, and foreign TV programs are banned by the government installed by the american military. All that really matters is that the new regime does not step on the toes of the united states in international matters and allows american oil companies to have their way with iraq’s natural resources. What they do to the people they have power over is of little concern to the state department or the pentagon.

The aggressive military posturing of the united states has served to encourage and justify similar behavior on the part of its allies. The australian government threatens “pre-emptive” military strikes, the leaders of the british state practically salivate at the idea of war with iraq, and the russian government justifies its murderous campaign in chechnya as a war against its own islamist terrorists. The chinese rulers label separatists in east turkestan as terrorists and hope to quiet international criticism of their brutal behavior there by saying it is part of the international “war on terror,” while israel continues its slaughter of teenagers and destruction of the homes of relatives of those it considers terrorists. It is the height of hypocrisy that american politicians label the iraqi tyrants as unacceptable threats to world freedom, while they are in bed with the brutes who rule china, pakistan, indonesia, israel, and saudi arabia.

Even when at war, allegedly to protect freedom, the american military and security agencies have managed not to be distracted from their other important work, of course. The coast guard somehow manages to find the time to board and harass cruise ships in alaska and prevent desperate people trying to escape the united states-supported government in haiti from landing on american shores. The DEA has stepped up efforts to prevent ecstasy from getting into the country. The INS still considers it important to harass and deport people who have come from as far away as morocco to Dutch Harbor in order to try and make a living by working in the seafood processing plants there. And the army has not let its desire to increase the number of soldiers fluent in arabic keep it from expelling a number of such interpreters who enjoy homosexual sex. So it should come as no surprise that those with whom the military forms alliances have no respect for individual liberty, either.

While our limited internal american freedoms have been under attack by the government since September 2001, things will probably get worse in the near future. In addition to causing the death of large numbers of iraqi non-combatants, this “new” war will serve as a pretext for the accelerated growth of the domestic police state, where, already, immigrants from some countries are presumed to be terrorists until proven otherwise, and long-time residents with no criminal history are jailed and deported; prisoners are held without charge or legal representation and otherwise denied due process; legal residents traveling even within states are subjected to inane, insulting, and demeaning “security” procedures which do nothing to increase flight safety; people are encouraged to inform on others based on snippets of conversation overheard at a restaurant or on a plane; armed air marshals are allowed to terrorize airplane passengers; local school systems are required to turn their students’ names over to the military to facilitate recruitment; and domestic spy agencies may readily snoop into people’s mail, listen in on phone conversations, and obtain library and bookstore records simply by claiming a possible terrorist connection. Politicians have also proposed requiring americans travelling abroad to inform the government of their comings and goings, and some are now advocating reinstitution of the military draft.

As always, most of the members of the party in “opposition,” after mouthing a few platitudes, will fall in line to “support the troops” as soon as the massacre starts. War is a bipartisan policy, as evidenced by the relentless bombing of iraq, the murderous assault on people in serbia, and the occasional bomb tossed at sudan or afghanistan witnessed under the previous administration.Beside the increase in military spending that will come at the expense of other government programs which arguably benefit some regular people, the number of civilian federal employees, including those involved in airport “security,” is increasing as well. Government, as always, continues to grow, funded by the money the state extorts from working people in taxes and fees. But, corporate america also continues to benefit from the sweat of working people as the government, blaming the economic difficulties of the american airlines on the attacks in September 2001, has given large amounts of money taken from working people to the airlines so that their stockholders, managers, and consultants can continue to live their extravagant lives while regular workers are laid off or see their pay cut. In addition, the government has agreed to use tax dollars to pay off claims against private insurers that can be blamed on terrorism. And one can be sure that as soon as the dust settles in “liberated” iraq, united states corporations will move right in and extract massive amounts of profit by “helping” the iraqis to extract, refine, and sell the oil and natural gas found in their country. War is the health, not only of the state, but also of corporate capitalist enterprises.

The prompt formation of an anti-war movement here and abroad has brought some hope to the scene. Opponents of american military adventurism in iraq range from some european governments and politicians, the catholic church hierarchy, and former cold warrior and author John le Carré to average people who have gathered on the streets of cities throughout the united states and the world, including Anchorage, to voice their opposition to the government’s plan to slaughter people in iraq. The growing non-compliance of individuals and institutions with the government’s attempt to whip up pro-war hysteria by conducting widespread inoculations against a non-existent smallpox threat has also demonstrated that not everyone has been taken in by the lies and distortions of the state and the news media that, largely, serve it. But the only way that this war will be avoided is if even more regular people begin to question authority, look critically at what they are being told, and stand up and say no.

