Classic Rand Interview

Playboy has published a 1964 interview with Ayn Rand online.

In two brief answers, Rand summarizes the essence of her philosophical beliefs:

PLAYBOY: What are the basic premises of Objectivism? Where does it begin?

RAND: It begins with the axiom that existence exists, which means that an objective reality exists independent of any perceiver or of the perceiver's emotions, feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Objectivism holds that reason is man's only means of perceiving reality and his only guide to action. By reason, I mean the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.

PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged your hero, John Galt, declares, "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." How is this related to your basic principles?

RAND: Galt's statement is a dramatized summation of the Objectivist ethics. Any system of ethics is based on and derived, implicitly or explicitly, from a metaphysics. The ethic derived from the metaphysical base of Objectivism holds that, since reason is man's basic tool of survival, rationality is his highest virtue. To use his mind, to perceive reality and to act accordingly, is man's moral imperative. The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics is: man's life -- man's survival qua man -- or that which the nature of a rational being requires for his proper survival. The Objectivist ethics, in essence, hold that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself. It is this last that Galt's statement summarizes.

The onslaught of bad news these days can seem overwhelming. We have political takeovers or attempted takeovers of major industries from banking to auto manufacturing to health care. Added to the dismal political news are natural problems like swine flu and earthquakes. It is, however, an opportune time to get back to fundamentals. Rand's masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged, has been flying of the shelf because, I think, more people than ever are concerned with the direction the world is headed -- and they're looking for a rational alternative.

Read the Playboy interview -- and don't stop there.

Around Colorado: April 28, 2009

Hsieh on Health-Bureaucracy Push

Thomas Ferraro and Donna Smith of Reuters reported April 24, "Congressional Democrats are near a deal to ram through legislation overhauling the U.S. healthcare system," imposing so-called "universal" (read: politically controlled) health insurance.

Paul Hsieh of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine writes, "Americans have already been burnt by the Congressional rush to pass the 'stimulus' bill -- which many legislators now acknowledge that they didn't even read before voting for it. Congress should not make the same mistake by rushing to pass 'universal health care' legislation."

Read the excellent letters by Hannah Krening and Diana Hsieh, which Paul reproduces.


Twenty Years for Burglary, Illegal Auto

Congratulations to the AP for getting this point right: "Unregistered fully automatic weapons, sometimes called machine guns, are illegal."

Unfortunately, various important questions remain unanswered. Jason Muchow, "a Loveland mail carrier faces charges of stealing his ex-girlfriend's mail and owning a fully automatic weapon... Authorities say they found a fully automatic AK-47 in Muchow's home after he was accused of breaking into his ex-girlfriend's home and killing her cat... He faces up to 20 years in prison and $500,000 in fines if convicted of all the federal charges."

Surely killing your ex's cat, however horrible and despicable, is not a federal crime. The only reason stealing mail is a federal crime is that the U.S. Government holds a politically-enforced monopoly on first-class mail. Both these things are properly state-level, not federal-level, crimes. If he is proved guilty, he surely deserves significant punishment for stealing, breaking into a house, and killing somebody's cat.

Does Muchow admit that he illegally purchased a full-auto rifle or illegally converted a semiautomatic rifle to full-auto? Or does he claim that his rifle became "fully automatic" only after it was "tested" by federal agents?

My position is that the federal registration requirements for full-autos, imposed through tax laws, should be repealed. That said, if you knowingly buy or convert an unregistered full-auto, you're an idiot. More importantly, Muchow should be punished for victimizing another person, if proved guilty, and that is the point that I think all parties can agree on.


Buck Hate Crimes

I was pleased when the murderer of transgendered Angie Zapata was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. The murderer deserved (at least) that.

But is the crime somehow more heinous because it was obviously motivated by bigotry? I mean, he bashed in an innocent person's skull with a fire extinguisher. Isn't that bare fact enough to send somebody to prison for life?

More to the point, if a criminal bashes in somebody's skull for some other motive, is the crime somehow less abhorrent? Is the victim less deserving of tough sentencing?

"Ikonoclst" over at the People's Press Collective blasts Ken Buck, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, for praising hate-crime legislation.

However, Republican arguments against hate-crime legislation would go over better if some Republicans were not so shrilly anti-homosexual.


Arveschoug-Bird Safe for Now?

Last month I reviewed some of the details of the Arveschoug-Bird law, which limits general fund expenditures.

According to the Denver Post's Tim Hoover, the Republicans played a clever political hand to derail the effort to remove the law.

House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker told Hoover, "It is extremely disingenuous for the Democrats to remove this spending cap under the guise of creating transportation funding. We proved today just how easy it is to siphon those so-called transportation dollars right out of the bill and put them wherever you want."

After Tea, Try Liberty

The following article originally was published on April 27, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

After tea, try long, cool drink of liberty

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

On April 15 thousands of Coloradans gathered in cities across the state to protest big-spending politicians and advocate liberty. They joined hundreds of thousands across the nation. But a tea party is not in itself a liberty movement. We must dig beneath the political crises of the day and nourish the roots of freedom.

We are encouraged by much of what we heard April 15. Here in Grand Junction, Ryan Frazier said, "We, and more importantly our children, are being saddled with endless debt upon which we will all have to pay... We choose capitalism over socialism... We believe you cannot make one man more free by making another man less free." He advocated people's "liberty to live [their lives] as they see best, and a government that protects their right to do so."

Your junior author Ari attended the rally in Denver and recorded a number of interviews. Peter Perry advocated "lower taxes, less government, and more freedom... Let's get back to the original Constitution."

Thomas James: "I hope the elected officials who this is aimed at develop an awareness that the people are not happy... with the taxing, spending, government growth, irresponsibility, and that people are waking up and they want their liberty back."

Anthony Gillis: "We need to take a stand for liberty, and for our livelihoods... The spending is simply out of control."

Ed Carter: "I'm here with my son to try to take this government back for the people... We need to get back to what our forefathers intended this country to be all about."

Carol: "I have eight grandchildren... [They're] going to have to [bear] the brunt of paying this off... and I'm mad as hell about it, too. Our kids shouldn't have to pay for somebody else's misappropriation of funds."

Terry: "I'm tired of seeing the Constitution stepped on... Government is out of control."

Bob Tender: "The government is spending too much money. Congress doesn't even read its own bills, comes up with 'stimulus' that has hidden pork in it, taking away our future, taking away our kids' future, taking away our grandchildrens' future."

Mel, an Air Force veteran of Vietnam: "I feel this taxation, and also the overspending of the budget is definitely wrong. It's a free enterprise country. If you can't run your company, you should resign or default, and not have the government pulling you out."

The tea parties were deeply inspiring for those of us who cherish economic liberty and see that robbing Peter to pay Paul cannot restore prosperity. But we need more than anger at the current (or the last) administration. We need more than criticism of Congress. We need more than signs, rallies, and speeches.

We need ideas. We need the ideas that informed the signers of the Declaration of Independence, that each person has the moral right to his or her own life.

Our favorite Tea Party speech was given by John Lewis, a history professor, at Charlotte, North Carolina. You can view the speech on YouTube or read the transcript online.

Lewis said, "The Founders of this nation brought forth a radical idea... This idea was the Rights of Man...

"These inalienable rights are The Right to Life -- the right to live your own life, to choose your own goals, and to preserve your own independent existence.

"The Right to Liberty, which is the right to act to achieve your goals, without coercion by other men.

"The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness, to act to achieve your own success, your own prosperity, and your own happiness, for your own sake.

"And the Right to Property -— the right to gain, keep, and enjoy, the material products of your efforts."

Lewis summarized, "Each of us is an individual, autonomous, moral being, with the right to choose his own values and capable of directing his own life."

Over the last century, Lewis explained, government has turned away from protecting our rights to seizing the wealth of some to hand to others. To the degree that government follows that path, it must control the lives of the citizens.

