On the US Torture Report

As Americans are hearing now from their government of the "enhanced interrogations" taking place in CIA held facilities. The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released its "Torture Report", and with it a flood of charges of inhumane treatments, murder, brutality and absolute detestable behavior from government employees and military service members. Of course there is no shortage of those who try and justify the treatment of detainees. Those that clamor for the reduction of the government, it's footprint into the lives and actions of people and claims of fiscal conservatism, have been using their loudest bullhorns to defend the actions of government officials and the military industrial complex, calling these actions "right for the public interest".

I am not sorry to say that any man who wishes these actions to continue or to propagate some idea of immunity for those involved are of the lowest respectable people of this earth to me. The idea that in order for "the good of the public" this evil must exist and be administered to other humans is completely asinine and reprehensible.

"No good can come from this evil,

 no justice can come from torture 

and no light from this darkness."

Torture is Torture no matter the reason or the results.
Torture is not acceptable when those you vote for say it is and those that follow them allow themselves to commit it. Shame not only for the politicians who contrive this action but all those in uniform or suit in the name of the government that facilitated or propagated torture of any other person. No act that is immoral for an individual to do unto others suddenly or miraculously becomes moral with the sanction of a State or central authority.

As Murray Rothbard states "In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society...if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes." (Ch. 2, "Property and Exchange")

Building an Empire

The other day the Fox News Channel's show The Independents ran a segment on "costs of another conflict abroad and the inner workings of the military". Trying to advertise the segment they posted to social media a blurb and photo showing a map. This map had every country represented that the US military had a presence and the very few that had no presence at all. It was a stark reminder that even today empires are being built, they are being expanded.

There are many people who dismiss the idea that what the United States Government and by extension its arm of force, the military, are in essence building and expanding the largest empire in the worlds history. Larger the Attila the Hun's, Larger than Cleopatra and the Egyptian empire, even larger than the Roman and Persian empires. So what does it take for some to see it for what it is. 

Defined by Merriam-Webster it is "(1) :  a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially :  one having an emperor as chief of state 

(2) :  the territory of such a political unit

 :  something resembling a political empire; especially :  an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control

 :  imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

capitalized [Empire State, nickname for New York] :  a juicy apple with dark red skin that is a cross between a McIntosh apple and a Red Delicious apple."

Under these definitions it should be easy to recognize how some see it as an empire. The US Government makes it a point to be the hand of Aid, humanitarian or militarily, or it makes a point to be a main aggressor in affairs in an attempt to gain favor and control from other governments and its own people.

When under the rule, and in this case the threat of violence or better stated annihilation, the entire world is set as an empire under the United States. The US engages, first in the humanitarian aid and relief efforts for various nations, takes on health related issues abroad, engages in wars, intervention, removing political leaders and general mayhem making around the world, all with the implicit approval of the American Taxpayer, who is the wallet and bank for such ventures.

But why?
Why do other nations put up with embassies, military presence, intervention, despotism and meddling in international affairs? Money is one answer. Foreign monetary payments, meant for aid, is the bribery most governments accept for these actions. Fear is the another answer. The US has an aura of violence, of brutality, of annihilation. The world witnesses this day in and day out, yet most don't even bat an eye. The world watched as the US dropped the only atomic bombs to ever be used in warfare on largely civilian population in Japan in World War 2, and then gave them the ability to determine who could and couldn't have such weapons.

It doesn't take much to realize that the US is an empire, though I assume most would rather not believe it or accept it as so. We live in a dangerous time, in a dangerous place and with dangerous people. 

The Humanitarian case and Non-Interventionism

Many people tend to have a hard time recognizing the differences between Non-Intervention and Isolationism; rather using the terms interchangeably and erroneously. The classical argument of refraining from intervention into foreign affairs, entanglements and conflicts comes from the belief that national interests should remain in the nation and that no matter the action, internationally, eyes and opinions would be cast towards whatever nation becomes involved in a situation amongst other nations. Many of the founding members of the government of the United States held beliefs in this idea.

Genocide, Holocaust, War, Invasions, Operations, Missions, and Conflicts all involve at the very base people, human beings, that for whatever their own reasons seek to extend the wishes of the governing body they submit to. Governments, and by extension entire countries and the majority of people who make up the society or population of, commit to end conflicts between themselves by the brutality of War. Sometimes they use this when all other means to peace have been exhausted, sometimes as an initiation of violence and others as a defense. These governments recruit, draft and conscript those citizens of value to them, the young, stronger and the productive, to the ranks of their militaries. For this we will only be addressing military intervention; though economic intervention through blockades, embargoes and sanctions should be addressed the same way.

Non-Interventionism seems a pretty simple and straight forward principle. “Do not intervene in affairs of other countries that do not directly affect the US”. But in this very simple statement lies questions.  And serious questions. These questions have been answered repeatedly by many authors, and their acceptance is up to each individual to decide.

Is there a Humanitarian Case FOR intervention?