Anarcho-Libertarianism and the Security Forces

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

Few things are more certain to elicit righteous anger from anarcho-libertarians than mention of State security forces: overt and covert police, armed forces, and intelligence agencies. For sure, even when they are those possessed by the liberal democracies and not merely the tools of some outright dictator or particularly vile political or religious creed, there are often very good reasons for this. For example, their enforcement of laws incompatible with individual liberty; their role in suppressing ‘extremist’ ideologies such as anarcho-libertarianism that threaten the status quo; their overly enthusiastic support of many of the world’s despots in the name of ‘national interest;’ and of course their all-to-frequent engagement in abuses of power and outright criminality that even the liberal democracies deplore in principle.

Instead, the real reason for anarcho-libertarians’ hostility to the security forces is not so much what they do, but rather what they are: amongst the most important creatures of ‘the State,’ a concept that anarcho-libertarians simply regard as a fictitious warrant for certain individuals to acquire and exercise aggressively coercive power over others.      But this is to miss what ought to be the real reason behind anarcho-libertarians’ hostility towards the security forces, and it is a trap into which many can and do fall and end up looking like fools. For if one is to take this empirical approach and enumerate all the bad things that State security forces actually do, then honesty requires one to admit that—again at least in the liberal democracies—they also do a lot of desirable things as well, a concept that many anarcho-libertarians find quite heretical. For example, they can detect and apprehend— perhaps even fend off beforehand—those who commit crimes that would be considered wrongs in the most anarchistic of societies such as physical assaults or the theft of personal property; they can deter the armies of a mad despot who has a cowed people and the resources of a country upon which to call; and yes it needs to be admitted that they can suppress terrorist-inclined political and religious movements of a collectivist nature compared to which liberal democracy seems like paradise on earth.

The problem comes when, having rejected the notion of the State and thus regarding as inherently illegitimate any coercive power that an individual or organization exercises in the name of the State, anarcho-libertarians sometimes are perceived to—and sometimes actually do—reject reflexively everything that the so-called State and its agencies do. Anarcho-libertarians also oppose compulsory schooling and ‘public-sector’ healthcare, both of which are funded out of coercively expropriated taxation and which place severe limits on individual choice by, for example, many forms of more-or-less mandatory occupational licensing. Yet we emphatically do not oppose either education or healthcare. Indeed, we say that a freer life will enrich these very things by allowing greater experiment and innovation outside of the straightjacket imposed by the State. What we do say, however, is that no one should be forced to ‘participate’ in these services, whether as a funder or a consumer. So too with the security forces. It is not security as such that anarcho-libertarians reject, but the illegitimately coercive nature of State security.

Another aspect of this is the crypto-world-revolutionaryism and (in its pejorative sense) utopianism that still afflicts many anarcho-libertarians. To put it simply: that anarcho-libertarianism ‘will come about’ (a) very rapidly via some mass uprising, (b) more-or-less simultaneously throughout the world, and furthermore that (c) all of the flaws of mankind will disappear once liberated from the corruption of Statism.

Sensible anarchists and libertarians have long eschewed revolution as a realistic mechanism for advancing their cause. Firstly, at any give stage, there is only so far that even the most ‘liberal State—or rather the individuals who benefit from promoting the fiction—can be pushed, and the asymmetry of power in the even semi-advanced nations—not least from the very security forces under discussion here, of course—is these days such to ensure the revolution’s defeat. Second, that history shows—with the partial exceptions of the three English revolutions in the 1640s, the 1680s, and in the American colonies in the 1770s—that the winning side in revolutions tend to espouse even more despotic beliefs than the various regimes that they overthrew and that furthermore they tend to be led by men with a personal predilection for violence. What this inescapably leads to—except for those who wish and are able to live as self-sufficient hermits away from the world—is the belief in some form of generally peaceful gradualism. This means that at any given moment some aspects of the State might be more sensibly—from both a tactical and ethical point of view—attacked by word and (non-violent) deed than others.