The trend of government controlling our wealth has led to a "vision of man as a whining dependent, who begs for the needs of life from an all-powerful governing aristocracy. This ruling elite claims the moral right to distribute the wealth of those who earn it to those who wish for it," Lewis said.

Lewis asked the audience, and he asks you: "Look at yourselves again. Do you see in your face, and in the face of the person next to you, the slave of a group, with no moral status, no rights and no liberties, who is bound from birth to serve? Or do you see an autonomous being with the right to live for his own sake?"

On April 15 we stood among a vast crowd. But we stood with individuals.

What Social Security Means To You

The Social Security Administration helpfully sent my wife a statement explaining "What Social Security Means To You." Because, you know, we cannot possible figure that out for ourselves; we need the federal government to tell us.

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, Michael J. Astrue, the Commissioner whose signature appears on the letter, is a liar.

He claims that the statement "can help you plan for your financial future." Not so. Instead, it merely reminds us that we cannot plan for our own financial future to the degree that federal politicians force us to pay payroll taxes.

Astrue claims that "Social Security is a compact between generations." Not so. A "compact" is "a formal agreement between two or more parties, states, etc.; contract." But a contract implies mutual consent. We never consented to paying the Social Security tax. Indeed, we have asked repeatedly not to have to pay the tax, in exchange for not receiving any benefits. Forcing children, including our unborn children, into this socialist Ponzi scheme is not a "compact." It is generational theft.

Astrue does helpfully point out, "In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits." This is a half-truth. The full truth is that this alleged "Trust Fund" is merely a claim on general government revenues, dependent on tax receipts.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, claims to know what Social Security means to us. Not that he cares what Social Security actually means to us, but I'm going to explain it anyway.

My wife's statement summarizes that she alone has paid $51,474 in Social Security taxes (employer plus employee side), plus $12,022 in Medicare taxes. So my wife has paid a total of $63,496 in payroll taxes, so far. (And she's only 31. She gave me permission to post these numbers.) So what does Social Security mean to us? The payroll taxes mean:

* That we are just now climbing out of debt, when we could have built a positive net worth many years ago.

* That we just bought a house last year, when we could have afforded a house years ago.

* That we have put off having children. This alleged "compact between generations" has prevented us from even meeting the next generation of our family.

* That we have considerably less money saved up for emergencies, health expenses, and retirement.

* That we have scrimped and cut budgetary corners when we could have spent more on food and entertainment. While we would have put only a small fraction of the funds toward entertainment, a little goes a long way. We could have gone out to eat more, seen more movies in the theater, taken more vacations, and purchased higher-quality groceries.

Social Security is horribly unjust, particularly harmful to the working poor, and a gross violation of individual rights. What, then, is the solution?

As I've argued, it would be wrong (and politically infeasible) to cut benefits for current recipients. However, the further someone is away from retirement, the better the person is able to adjust to changes in the system. Thus, the best and easiest reform is to phase out Social Security, by increasing the pay-out age by a few months every year until, after a period of decades, nobody is collecting benefits and the tax is completely eliminated.

But I don't think that will be the reform that Congress pursues. Instead, what seems to be on the agenda is for the Federal Reserve to inflate the money supply, such that all the promised dollars for Social Security are paid out, but those dollars are worth much less, even as the federal government is taxing larger monetary incomes to cover the tab. Neat trick, inflation. Because we must preserve the "compact between generations" by ensuring a devalued economy for our youth.

Hello, 21st Century

FreeColorado.com (originally co-freedom.com) was founded near the end of the 20th Century, before the term "blog" was even coined. (I just switched the page over to a blog format last year; before that I hand-coded everything with help from my "HTML For Dummies" book.)

I figured it was time to join the 21st Century.

I now have a FaceBook page for "Free Colorado." So now there are two ways to track what's going on here (in addition to just checking the web page regularly): you can join the e-mail list (run through MailChimp -- see the link at right), or you can join the FaceBook group. (You can join both, though I plan to send basically the same material through both channels.)

Until this week, I'd uploaded all my photos and audio files straight to my server. The problem is that my server limits my disk space as well as my bandwidth. So I've been checking out alternative ways to host the bigger files.

I decided to set up a Flickr account for photos. I figured that this Yahoo-owned service would stick around.

Any audio recording under ten minutes can be turned into a YouTube video with stills: earlier in the week I posted four interviews this way.

I still don't have a good option for longer, straight mp3 files. Perhaps iTunes could handle them. I discovered VuloMedia.com, but a friend suggested that these small hosters might not stick around.

I contacted Jason Steele of SecretAgentBob.com about VuloMedia, and here's what he had to say:

Hey Ari,

I currently have no plans to earn money with VuloMedia. It doesn't cost much to host the site, and in order to make any sort of decent revenue I would have to add so many advertisements that the usability of the service would take a hit. Which is what made me launch the site in the first place - the file hosts I had been using became frustrating to deal with. I consider it a public service of sorts.

The site has been running for about three years now, and I plan on keeping it running as long as I can, hopefully for many many years to come.

As for your final question, yes, you retain full ownership of everything you upload.

- Jason

I did host one audio file through Vulo, though I left a copy with my server, too. Vulo, at least, is very easy to use and scores big points for elegance.

The rapid advances of computers and the internet are revolutionizing the ways that we record and share information. It has been deeply exciting to see the progress from my 300 baud modem connected to the kitchen phone jack by strings of wire running through the hall to my modern setup.

Perhaps this dinosaur can learn to sprout a few feathers.

Poor Country, Rich Country II

More than four years ago I wrote a quick article titled, "Poor Country, Rich Country." The point was to give a few examples indicating the economic development of a nation. (Note that I no longer think a low-fat diet is optimal.) The interesting thing about the article is that since then I've received an occasional reply to it, I think exclusively from readers in India.

Here's a comment I received just today:

Sir,

Interesting reading your study, rather work in progress, about the comaprative study of rich-developing-poor countries. I would like to add some points.

1. In poor countries, people think of the next meal. In developing countries, people think of savings for the next few years, and in rich countries, people find new ways to invest the wealth and reap more benefits.

2. In poor countries, shelter is a necessity, in developing countries, a home to all is the target of the government, and in rich countries, they are after innovative , luxurious and romantic shelters.

3. Creches and old age homes are new words to poor countries. Developing countries are developing more such homes and in rich countries , they can't live without creches and old age homes.

That's all for now. Thanks a lot for your article.

Bye
Suja Ramesh

Perhaps it is the Indian cinematic flair that has captured my attention, or Gandhi's respect for Thomas Jefferson. India seems to be moving forward, embracing a dynamic and free society. I realize the nation continues to suffer a great many problems, yet I can't help but cheer whenever I hear good news from India. I wish Suja and his countrymen the very best.

Speech at the Sam Adams Alliance Awards

I borrowed this photo from Chetly Zarko from OutsideLansing.com.

I received the Modern Day Sam Adams award April 18 in Chicago. Following is a transcript of my speech.

I am deeply honored, and indeed deeply humbled, to be with the other award winners this evening, and to be introduced by Paul Jacob, a true hero of liberty.

I'm also very grateful to the Sam Adams Alliance for recognizing the sort of regional activism where the crucial battles for liberty are fought.

If you look at Congress, you'll notice that practically every member of Congress and practically all of their staffers came up the ranks in state and local politics. And the ideas that they reflect in Washington are to a large degree the ideas that they learned back in their home towns.

The regional level is where we can go to events, attend meetings, make phone calls, develop long-term relationships with real people, not just policy wonks, and build a movement for liberty.

So I do think that we as a freedom movement need to do more to support this sort of free market activism as illustrated by my fellow award winners.

The sort of work done by people in my home state like Jon Caldara and Dave Kopel and the Independence Institute.

Paul Hsieh of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

Amanda Teresi and the whole crew of Liberty On the Rocks.

Joe Weaver who provides many of us technical support, who is sitting at this table, or at the back at the technical desk, in this very room.

People like Dave Williams and the Gadsden Society.

People like Michael Sandoval and Thomas James and the entire crew of the People's Press Collective.

People like Betty Evans and Diana Hsieh of Front Range Objectivism.

Individuals who speak and write, such as Brian Schwartz, Linda Gorman, Earl Allen, and my own father, Linn.

People who are concerned with free-market economics, like Ken Riggs, Penn Pfiffner, and Paul Prentice.

And of course my ever-supportive wife, Jennifer.

I am here largely because of the support of their shoulders.

So together we can Free Colorado, and we can free our great nation. Thank you.

Interviews at the Sam Adams Alliance Awards

I attended the Sam Adams Alliance awards April 18. While there, I interviewed Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, Paul Jacob, Michelle Malkin, and John Tsarpalas (president of the Alliance).

Meniskus 'Partier' Coming

Last night my wife and I went with a friend to the Draft House in Boulder (great chocolate stout and "pork roll" sandwich!) to see Meniskus, a band that I am becoming increasingly impressed with.

Do yourself a favor and go to iTunes to download at least "Letters" and "Overbearing (Part 2)," both available on the Foreign Beyond album. If you like these tracks, then you'll like Meniskus, and you'll become excited to learn...

Meniskus is recording their third album, and it will include "Partier." (I don't know if that's the song's official name, but everybody's going to call it "Partier" anyway.) It seems to me that, if Meniskus is going to have a breakthrough hit, it's going to be "Partier." Then, I hope that a lot of people drawn to that popish, rhythmic party song look into the previous albums.

We're blessed with some very good music in Colorado. DeVotchKa is one of my favorite groups of all time. Meniskus is working up the list, and I really wish these guys success.

* * *

In other music news, I was excited to see that Depeche Mode has a new album out that Amazon is selling for $3.99 for today only. The first track was bizarre and off-putting in the preview, but the other tracks sound interesting. I figured that for four bucks it's hard to go wrong. Unfortunately, after buying the album and downloading Amazon's mp3 downloader, I got nothing. But I called Amazon on the phone, and they solved the problem very quickly. So, yea for real customer service.

Sammies In Photos

I went to the Sam Adams Alliance awards ceremony April 18 to receive the Modern Day Sam Adams Award. Chad Everson, another award winner, posts additional photos over at Grizzly Groundswell.


Michelle Malkin talks with John Fund.


Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher chats about his new book.




John Tsarpalas, president of the Sam Adams Alliance, meets with Fred Baldwin, another of this year's award winners.


I stand with Paul Jacob, who introduced me and also won the Sam Adams Lifetime Award, and John.


Michelle, Paul, and Joe struck me as a good photo-op.


James Bell "of Lithia Springs, Georgia, won the $5,000 Tea Party Award for his work in defeating two sales tax increases and proposing a bill, which in 2008 became Georgia law, restricting local government from holding tax votes on special elections." I also recorded an audio interview with Jim.

Back from the Sammies

I just got back from the Sam Adams Alliance awards ceremony in Chicago, where I picked up my "Sammie." (See the earlier release.) I also recorded interviews with Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, Michelle Malkin, Paul Jacob, and others. I will make these interviews available this week.

I was impressed by the activism of the other award winners, who fought voter fraud, tax hikes, inappropriate spending, unjust laws, and more.

I'll have much more to say about the event later, but now I'm wiped out and need to catch up on my sleep.

First I figure I ought to send a statement to a few journalists. How about this: "The spirit of liberty was alive and well at the Sam Adams Alliance awards ceremony April 18 in Chicago. I am grateful to the Alliance for the 'Sammie' award I received, and I am inspired by the outstanding work of the other award recipients. I met some new friends and picked up some new ideas for advancing individual rights here in Colorado. I also recorded some fascinating interviews with Joe 'The Plumber' Wurzelbacher, Michelle Malkin, and Paul Jacob that I'll release this week. I'm deeply grateful to Colorado's vibrant and growing movement of liberty activists who have given me so much support and encouragement over the years."

Hopefully the Sam Adams Alliance will make the speeches available on the internet before long. See the complete list of winners.

Photos from Grand Junction's Tea Party

Gene Kinsey has posted a few photos of Grand Junction's Tea Party here and here.

The Daily Sentinel has also posted a nice set of photos of the event as well as a video of Ryan Frazier's talk, currently linked from the front page.

If anybody else has good links to photos for Tea Parties around Colorado outside of Denver, feel free to leave a comment.

John Lewis At Tea Party

John Lewis gave a great speech at the Tea Party in Charlotte:

Denver Tea Party Ralliers In Their Own Words

The Denver Tax Day Tea Party drew several thousand people to the capitol. Why did they come? What do they think? I interviewed several dozen ralliers and compiled their comments in a 25 minute audio file. (If the previous link fails, try the backup.)

In my first article I make some general notes about the event. Here my goal is to compile photographs and audio interviews of typical ralliers whose messages were basically in the spirit of the event as advertised. I had originally planned to do a third article covering off-point messages, two agitators (self-styled comedians), and a Democratic "liberal" couple, but this article took me longer to create than I anticipated, and the other material is of lesser interest.

I have a very short video of the crowd. Also check out El Presidente's outstanding collection of photos and videos of the event, as well as reports by Mr. Bob, Ben DeGrow, Rossputin, and Thomas James.


Peter Perry of Centennial, a volunteer with FreedomWorks, advocates "lower taxes, less government, and more freedom." "Get back to the original Constitution," he urges. "We cannot become a nation of debt, nothing but debt, debt all the time." He added, "This is the first time I've been involved, and I think that's a significant change for me... I'm hoping that more concerned citizens are becoming involved."





Thomas James of the People's Press Collective (not shown) explained the goals of that organization. About the rally, he said, "I hope that the elected officials who this is aimed at... develop an awareness that the people are not happy with what they are doing, are not happy with the taxing, spending, government growth, irresponsibility, and that people are waking up and they want their liberty back."




Anthony Gillis of "Colorado Tea Party" -- a distinct group from the rally's organizers -- said, "We need to take a stand for liberty and for our livelihoods... The spending is simply out of control, and with it goes a grab for power, because he who pays the piper calls the tune. Peacefully, through the democratic process, we need to stand up for our rights now, and it's going to be a sustained effort."




Valentina Montague attended the rally with her daughter Christine and granddaughter Lindsey. Valentina said, "I am a grandmother... and I am concerned for their future and the future of our country."


Lance Olsen voiced concern about "taxes across the board at the local and state level." He also advocate transparency in government spending, achieved by putting all spending records online.




Cindy Johnson said Congress and the President are "out of control, spending too much money." Alexandra Harden pointed out, "Most of the people who share our views are working right now, to pay the taxes that they live off of."




Ed Carter came to the rally with his son Branden. Ed said he attended "to try and take this government back for the people, basicaly what the Constitution is all about, that we have the power, and I think we've let it slip away to people who don't have the best interests of this country at hand... I think we're being taxed, not to prosperity, but to the opposite end, and we need to get back to what our forefathers intended this country to be all about."


Skip said, "We're sick and tired of it, no earmarks!" Carol added, "I have eight grandchildren, one of them is 22, she's in college, she's going to have to pay the brunt of paying this off, and so are my other grandchildren. And I'm mad as hell about it, too. Our kids shouldn't have to pay for somebody else's misappropriation of funds."


Bob said, "I think a lot of this is due to our government spending. People are just fed up with it." Bob also expressed concerns about businesses "going over seas," which I don't regard as a problem in itself. However, various federal policies encourage many businesses to move overseas by artificially increasing the costs of doing business at home, and that should be stopped.






Terry said, "I'm sorry of seeing the Constitution stepped on. I'm sick and tired of it. It hasn't started just now. Government is out of control, they're spending money left and right, and I'm just mad about it."