If this is true within our existing countries, then so too is it true amongst the many different countries in the world today. Even if an anarcho-libertarian society was established in a country—or a sufficiently large portion of it so that by that stage the remaining Statist-inclined had accepted defeat in at least that region—there would still most likely remain other Statist countries, often controlled by men and ideologies of astonishing aggressiveness and cruelty. In short, the newly-founded anarcho-libertarian society, having achieved success against domestic Statists, must either now defend itself against often malignant and militarily well-equipped foreign Statists or die soon after its birth. This can only be done—assuming that it is not also a wholly pacifist society—by the retention of troops and hardware in sufficient numbers, training, and modernity to see off the threat. Anarchism is not ‘disorder.’ but voluntary and spontaneous order formed from the one unifying purpose of defending mutual individual liberty.

The point is that anarcho-libertarians need to be careful that they do not in fact, nor even in appearance, ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater.’  They need to demonstrate that they take security seriously, both in showing that they are not naive about the realities of human nature or international politics, that even in the most anarcho-libertarian society there will be remain a need for security forces to counter both domestic (‘criminal’) and foreign (‘military’) threats, and also that there are in reality only a certain number of effective ways that this can be arranged.

Finally, anarcho-libertarians, in common with most other reasonable observers of the world as it actually is, fully recognize that one does not have to be a Marxist to acknowledge that social systems can have a profound impact on the attitudes, beliefs, behavior, and social psychology of people. This is why, for example, even within the parameters relating to the various political settlements that we see in the world today, corruption tends to be positively associated with (relative) political authoritarianism: despotism breeds distrust and mendacity. Nevertheless, it is credulous in the extreme to think that criminality—the tendency of some individuals to choose to act as invasive human parasites—will wholly disappear in an anarcho-libertarian society. Therefore, some form of security and police—by whatever name they are known—will still be needed.

The point is that anarcho-libertarians need to be careful that they do not in fact, nor even in appearance, ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater.’ They need to demonstrate that they take security seriously, both in showing that they are not naive about the realities of human nature or international politics, that even in the most anarcho-libertarian society there will be remain a need for security forces to counter both domestic (‘criminal’) and foreign (‘military’) threats, and also that there are in reality only a certain number of effective ways that this can be arranged.

Finally and vitally for the promotion of the cause of liberty, anarcho-libertarians need steadfastly to maintain that effective security most assuredly can be arranged in a voluntaristic way absent of the aggressive and coercive ‘State.’ This needs to be done in a threefold manner: by arguing the theoretical case; by noting whatever examples of voluntaristic security—and, indeed, other ‘emergency’ services—already exist and have survived formal prohibition and informal ‘crowding out’ by the State; and where it might be possible, setting up parallel security agencies that are run in accordance with anarcho-libertarian principles.

Who can it be now?

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

So we’re all like, “Hey, let weapons inspectors back in!” and the Iraqis are all like, “Dude, you pulled out, inspectus interruptus was your idea from the last time you bombed, and you’re like spying on us anyway!” and we’re all like “Shyeah, as if, let us in or we bomb you!” and they’re all like “This is sooo like just a pretext, we say yes and you’ll find something else!” and we’re like “No, dude, we swear, no pretext and we’re serious and we have lots of bombs!” and they’re all like “Let me talk to Kofi Annan, OK?” and Kofi’s all like “Dude, they mean business and they have bombs fer sher, we’ve seen ‘em!” and they’re all like “Jeez, OK already, your inspectors that you pulled out anyway can come in again” and now we’re all like “Psyche, dude!  Too late! Not good enough!  Give us a minute to think of more demands before we bomb you anyway!”  So like, what I want to know is, isn’t that the very definition of pretext?

The State of the State in Alaska

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

Alaska is tightly wrapped in the tentacles of government, authoritarianism, and intolerance. The state is dependent on huge quantities of federal money, corporate welfare is the order of the day, police agencies of various sorts acquire more and more power, and many who live here not only accept the situation but strive to increase the government’s power to interfere in the lives of peaceful residents. While many government entities meddle in the business of alaskans, by far the biggest player is the united states government. In 2001 alone, the feds spent $6,000,000,000 here, $1,500,000,000 of which was a subsidy to the state government.