Bob Tender said, "The government is spending too much money. Congress doesn't even read its own bills, comes up with stimulus that has hidden pork in it, taking away our future, taking away our kids' future, taking away our grandchildrens' future. That's why I'm here." Barbara Benito, who supported Obama during the election, added, "I want to see my money spent responsibly, and I want to make sure there's accountability."

Dave Wiliams (not shown) of the Gadsden Society said, "It's got to go beyond today. People have got to stay involved, get involved, show up, and continue to make a difference."




Sandy said, "The government is out of control with all their spending. My grandchildren are already $187,000 in debt. It's too much, and it needs to stop." Kay added, "Congress is out of control... to pass a bill that they didn't even read is absolute irresponsibility."


Marilyn was "concerned about the taxing and the spending." Pam said, "We're concerned with our kids' future, our grandchildrens' future, and what's going to be left for them? And they're asking the same thing."


Mel, who served in Vietnam in the Air Force, said, "I didn't serve 22 years for socialism... I feel this taxation and also overspending of the budget is definitely wrong. It's a free-enterprise country. If you can't run your company, you should resign or default, and not have the government pulling you out." Sharon, who served 20 years in the Air Force, fears Obama is "pro-socialism. We're a capitalist country, and thank god of it."


El Presidente himself (with the video camera).




Alex Hornaday complained about the "complete irresponsibility in an administration from a party that spend so much time complaining about" the previous administration.


Ryan Call, chair of the Denver County Republican Party, said, "I'm excited, to look at how many people came out for this event, talking about less government regulation, lower taxes, and all these kinds of things that make America great." Steve Schultz, chair of the Clear Creak GOP, wants to "return the country to the roots it was founded on, because we're going farther and farther away all the time." Both men granted that the Bush administration and some other Republican leaders "didn't live up to many of the principles that we think the party has long stood for," meaning "fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and freedom."




Melissa Peters said, "I came to support the Tea Party because I disagree with all the spending going on in Congress today."


"We're here because we really feel our government is going in the wrong direction, and we feel we need to speak out."


George Palmentaro said, "A lot of us served our country. I don't think it should be sold by the administration."


Ron Lewis said, "I'm here to join with my fellow Americans, to stand against unconstitutional policies in our government, and to let the government know that we're tired." Ron also argued that the Federal Reserve should be abolished.








Linda, who attended the rally with Marie, complained about "the taxes, the bailouts, the pork, Fannie May, Freddie Mac."

Denver Tax Day Tea Party

The Denver Tax Day Tea Party was a limited success. People flowed over the capitol steps down to the street below. The Denver Post estimates a crowd of "more than 5,000." Sounds like a fair guess to me. I'll post my initial thoughts for now (at about 2:40); later I'll add extensive photographs and audio interviews of the event. (I'll create a second post.)

I got there about 10:15. I would have arrived earlier had I realized my good friend Michael Huttner was putting on a 10:00 news conference in praise of President Obama's policies.

The audio system was inadequate for the crowd. I heard perhaps a minute of the speeches. Those on the upper steps and away from the loudspeakers could hear practically nothing of the official program. I figured others were capturing the audio of the speakers, so I could work the periphery. I conducted numerous short interviews with ralliers and took even more photos. My goal was to see what the typical person who showed up thought about things.

In the course of this, I also ran across a few people with off-topic messages, particularly in opposition to immigration and abortion (as I predicted here and here).

The basic message of most of the ralliers that I talked with is that they're tired of out-of-control federal spending and disgusted with the debt passed on to their children and grandchildren. A few people had more to say about state policy as well.

I had a very nice conversation with a Democratic couple that came to see what the conservatives were up to. Though we disagree about economic policy and the proper role of government, we also found some common ground and had a nice chat (that will go online).

At one point I saw some young kids wearing masks and carrying "end the Fed" signs. I got the photo, as I wanted to show the goofiness as well as the typical rallier. (I disfavor the Federal Reserve, but I don't think wearing silly masks to a rally will help the cause.) I saw a well-dressed young guy approach the kids with another fellow operating a high-end video camera. It was pretty obvious where that was headed. Indeed, soon the guy conducting the interviews started the chant, "end the Fed," which the kids were happy to take up enthusiastically. Clearly this was not a real news crew. Nevertheless, the fellow conducting video interviews and I had a fairly interesting conversation, which we both recorded.

As I mentioned to a friend, my two biggest concerns with the rally were that it was fairly partisan (even though two Republicans I talked with actually presented the strongest criticisms of W. Bush), and it contained some mixed messages. While anti-immigration and anti-abortion messages constituted a small part of what I saw, clearly there remain some serious rifts within the conservative or broadly "right" movement. (I think it's a mistake to call my beliefs either conservative or right-wing, but I do have many conservative friends -- as I have leftist friends -- and others tend to lump me in with the right because I advocate free markets.)

I took off around 1:15, though the speakers were still at it. Note to rally organizers: don't plan a rally that includes more that 45 minutes of speaking, especially on a hot day. A lot of people were leaving with me. I was getting a little dehydrated, too, and I had water in my car.

It's going to take me awhile to process my digital files, so check back later...

Denver Daily's Smear Job

This Denver Daily News article by Peter Marcus is an example of journalism at its absolute worst:

Immigration enforcement advocates will gather in Denver this Tax Day to argue that taxpayers carry a heavy financial burden because the government does not do enough to enforce its current immigration laws.

The rally at the Capitol this afternoon is part of a national movement called the Tax Day Tea Party. The grassroots campaign asks Americans to encourage lawmakers to stop "out of control government spending." Part of the dialogue includes illegal immigration.

The headline states, "Anti-illegal immigration protesters to hold Tax Day Tea Party today."

I left the online comment, "Peter Marcus's article is a dishonest smear job. While it is true that some people associated with the 'Tax Day Tea Party' rallies want immigration restrictions, that is certainly not the focus of the rallies. Many of us will attend the rallies to promote free markets, including open immigration."

One local organizer says the point of the rally is to "promote a message of limited government and lower taxes."

The Facebook page for "The Denver Tax Day Tea Party" states, "Join your fellow Americans as we rally our elected officials to repeal the 'Stimulus' package, reduce our taxes and eliminate wasteful spending in government!" The term "immigration" appears nowhere on the page. Not once.

The "Tax Day Tea Party" web page states that the nationwide rallies are about the "pork filled budget," the "free-market system," and "out of control government spending." (To learn why the "free-market system" entails open immigration, read Craig Biddle's excellent article on the matter.)

Nowhere have I picked up the idea that these rallies are about "immigration enforcement." The fact that some random dude from "Americans for Legal Immigration PAC" wants to hijack the Denver rally does not change the rally's advertised purpose.

Ah, but "part of the dialogue includes illegal immigration." And part of the the Denver Daily News includes real news. Just not the part where Marcus's story appears.

U.S. Department of Smear and Innuendo

Gee, what a coincidence that a U.S. Department of Homeland Security report on "rightwing extremism" has hit the media the day before the Tea Parties will take place around the nation.

You see, neo-Nazis are "rightwing," and so are the Tea Parties! QED. (I especially love the fact that CNN purchased a photograph of neo-Nazis from Getty Images to accompany its report. Crack reporting, there.)

The report itself is juvenile propaganda, filled with phrases like "no specific information," "may be," "could create," "could lead," "likely would," and so on.

The report considers a "rightwing extremist" one who is "antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely." I myself have criticized neo-Confederate sentiments. The problem with the report is that it fails to distinguish robust federalism, in which the power of the federal government is properly restrained, from unlimited "federal authority." But exactly what sort of "federal authority" may I oppose without the U.S. Department of Homeland Security boxing me in with violent racists?

We need a Jeff Foxworthy routine for this. "You might be a rightwing extremist if..."

If you dare to question the all-encompassing authority of the Obama administration.

If you have purchased "weapons and ammunition... in anticipation of restrictions and bans."

If you are a "returning veteran" with "combat skills and experience."

If you "chatter on the Internet" about "the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures." (I guess that's everybody with an internet connection.)

If you are "antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms." (I score only one for three here. I do oppose "expansion of [tax funded] social programs" across the board, but I don't know whether that makes me more or less "extreme.")

If you "perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to [your] right to bear arms."

If you worry about "Russia's control of energy resources and use of these to pressure other countries." (Putin? Who's worried? Heck of a nice guy!)

I do not mean here to diminish the significance of ugly racism in America. It is possible that the rough economy, in conjunction with the election of the first black president, has slightly increased interest in racist propaganda. If so, that must be opposed in all quarters.

The problem with this nonsense report, though, is that it clumsily -- and unjustly -- groups together attitudes that are not only logically disconnected but logically antagonistic.

Person A is a violent racist, hates immigrants, and wants to impose a theocratic state that (among other things) bans abortion.

Person B abhors racism, advocates individual rights for all, advocates government limited to that purpose, and believes the Second Amendment means what it says.

These people share nothing in common (except perhaps mutual loathing). Yet both are branded "rightwing extremists."

According to the report, "Rightwing extremism... may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." That's just ridiculous. As much as I disagree with those who want to restrict immigration or ban abortion, those folks don't deserve to be categorized with those expressing "hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups." (I do, however, hate particular religious groups that advocate terrorism or violence against women, so, darn it all, I am again "extremist.")

Just remember as you read this moronic "report" that this is the same outfit charged with protecting us from terrorists. How comforting. And what a spectacular use of our tax dollars.

I have no doubt that the Tea Parties will bring out some kooks. Every big rally does that, whether it leans left, right, or other. I'm sure I'll see some anti-abortion signs and other messages with which I profoundly disagree. People will come with their own agendas. The People's Press Collective offers some useful tips for dealing with left-wing antagonists and right-wing idiots alike.

My agenda is the same as it has always been. I will advocate liberty and individual rights. Even if some pencil-pushing bureaucrat thinks that makes me a "rightwing extremist."

Grand Junction Tea Party

The following column originally appeared in the April 13, 2009, edition of Grand Junction's Free Press.

See you at the Grand Junction Tea Party

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Finally there's a reason to feel good about April 15 again. Yes, it's tax day -- and the federal government is spending more of our money than ever before. But this year the date also marks the Tax Day Tea Party, to be held in cities around Colorado and the nation. Grand Junction's tea party is scheduled for noon at 12th and North.

Part of the inspiration for the tea parties is a CNBC segment with Rick Santelli, available on YouTube, in which he called for a Chicago Tea Party. He said, "The government is promoting bad behavior... How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage, that has an extra bathroom, and can't pay their bills? ...

"You can't buy your way into prosperity. And if the multiplier that all these Washington economists are selling us is over one, then we never have to worry about the economy again. The government should spend a trillion dollars an hour because we'll get 1.5 trillion back...

"If you read our founding fathers, people like Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson, what we're doing in this country now is making them roll over in their graves."

A transcript can't capture the passion of the moment, but it gives you some idea.

Though we're sure to disagree with some of the speakers and literature at some of the tea parties, we're thrilled that some Americans, at least, are taking a stand against bloated federal government and for liberty.

One of the speakers in Grand Junction will be Ryan Frazier, an Aurora city council member whose name keeps popping up in discussions of possible U.S. Senate candidates. We contacted Frazier to learn what he thinks about the tea parties.

Frazier said, "The Tea Parties throughout Colorado and this country represent a ground swell of citizens, in their local communities, who are motivated to restore fiscal responsibility in government. This is significant because it's grassroots at its core and it's uniting people of different backgrounds to a common purpose -- Liberty."

We asked him for a preview of what he'll discuss. He answered, "Liberty. Prosperity. Opportunity. That a free, educated, strong people are the engine of a prosperous society. I will stress that the primary role of government is to protect our freedoms, not to manage our lives. Lastly, that we as individuals must stand together to advance liberty and fiscal responsibility in this country and now is the time."

Frazier said he's worried that the federal government is "running deficits year after year, resulting in a national debt that now exceeds $11 trillion and a proposed budget of over $4 trillion in 2009. This level of spending and irresponsible fiscal policy is unsustainable and ultimately will drag our potential for economic growth down over the long-term."

As we've pointed out previously, federal policy also threatens to unleash a wave of inflation. Frazier also sees this danger: "Our currency could be debased and our living standards reduced -- imagine our dollar worth less and buying even less -- this impacts everyone."

Frazier argued that "for economic growth, jobs and business that we need to flourish, we must achieve a limited, responsible government that does not hinder the ability of individual and economic freedom to drive forward our economy."

What? "Individual and economic freedom?" Politicians can't say things like that anymore -- doesn't Frazier know that?

We're in the era not just of Big Government, but of Gargantuan Government, in which the president and his administration can pick CEOs, reorganize corporations, override private contracts, funnel your money to whatever corporate welfare they want, and reward the irresponsible with the earnings of the responsible.

We have come a long way from the government founded on the individual's rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

On November 29, 1773, Sam Adams led a meeting at Faneuil Hall, the "Cradle of Liberty," to protest tea taxes that asserted British control over the colonies. On December 16, the Sons of Liberty unloaded a boatload of tea into the Boston harbor.

There is a difference between then and now: then the British government asserted unjust power over the colonies. Today, America is imposing tyranny on itself, slowly eroding the pillars of our nation with the acid of special-interest politics and the forced redistribution of wealth from the producers to the politically connected.

Without a foundation of liberty and individual rights, the new tea parties will lead nowhere. What we need is a restoration of the ideal of the individual's right to lead his own life, make his own choices consistent with the rights of others, and direct the fruits of his labor as he sees fit, rather than as politicians demand.

We can be the Grandsons and Granddaughters of Liberty.

Where Is Colorado's Daniel Hannan?

I know a lot of people have already seen this video of Daniel Hannan, a British politician who sounds more American than most American politicians. Hannon notes that his speech became quite popular.

It is remarkable that the United States must now take economic lessons from Britain -- and even China! -- as warning against our federal profligacy.

I'd like to hear just one Colorado politician or candidate give a speech as eloquently devoted to liberty as this short speech by Hannan. I haven't researched his views in depth, so I cannot comment on his entire ideology. But this is three and a half minutes that makes a person want to stand proud.

Majority Favors Capitalism

Rasmussen reports that "53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism," while 20 percent favor socialism and 27 percent don't know.

Here's the worse news: "Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided."

The problem with the report and the survey question is that people's understanding of the terms varies radically. Many think that the massive-statist George W. Bush epitomized capitalism. Many conflate capitalism with modern corporatism, the meshing of corporations and government. Many think institutions such as the Federal Reserve comport with capitalism. The American economy today is not capitalistic, but mixed, with elements of freedom and controls.

So, while I'm heartened that most people at least have a favorable impression of capitalism and a disfavorable impression of socialism, the key is to educate people about what capitalism means, how it protects freedom and individual rights, and how it fosters prosperity.

Yes, Tapy, Free Market Would Revitalize Economy

I had so much fun responding to letters in the Denver Post yesterday that I thought I'd have another go. Today the Post published a letter by Frank Tapy that supports political economic controls. I replied:

What is remarkable about Tapy’s letter is that, while it contains a string of ad hominem attacks, it contains not a single argument in favor of his position.

Meanwhile, free-market advocates have explained in detail how federal controls involving Freddie Mac, Fannie May, the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Reserve, and more promoted risky lending that is at the root of the real estate and stock bubble.

Tapy’s claim that a free market will lead to “the collapse of the economic system,” whereas increased political controls supposedly will save it, is laughable. If he were correct, then Soviet Russia and Maoist China should have become the wealthiest nations, while Hong Kong should have failed. The crisis of today’s economic system is the result of political interventions in the economy, yet Tapy calls for more of the same poison.