Alaska’s dependence on government doesn’t end with the armed forces, though. Non-military united states government agencies here employ 17,139 people, the state of alaska has 16,066 people on its payroll, and the University of Alaska, the Anchorage school district, municipality of Anchorage and the Fairbanks north star school district together employ another 16,843. These government agencies, all funded entirely with money extorted from working people, comprise seven of the top ten employers in alaska, with a total of 71,240 workers between them. The federal government alone accounts for around 10% of all jobs here.Another $1,000,000,000 or so goes to the various military forces based in the state, making them a major force in the economy As the Anchorage and Fairbanks chambers of commerce boasted in a May 2002 brochure, Advantage to Alaskans, there are 17,497 active military and 3695 national guard personnel in the state, as well as 36,605 family members of military personnel. Retirees and their families account for another 44,620 people. That means that 102,417 people, or 16% of the state’s population are at least partially on the payroll of the military. The department of “defense” is the largest employer in alaska with 21,192 employees.

As is the case elsewhere, the politicians who run alaska, on both federal and state levels, are always looking for more power, and have used the supposed “war on terror” to expand their empires. The military plans to place 16 missiles at Fort Greeley and alaska now has its very own office of homeland security. In addition, a new force of “sea marshals” has taken to harassing shipping along the coast, having boarded over 70 vessels, from cruise ships full of tourists to oil tankers, in their first year of operation. And, naturally, alaskans are forced to put up with the same harassment by federal inspectors every other united states resident now faces when travelling by air. Already over $53,000,000 has been spent on “upgrading” the state’s “security” capabilities.

These new measures come on top of the pre-existing policing that people have become all too used to. Here are some examples from the last six months: Anchorage police attacked a 13 year old in September, and beat up and gassed a large number of other young people after a dance just this month. A state trooper notorious for using violence against anyone who does not immediately follow his every order killed a disabled driver on the Sterling highway in January. Police will now be stationed in Anchorage high schools and the superintendent boasts about a 23% increase in suspensions of students, many for non-violent transgressions including “willful disobedience” to their keepers. The state office of public advocacy has withheld the funds of a client the management of whose money they were charged with. An innocent man was arrested in Anchorage and had his name trumpeted all over the media before DNA testing cleared him of charges of rape. People are arrested for bringing alcohol into villages where the guardians of public morality have declared it unlawful, cops are now using a drug-sniffing dog to keep “dangerous” marijuana out of Fort Yukon, a Fairbanks judge recently forced a person convicted of no crime into mandatory “treatment” because he drinks, and Anchorage police have demonstrated their concern for the public health by raiding a local head shop. Anchorage drivers can now be fined if their insurance papers are not produced at the command of a cop, even if they have adequate insurance coverage. But perhaps most absurd, the state highway department has banned the roadside memorials some people place at accident scenes to remember their loved ones, in the interests of public safety, of course. And if one seeks proof that the state applies its myriad of laws, rules, and regulations fairly, one need only consider the fact that 37% of the people in prison are eskimo, aleut or american indian men, while this is true of only 8% of the state’s general population.

Many, perhaps most, alaskans support or are oblivious to such abuses, at least until they are directly affected. In fact, regular people are often advocates for increased state oversight of others, like the busybodies in Fairbanks who advocate that even more drinkers be given involuntary “treatment.” In another case, some Anchorage property owners have become advocates of greater government oversight of residential building since a few Habitat for Humanity houses in Mountain View and an affordable housing development called Strawberry Village have failed to live up to their standards of what makes an attractive home. But they fail to realize that such meddling in other people’s business may come back to bite them in years to come. Wealthy homeowners who have heretofore monopolized exclusive coastal properties in south Anchorage are now upset that the government is planning to exert its “right” of eminent domain to build a coastal trail near or on “their” property, allowing the great unwashed into the neighborhood.

When they are not busy further militarizing the state and pestering the populace, the pols and bureaucrats find time to redistribute the wealth they have taken from productive people and pass it on to their corporate allies and benefactors. The alaska industrial development and export agency specializes in investing state funds in failing businesses and losing millions of dollars. The state continues to invest in new roads to facilitate agricultural schemes despite a history of costly failures. Ketchikan politicians poured $17,000,000 into a paper plant whose owners and investors took the cash and ran. The state has prevailed on the united states department of agriculture to buy $71,000,000 worth of “surplus” salmon over the last seven years and asked them to buy $30,000,000 more last November. Meanwhile, the state outright owns a slaughterhouse run with prison labor in order to subsidize the livestock industry, which then sells much of the meat to the prison system.