Prosperity results when individuals have the liberty and the legal protection of their rights of property and contract to produce as they know best and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. When politicians violate people’s rights by trying to centrally plan the economy, they impede and discourage production.

Right now, the federal government is taking massive wealth out of the free economy that is desperately needed for investment and squandering it on corporate welfare. Right now, the federal government is seizing the wealth of the responsible in order to reward the irresponsible. Right now, the federal government is undermining the stability of the dollar and loading down our children with debt. And this is what is Tapy thinks will “revitalize” the economy? Seriously?

What we need is a renewal of economic liberty. What we need is a government that protects individual rights instead of violating them on a massive scale.

No amount of “continuous evaluation and modification” of political controls, no “long-term assessment” of political meddling will achieve prosperity. We need freedom.

-Ari Armstrong
http://www.freecolorado.com/

The Real Ayn Rand

Today's Denver Post published four letters about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, three of them negative. But the negative letters don't actually offer any arguments against Rand's ideas, or even correctly summarize them. So I left the following online comments:

I want to clear up a few basic misconceptions about Ayn Rand's work. As Anders Ingemarson advises, read Atlas Shrugged for yourself, rather than assume that its detractors correctly summarize Rand's message.

Dick Sugg seems never to have read Atlas Shrugged. Regardless, he completely misrepresents its theme. The book is NOT about "winners... who make their fortunes by exploiting the losers." Instead, Rand favors a free society in which people cooperate to mutual advantage while respecting individual rights.

In the novel, Rand presents "honest, intelligent, hard-working people" as morally virtuous, productive members of society who make their own way. The exploiters, on the other hand, are the political looters and power-lusters who control the producers of all levels of ability.

Contrary to Sugg's claim, Rand did not oppose charity, and she certainly advocated just "regard for other people." Atlas Shrugged is filled with examples of virtuous friendships.

It is interesting that both Peter Johnson and Cathy Davis claim -- without a shred of evidence or logic -- that capitalism created the economic crisis. In fact political controls caused the economic crisis by promoting risky lending. For details, see the Ayn Rand Institute's web page devoted to the matter:
http://tinyurl.com/47urlw

As an aside, Ayn Rand opposed the libertarian movement, and Johnson's "libertarian" antagonism toward capitalism and his failure to grasp the destructive consequences of political economic controls help illustrate why.

Thanks, -Ari Armstrong
http://www.freecolorado.com/

Around Colorado: April 7, 2009

Sam Adams Alliance

As noted, I won the "Modern-Day Sam Adams Award." Patricia Calhoun has written about it over at Westword, and bloggers Ben Degrow and El Presidente have also picked up the story. I appreciate the warm wishes.


Windmills and Mechanical Energy Storage

Earlier this year I wondered whether it might be possible for a windmill to "slowly lift a giant boulder in the air" in order to store the energy, then drop the rock slowly to run a generator. However, one my friends who is a professional scientist pointed out to me that a small-scale system just isn't feasible. You'd have to lift a huge rock quite a ways into the air for even a small amount of electricity. To get enough weight to generate significant electricity, you'd have to build a large and expensive infrastructure. The plan is at least well beyond the backyard model.

Another scientist, Brian Schwartz, pointed to a write-up of "pumped-storage hydroelectricity." The idea is that you pump water into a reservoir, then release the water downhill to run a generator. The problem with adapting such a system to wind power is that it's only feasible where the natural landscape provides the relevant features.

I think the lesson here is that there's no "get electricity quick" scheme that works. For most areas, the only feasible and cost-effective options, so far, remain fossil fuels and nuclear power. But the greenies don't like either of those.


Million Dollar Man

Ward Churchill wants his job back -- or a million dollars. Because, you know, it's not about the money for him. It's about the blackmail.


Tax Man on Steroids

Vincent Carroll points out that the State Supreme Court, in ruling that the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights doesn't really mean what it says, "sets up Coloradans to be nibbled to death by one tax hike after another."

Get ready to pay. Because state legislators are infinitely better at spending your money than you are.

FreeColorado.com Wins Sam Adams Award

MEDIA RELEASE

FREECOLORADO.COM WINS SAM ADAMS AWARD

The Sam Adams Alliance announced that Ari Armstrong, publisher of FreeColorado.com, has received the 2009 "Modern-Day Sam Adams Award," the organization's top prize, for "his relentless -- and ubiquitous -- defense of free markets and individual liberty in the state of Colorado."

The organization's media release is available at
http://tinyurl.com/cyaltw

Armstrong will receive his "Golden Sammie" April 18 in Chicago. Presenting the awards will be Michelle Malkin, Stephen Moore, John Fund, Jonathan Hoenig, Mary Katharine, and Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher.

In his entry, Armstrong summarized his "food stamp" diets of 2007 and 2009, his fight against political correctness (as with the "bitch slap" controversy of 2008), his work on health policy, and various other projects.

Armstrong said, "I congratulate the other winners and look forward to learning from their example. I thank the Sam Adams Alliance for recognizing the important work for liberty done at the regional level. Finally, I thank my fellow liberty activists in Colorado -- especially my wife -- for teaching me so much about liberty, individual rights, and free markets, and how to advocate those values through intellectual activism. This award is for you, my brothers and sisters in liberty."

Armstrong founded FreeColorado.com (then co-freedom.com) in late 1998, before the term "blog" had been coined.

Coconut Fat Yum

After a series of difficult and stressful posts, I thought I'd take it easier and write about something fun, something yummy. My new fatty friend is the coconut.

Several of my Objectivist friends have gotten interested in lower-carb diets, as indicated by Diana Hsieh's blog. Lower-carb means higher-fat. It was Diana who recommended coconut fat to me, I think, which I've started using for general cooking (often instead of butter or olive oil). In fact, I just made up a batch of chocolate sauce, consisting of chocolate powder, water, and a glob of coconut fat. I ate some for dessert with whipped cream over a sliced banana. Ridiculously good.

I've been enjoying Spectrum brand, which costs me seven or eight dollars at Whole Foods for a fourteen ounce jar. The entire jar contains nearly 400 grams of fat, mostly saturated. I see Amazon carries it for six bucks.

However, I now have a new source as well. Free the Animal has an easy recipe for chicken mole, which I tried substituting chocolate powder for the bar. Pretty good. It calls for a can of coconut milk.

The cheapest source of coconut milk I've found is Thai Kitchen brand, which Target sells for $1.44 for a fourteen ounce can. A whole can contains around 70 grams of fat, so it takes 5.6 as many cans to equal the fat content of a jar of Spectrum. I noticed that, with the milk, the fat separates from the juice at lower room temperatures, so it would be easy to pour off the juice for some other purpose and use the fat in cooking.

The "big three" fatty fruits are the olive, avocado, and coconut, and I'm a big fan of each of them (though I don't eat many avocados because they're fairly expensive).

Incidentally, my wife and I have been watching a fair amount of Hulu lately -- including, most recently, Legend of the Seeker -- and one of the Hulu ads is from "I Can't Believe it's Not Butter." The ad mocks the "Buttertons," family that foolishly eats real butter instead of soybean and canola (rape seed) fat, including hydrogenated fat. Thus, even though the company claims its products contain "0g trans fat," this claim is a product of rounding down, as trans fat means hydrogenated fat, and hydrogenated fat is clearly listed in the ingredients, as I verified a few days ago at the grocery store.

So we're supposed to believe that vegetable fat -- including hydrogenated vegetable fat -- is healthier than the saturated fat in butter and fruits such as coconut.

I can't believe it's not bulls***.

Woods '05: 'Nothing to Apologize For'

I've spent significant time criticizing Thomas E. Woods (here and here), a conservative-libertarian author of several books and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Woods will speak this evening at the University of Colorado and tomorrow in Colorado Springs. In response to several anonymous postings, I'll extend my comments here.