The corporations created and funded by the alaska native claims settlement act regularly line up at the government trough, as well. Chenega Corporation has a $300,000,000 contract with the feds and Chugach Alaska, which went bankrupt from bad investments in 2000, will make $1,000,000,000 or so from a “defense” contract. Not to be left out, the alaska travel industry association has asked the state legislature for $14,000,000 to market tourism, while Alaska Airlines, which already received a payoff from the government after the September 2001 attacks, will receive an annual subsidy of $1,650,000 to provide air service to Adak in the aleutian islands. And businesspeople in Anchorage want the city to increase the hotel tax in order to raise the money to build them a convention center.

While none of this in unique to Alaska, it does fly in the face of the independent image many residents here like to maintain. What it means is that the task of anarchists, who hope to convince others of the merits of a stateless society, will be as difficult to accomplish here as it is elsewhere.

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

All exclusive land-“rights,” except those small ones required to live and work somewhere, are claimed and practised at the expense of the rights and liberties of other people. Do apply the concept of “spaceship” Earth to this planet and keep in mind that none of us or of our ancestors has produced or planet-formed it. A few years to centuries of exclusive occupation or that one’s ancestors had been the first (as far as we know, our historical records are still very incomplete in this), are morally meaningless for present exclusive territorial claims that do go beyond the right to survive, by one’s own efforts, anywhere on Earth, if one can do so without infringing the clear property rights of others. Exclusive territorial claims by others, even when associated with religious, national, racial   or ideological myths and feelings, habits of thought, customs or predominant theories, do not establish exclusive property rights in such territories and abolish the rights and liberties of others.

On the contrary, they are much more like a declaration of war or a claim to local domination over non-consenting others. How wrong these claims are is indicated by the fact that their supporters are lastly prepared to commit mass murder, with machetes to ABC anti-people devices, wrongly called “weapons,” to uphold their wrongful claims. Territorialism ought to be questioned and criticized wherever, whenever and whosoever it raises its ugly head.

Territorialists have by now “defined” Australians as “foreigners” in England and Englanders, including the Queen, as “foreigners” in Australia. Territorialism is wrong and irrational and leads to wrongful and irrational actions, even mad ones.

A Latter-day Altgeld?

 

Maybe it’s in the water. Another governor has stood up to the unjust judicial system in illinois and has pardoned and released a number of obviously innocent prison inmates. Those who were freed were jailed after false confessions were tortured out of them by police and were not only wrongly imprisoned, but were awaiting execution, as well. In addition to these pardons, George Ryan commuted the sentences of all others on death row in his state, a total of 167 people.

The last time multiple pardons by an illinois governor merited such widespread attention was in 1893, when John Peter Altgeld pardoned the three imprisoned survivors among the eight anarchists convicted of conspiracy to murder cops during the 1886 police riot at Haymarket Square in Chicago. Four of the others were killed by the state in 1887, while one killed himself to avoid hanging by the government he detested.

While many thousands of other innocent people remain behind bars all over the united states, and all but three of those who received sentence commutations last month will likely never be released from prison, Ryan’s actions are to be commended as a rare display of humanity on the part of a politician and a small step towards the abolition of the death penalty. While anarchists oppose not only executions, but the very existence of prisons and the “justice” system of which they are an important part, any time someone is freed from the clutches of the state or a prisoner’s life is spared is cause for celebration.

 

A Latter-day Altgeld?

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

Maybe it’s in the water.  Another governor has stood up to the unjust judicial system in illinois and has pardoned and released a number of obviously innocent prison inmates.  Those who were freed were jailed after false confessions were tortured out of them by police and were not only wrongly imprisoned, but were awaiting execution, as well.  In addition to these pardons, George Ryan commuted the sentences of all others on death row in his state, a total of 167 people.

The last time multiple pardons by an illinois governor merited such widespread attention was in 1893, when John Peter Altgeld pardoned the three imprisoned survivors among the eight anarchists convicted of conspiracy to murder cops during the 1886 police riot at Haymarket Square in Chicago.  Four of the others were killed by the state in 1887, while one killed himself to avoid hanging by the government he detested.

While many thousands of other innocent people remain behind bars all over the united states, and all but three of those who received sentence commutations last month will likely never be released from prison, Ryan’s actions are to be commended as a rare display of humanity on the part of a politician and a small step towards the abolition of the death penalty.  While anarchists oppose not only executions, but the very existence of prisons and the “justice” system of which they are an important part, any time someone is freed from the clutches of the state or a prisoner’s life is spared is cause for celebration.