Woods's older articles -- published by the racist and theocratic League of the South -- condemned the abolitionists and the Declaration of Independence while praising the "social harmony and adherence to tradition that characterized the South." These older writings are repugnant and wrong.

I hasten to point out that some that Woods's newer ideas -- the ones he still promotes -- are also disturbing and wrong, though not grotesque as were his older writings.

As I pointed out, even Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, a libertarian favorite, writes for the Ludwig von Mises Institute in a review of Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History -- a book published in 2004 that Woods actively promotes on his web page as of this morning-- "Woods clearly wants to tender a neo-Confederate interpretation, in which slavery is shunted into the background as a motive for southern secession."

As I reviewed yesterday, Woods's essay on 9/11 puts him squarely in the "blame America first" camp (along with Ron Paul and many other libertarians) and further reveals his view that American policy should be rooted in theology. So, even discounting Woods's writings for the League of the South, Woods clearly advocates states' rights even when individual rights take a back seat, criticizes American support of legitimate allies such as Israel, and endorses faith-based politics over the separation of church and state. (To take another example of this last point, Woods calls abortion "intrinsically immoral" based on Catholic doctrine.) So even discounting all of Woods's older writings, he has provided plenty of reasons to distrust his agenda.

I granted that Woods may have changed his mind about his older writings. I've also written some things in my younger days that I would not today endorse (though nothing so nasty as what Woods wrote.) The onus is on Woods to demonstrate that that he has repudiated his older writings. Yet, in a 2005 essay, Woods writes that, though he "had an intermittent membership in the League [of the South] over the years," "I have nothing to apologize for."

Really? Woods is not going to apologize for calling the Declaration of Independence a "polluted source," for condemning its statement "that all men are created equal," or for calling the abolitionists "reprehensible agitators?" Readers may peruse Woods's 2005 essay and evaluate for themselves the extent that Woods's views have changed.

I am not alone in questioning Woods's commitment to liberty. In a review of Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide, Cathy Young writes for Reason:

Much of the book's first half is an apologia for the antebellum South and its cause in the War Between the States (Woods' preferred term). ...

[R]eaders will search The Politically Incorrect Guide in vain for any moral outrage at a brutal system that allowed some human beings to own others. The best Woods can do is suggest that without the war, slavery could have been phased out peacefully, a stance that is speculative at best. ...

In a 1997 article titled "Christendom's Last Stand," ["Removed by request of the author" but available on archive] Woods proclaims the Confederacy's defeat "the real watershed from which we can trace many of the destructive trends that continue to ravage our civilization today." ...

Woods complains when critics quote his older essays. But when I contacted him to ask if he now rejected any part of those writings, he replied, "I don't so much object to their use of old quotations, much of which I'm sure I still stand by; I was simply taken aback at the lengths to which some have gone to avoid discussing my book." Woods claimed his views had evolved in a more libertarian direction. But he still spoke sympathetically of the defenders of the Southern order, telling me that "certain strains of abolitionist argument, Southerners feared, could corrode all kinds of human relations" since they challenged the principles of authority and subordination. ...

This book provides quick ammunition to those for whom "the abolitionists were the bad guys" and "FDR didn't save the country from the Great Depression" are equally outlandish ideas.

In that last cited paragraph, Young gets to the heart of what's wrong with Woods. By packaging free-market economics with theology-based neo-Confederatism, Woods discredits the free market. Thus, I must correct my previous statement that Woods "is as dangerous an enemy of liberty as any leftist." Woods is the far more dangerous enemy.

This morning an anonymous poster (I assume it's the same person, though I wonder why that person didn't state his or her name), send in three comments within a two-minute span. I am happy to respond to those comments:

Here's a thought: given that Woods' article on abolitionism is no longer available online, such that you have to use a gimmick to find it, is it possible that he changed his mind over the past 15 years? Especially since he's on record as saying that the slaves had the right to kill their masters and take their property? Why, apart from your hatred of reason, would you focus only on an article Woods obviously wanted taken down, rather than his easily available archive of articles that makes your interpretation of his work look ridiculous?

Reisman, Richman, and Schiff are all supporters of Woods.

Is it possible that Woods has changed his mind over the years? Why don't you dig up his old articles praising the Persian Gulf War, too?

I've dealt adequately with the "change" in Woods's views. It is hardly a "gimmick" to see what Woods actually wrote. I will ignore Anonymous's ad hominem attacks. If Anonymous wishes to cite particular articles of Woods that make my "interpretation of his work look ridiculous," Anonymous is free to do so. Otherwise I will treat Anonymous's claim as just another ad hominem and baseless attack. Woods's old articles "praising the Persian Gulf War" are not relevant to my criticisms of Woods. (If Anonymous thinks they are, Anonymous is free to cite some particular article and explain its relevance.)

The reference to Reisman, Richman, and Schiff pertains to this exchange (which I assume is with the same anonymous poster):

Anonymous said...

"There are plenty of other credible people explaining the economic crisis."

Really... Name three...

Ari said...

John Allison, Yaron Brook, Richard Salsman, Peter Schiff, George Reisman, Sheldon Richman...

It occurred to me at the time that I was opening myself up for this criticism, but it's not much of a criticism. Absent any citation from Anonymous, I don't have much else to say about the matter. Do they endorse (or even know about) the views of Woods that I have criticized? Woods does not gain credibility by a favorable mention by somebody else; the person making the favorable mention loses credibility.

I have saved the important issue for last. Woods has written "that the slaves had the natural right to rise up and kill their masters and confiscate their property." Does this excuse his defense of the pro-slavery South or his condemnation of the abolitionists? Hardly.

Woods claim is that slaves, who were horribly oppressed, physically beaten and restrained, and often forcibly prevented from gaining an education, had the "natural right to rise up." No doubt. But all this position allows Woods to do is abstain from committing himself to governmental action to abolish slavery. How magnanimous of Woods, to grant slaves the "right" to "rise up" and be slaughtered! What is relevant in this discussion is not the rights of slaves to rise up, but the rights of slaves to enjoy protection by the government from the slave-holders. But those are precisely the rights that Woods with his neo-Confederate views fails to uphold.

Woods Against the Abolitionists

Yesterday I briefly reviewed some of the views of Thomas E. Woods, who will speak at the University of Colorado tomorrow and in Colorado Springs on Saturday. Largely I drew on an article by Eric Muller, who, as I suggested, is not automatically wrong about Woods simply because Muller is a leftist.

I thought it was an interesting irony, given that a jury will soon decide whether the University of Colorado owes Ward Churchill restitution for firing him for academic fraud, that Muller attacked Woods for his Churchillesque foreign policy. (Churchill, you may recall, argued that American foreign policy was to blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.) Muller blasts "Dr. Woods's memorable insistence that the September 11 attacks were 'bound to' happen to us because of 'the barbarism of recent American foreign policy' in 'attempt[ing] the hubristic enterprise of running the world -– and not even on Christian principles.'"

I will get to Woods's essay on foreign policy in due course. But first I want to review another essay by Woods (also cited by Muller) published by the League of the South. The two essays are ideologically connected, it turns out.

Woods's article, "Dispelling Myths... The Abolitionists," is no longer available directly through DixieNet.org, the web page of the League of the South (which is a racist, theocratic outfit, as I pointed out yesterday). However, it remains available through Archive.org. The biography with the article states, "Mr. Woods, a graduate student at Columbia University, holds a B.A.in history from Harvard and is a SL Founding member."

Woods condemned not only the abolitionists but the principles of the Declaration of Independence:

Charles Sumner had equally mischievous plans for postbellum society: to elevate the Declaration of Independence that it might "stand side by side with the Constitution, and enjoy with it coequal authority." "Full well . . . I know that in other days, when Slavery prevailed . . . there was a different rule of interpretation," Sumner conceded. This "different rule of interpretation," which it pleased our Fathers to call "constitutionalism," was far too restrictive to allow the kind of innovations of which the scheming Sumner dreamed.

The war, he claimed, had established "a new rule of interpretation by which the institutions of our country are dedicated forevermore to Human Rights, and the Declaration of Independenceis made a living letter instead of a promise." Thus the statement that "all men are created equal," condemned by John Randolph of Roanoke as a "most pernicious falsehood," was to become the central organizing principle for the republic. It is to this polluted source that we may trace the scores of crusaders for Equality from forced busing to affirmative action which have been visited upon us ever since. ...

Any civilized man must recognize in the abolitionists not noble crusaders whose one flaw was a tendency toward extremism, but utterly reprehensible agitators who put metaphysical abstractions ahead of prudence, charity, and rationality. Indeed, with heroes like this, who needs villains?

Woods argued, first, that some abolitionists were mean, and, second, "that an abstract commitment to Equality and human rights has a way of degenerating into totalitarianism and mass murder." In essence, Woods argued that the sins of the French condemn human rights as such.

But Woods omitted a couple of key facts. First, whereas some abolitionists may have erred on occasion, the abolitionists accomplished the magnificent goal of abolishing slavery. Shouldn't that bare fact at some point factor into our evaluation of the abolitionists?

Second, Woods ignored the critical distinctions between the American and French revolutions. The American Founders -- those loyal to the Declaration -- advocated legal equality -- equality before the law -- and individual rights for all. This is a far different ideal than egalitarianism, though Woods conflated the two.

I don't know how Woods's views have evolved since his years as a graduate student. But Woods's old essay is profoundly disturbing.

Some will argue that it's not fair to dredge up Wood's old writings. However, his more recent writings, while different in substance, share many of the same basic flaws.

In an article published by Pravda (yes, Pravda), Woods discusses the 9/11 attacks.

Woods mocks the view that "the terrorists must hate 'freedom' and 'democracy'" -- despite the fact that they have stated as much. He writes, "Pat Buchanan was the only person who warned that the barbarism of recent American foreign policy was bound to lead to a terrorist catastrophe on American soil." It is American military intrusions, he argues, that "invite terrorist attacks on our citizens and country." The answer is "extricating the United States from ethnic, religious and historical quarrels that are not ours and which we cannot resolve with any finality."

To his credit -- and this is what distinguishes Woods from Churchill -- Woods writes, "I am obviously not suggesting that past U.S. actions somehow justified these unknown savages in their kamikaze attacks on innocent Americans." Still, Woods is squarely in the "blame America first" camp.

Woods also emphasizes the theological roots of his ideology; he suggests U.S. foreign policy should manifest the "spirit of Catholicism." He concludes, "God hates the proud. Our leaders have attempted the hubristic enterprise of running the world –- and not even on Christian principles, but on a combination of simple greed and Enlightenment philosophy. That cannot go on forever."

Woods also approving quotes another professor critical of America's "Israeli proxy."

Again Woods ignores the key facts.

First, though U.S. interventionism is a contributer to terrorist activity, the primary cause of Islamic terrorism is the Islamist ideology of theocratic conquest.

Second, while I quite agree that the United States should cease its altruistic military actions around the globe, the United States also needs to protect critical allies, particularly Israel, in the name of American defense. While Israel is hardly a consistently free nation, compared to its neighbors it is a bastion of liberty. Israel has every right to defend itself against its aggressive neighbors, and the United States has every right to help.

Third, trying to resolve some ethnic conflict is hardly the same thing as, say, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Fourth, as Bush made clear, his foreign policy proceeded on Christian principles as he understood them, which promote the sort of altruistic actions that Woods condemns.

Though the subject is different, Woods makes the same basic error in both essays: he condemns state action as such (particularly if the state in question is the United States), regardless of the standard of individual rights. Despite Woods's arguments, the abolitionists were right, and the south was wrong, because slavery is morally monstrous. Southern states had no right to maintain slavery, and the south is responsible for the primary evil. Likewise, United States responses to totalitarian aggression and to state sponsored terror are not remotely comparable to that aggression and terror. In both cases, Woods makes a crude "moral equivalency" argument -- the abolitionists made some mistakes, therefore they were worse than southern slave holders; the United States government errs in many of its foreign policy decisions and is therefore to blame for Islamist terror.

Woods's antistate fervor causes him to condemn the abolitionists and the Americans and to downplay or overlook the evil of slave states and Islamic totalitarians. In other words, Woods is the quintessential libertarian.

The Meltdown of Thomas E. Woods

I was excited when I first heard that Young Americans for Liberty had invited Thomas E. Woods to speak at the University of Colorado, Boulder. I figured that Woods, author of Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, would have some interesting things to say about the economic crisis. I agree with his general thesis that federal policies caused the crisis and that "bailouts will make things worse."

Woods will also speak on Saturday, April 4, in Colorado Springs at an event sponsored by the Limited Government Forum. The event will feature other speakers associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

But then a friend pointed me to an article by Eric Muller blasting Woods as a "founding member" of the League of the South. Through archive.org, I found the web page that includes this claim in a biographical note. (I only wish this were an April Fool's joke.)

Another archived page notes that the League of the South "seeks to protect the historic Anglo-Celtic core culture of the South" and keep that culture from being displaced. The current web page notes that the group "reveres the tenets of our historic Christian faith and acknowledges its supremacy over man-made laws and opinions." The League "upholds the ontological or spiritual equality of all men before God and the bar of justice, while recognizing and rejoicing in the fact that is has neither been the will of God Almighty nor within the power of human legislation to make any two men mechanically equal." The group further believes that Southern culture is "structured upon the Biblical notion of hierarchy" and the "natural societal order of superiors and subordinates." The League of the South is thus racist and theocratic.

Woods wrote to one blogger, "I am in fact not a member of the League of the South, though I did attend a meeting in 1994 when a decentralist organization was said to be forming. I was 21 at that time." Muller offers several facts indicating the relationship went beyond the attendance of a meeting.

In a review essay for the Mises Institute, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel writes:

Some of the critics [of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History] have laced their denunciations with ad hominem attacks on Woods. Going beyond his book's content, they have dredged up what they consider either guilty associations with the League of the South or unconscionable past writings in The Southern Partisan. [Actually it's the Southern Patriot.] The most egregious offender is Eric Muller. Although Muller in no way qualifies as either a libertarian or conservative, his venomous assaults, descending to the low of Klan baiting, have been frequently referenced by other critics of the book.

Obviously Muller has his own ideological ax to grind, but that doesn't automatically invalidate his criticisms of Woods. In fact Woods was associated with the League of the South, however loosely. But Muller's criticisms hardly end with that fact. Hummel himself writes, "Woods clearly wants to tender a neo-Confederate interpretation, in which slavery is shunted into the background as a motive for southern secession."

So Woods is not a member of the racist and theocratic League of the South, he is only a neo-Confederate who argues the South had the right to secede. How comforting.

Muller points to an article of Woods published by the League of the South; the archived article remains available. Woods wrote that "hard-core northern conservatives have admired Southern society for remaining socially and theologically sound long after John Winthrop's 'city on a hill' had descended into a nightmare of Christian heresies and secular crusading." He praised the "social harmony and adherence to tradition that characterized the South." The South, he wrote, "remained stubbornly orthodox in it's Judeo-Christianity further undermined the myth that the two sections constituted a single nation." He denounced the Fourteenth Amendment as "incompatible with a federal system."

I'm all for federalism, but only as a means to individual rights. States do not have "rights" in the fundamental sense of the term. No state that systematically and massively violates individual rights has any "right" to secede from a broader government.

Even disregarding Woods's past associations, he clearly believes that liberty has its roots in theology and is defined by theology. Thus, it is no surprise that Ron Paul, who has vacillated between a state's-rights argument against abortion and a federal amendment laying the grounds for outlawing abortion, wrote the foreword to Woods's latest book.

I do not doubt that Woods has many insights into the financial meltdown. Nor do I doubt that, ultimately, he is as dangerous an enemy of liberty as any leftist.