Of course this question begs the individual to place a subjective value on a human life and pit that against the value of another life. Because the intention and action to do harm to others is a factor to the value of a life for most, it stands that those persons doing harm or threatening to do harm would be subjected to a lesser value than the so called victims of events. Saving a life by taking a life can be seen as justifiable by some and somewhat undebatable to others. The judgment of those who will do harm or violence to others is a constant in the political world, hence a presidential kill list, drone bombings and secretive missions by highly trained military members in government sanctioned assassinations and murders. Even in everyday life, the citizens of every country place value on the lives of every other nation’s people.

Can there be a Humanitarian cause for military intervention. In this question lies an impasse of logic. Can the killing of some be considered “humanitarian” if it is the case to help others to live? If a country’s government were to threaten another with nuclear annihilation, would it not be in the humanitarian sense a point for justifiable intervention?  To ensure the loss of life is kept at a minimum and the worldwide effects of such an act be avoided? One could argue in the defense of the intervener as the wholly humanitarian effort and against the aggressor as the initiator of force. But the end result of to take a life to save a life contradicts the compassionate excuse it seeks to eradicate.  In the purely libertarian sense, one can urge intervention so long as those whose mind is made up against said intervention are not forced or coerced into facilitating the action, whether that be through taxation to afford the intervention, conscription to the cause of the intervention or whatever other means to force a person to act against their own belief of non-intervention.

What is the Humanitarian case AGAINST intervention?

Military intervention comes in many forms. From the small arms trades and sales, troop training, asset maintenance and facilitator of large weapons and munitions, and of course the act of entering into a military conflict with supplies of troops and mechanized weaponry. In the present, all of these actions are ultimately coerced from those who may or may not hold value to them, as stated before, increased taxation and conscription are all part of the norm for these types of affairs.

The Humanitarian case comes into effect at the soldier level and at the economic impact level it has on the citizenry of the intervening nation or state.  Each soldier’s life and those that they may take in combat or those that die from indirect conflict related economic hardships are not necessarily counted as such in current times. But each one of these should be considered when trying to make a humanitarian case either for or against intervention of any kind. As stated before the taking of one life by any means declares the end result of any intervention wholly inhumane and against the stated goal of saving humanity from death or harm.

What are the effects of Intervention?

There is a persistent fallacy associated with those that claim Non-Interventionism is Isolationism. Calling someone an isolationist has become the favored insult to Neo-Conservatives and the Neo-Liberals to cast towards libertarians. While not every Libertarian completely agrees with the idea of Non-Intervention, the same can be said of the idea of Intervention by Conservatives and Liberals.

The term Isolationist is one that for the most part is used erroneously and in a kind of inaccurate, hypocritical way. If the refraining from foreign affairs isolates any nation or state from any others it is in a belief that the non-intervening state or nation has some Responsibility to Protect (R2P) any others. In this theory any nation’s citizens should come to expect to be saved by all other nations or states if their respected nation or state fails to provide adequate protections. In that aim any nation’s citizens can expect to oblige to pay for any such intervention by their government. But this obligation often comes begrudgingly or not at all voluntarily. Should any state or nation, in their attempt to save another, put their own citizens at risk? Or to force them to give up their wealth on a choice not made by them that they may not find the least bit worthy of their contribution?

Sometimes intervention has other effects; creating enemies and leading to an inclusive war or attack by an offended nation or state. It has the effect of reduced production in consumer markets; due to enlistment, conscription or mandatory transfer of market production to production of intervention bound supplies.

However you view intervention it is imperative to comprehend that no matter what type of intervention is being touted, it ultimately is not in the name of humanitarian efforts. It is, as it is now, a monumental shift of wealth and lives into the domain of public welfare, domestic theft of wealth, imperialism and will have further effects that will affect those who have had no choice to submit their own voice against the will and actions of the government they live under. 

Remembering Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz was an amazing person. Inspiring and influential. His impact on this generation and future ones can and will be seen in the ways information is shared and the type of digital world we leave to posterity. His voice resonated around the world, with his message that all information should be free, the new education of people can take shape. It was through his mind ideas like Reddit, Think Progress, Creative Commons and a host of government accountability websites were brought into existence or improved upon. He was an incredibly intelligent person and will be missed by millions, some without even a knowledge of who he was or the impact he has made.

This is a copy of the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, though not confirmed to be his lone hand that wrote this, it was signed with his name. It's message is strong, it is needed and it should be heard and carried further.

Guerilla Open Access Manifesto 

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for 
themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries 
in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of 
private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the 
sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier. 

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought 
valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure 
their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But 
even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. 
Everything up until now will have been lost. 

That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their 
colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? 
Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to 
children in the Global South? It's outrageous and unacceptable. 

"I agree," many say, "but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they 
make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal — 
there's nothing we can do to stop them." But there is something we can, something that's 
already being done: we can fight back. 

Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been 
given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world 
is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for 
yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords 
with colleagues, filling download requests for friends. 



Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been 
sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by 
the publishers and sharing them with your friends. 

But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or 
piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a 
ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral — it's a moral imperative. Only 
those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy. 

Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate 
require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they 
have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who 
can make copies. 

There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the 
grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public 
culture. 

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with 
the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need 
to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific 
journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open 
Access. 

With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the 
privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us? 

Aaron Swartz 

July 2008, Eremo, Italy

To quote Tim Berners-Lee proclaimed inventor of the world wide web...




"We’ve lost a fighter. We've lost somebody who put huge energy into righting wrongs. There are people around the world who take it on themselves to just try to fix the world but very few of them do it 24/7 like Aaron. Very few of them are as dedicated. So of the people who are fighting for right, and what he was doing up to the end was fighting for right, we have lost one of our own. … We’ve lost a great person. But also, we've lost somebody who needed to be nurtured, who needed to be protected. I didn’t work with Aaron as closely as many people here, but I got the sense that all who have known him realized that he needed to be protected. He needed to be held carefully in our hands. He needed to be nurtured. So nurturers of the world, everyone who tried to make a place safe to work or a home safe to live, anyone who listens to another, looks after another or feeds another, all parents everywhere — we've lost a child. And there’s nothing worse than that."
Aaron was a genius in his own way and a brilliant mind, one that we sorely need. His perseverance in the fight for the uninhibited sharing of information and knowledge was amazing and his passion for doing all he could to release the grips of censorship, especially in academia. His devotion to the idea that ideas and knowledge should not be hidden away in storerooms and servers but instead freely broadcast is a brave goal.  His idea was to change the world and in his own way he did just that. 

There are multiple sites to look at his life, his work, those that knew him and those that benefitted from his work. Wikipedia, being a model of like mind to Aaron's is an excellent starting point.

As I was doing some reading on the life of Aaron and his mission, his message and his influence into todays tech culture I found this, a documentary of his life, as he lived it, with those he shared it with and his brilliance and his untimely death. 

To watch the movie "The Internet's Own Boy" a documentary of Aaron Swartz and his life, his accomplishments and his impact go here... 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/internet-own-boy-story-aaron-swartz/

Libertarian X-Men

I went to see the latest edition of the Marvel Super Hero Comic movie X-Men Days of Future Past. One thing that hit me harder than the action and drama is something I don't think a lot of people picked up on. Many in the libertarian circles have heard of the tenacious debate on Humanitarian versus Brutalist Libertarians, and I know I have written on it before, but this movie brought up some good ideas in my head.

While the X-Men led by Professor Charles Xavier and Magneto are searching for a way to bring a close to a long battle between humans and mutants, their means for doing so are entirely different. Much like the struggle to get others to see our way of thinking or even just another way of thinking and in our efforts to bring more people to support the cause of freedom and liberty. In this effort, it seems Libertarians, Anarchists and Volunatryists are what is seen as the mutants and the rest of the population as the the non mutant humans. The division between the means of change seems the same as Xavier and Magneto. And though the ends are the same it is the means which can have the most positive or negative impact on the outcome.

Charles Xavier is what we can call the Humanitarian, wanting to find a peaceful way to end the hate for mutants. Using education and awareness he and his school hope to form a partnership with non humans so that all can live in the same world unhindered by the biases and hate towards one another. This is the peaceful way to change hearts and minds, to gain new supporters and to gain a level of respect for the cause. his fight is not against the humans so much as it is against the biases and fear inside them, he is combating years of indoctrination and programming. Much like what we see here in the real world, it is the perception and the manipulation of that perception that makes the biggest imprint on the non mutants minds and their attitudes. If they see good coming from the mutant they can see that the fear and hate embedded in them is meaningless and false.

Magneto on the other hand is what we can call the Brutalist. He has experienced the pain of human hate and has endured what most would not even dare to imagine. His roots and life have revolved around that pain, that mistrust and the retribution he sees as his duty to repay. Magneto's ways are seen as the aggressor in most instances, and as his only defense. It is safe to say that Magneto would not be the most popular guy at the end of the battle, but his means lead to the same goal. In this last movie Magneto uses force to combat a threat against his own self and others, this can be seen as justifiable use of force as a defense.

The common goal between the two ends of this fictional movie spectrum is much the same as it is for the Humanitarian and Brutalist Libertarians. The argument for the brutalists is that their way shows one end of freedom. The freedom to decide what to say, who to associate with and the very act of discrimination, which of course in this day and age is seen as a negative. Though years ago to call someone discriminating was a compliment. It was seen as a positive that a man could distinguish between his tastes and his wants to make choices based on his own self interests, modern redefinition has turn this word to have a negative connotation. Now to say a man is discriminating is an insult and seen as a negative insight into his behavior or being. Those that use the brutalist way may not get more people to join in with them but they do serve as a reminder of what freedom is and how we must deal with the differing views of others.

Humanitarians are determined to show the utmost positive aspects of freedom while the brutalists show us that there are those that will still have discriminatory tastes and behaviors This again is to their own benefit or demise and should not be restricted from them. Much as Magneto and Professor X battle the line of how to progress the ideology, it will in the end be to the perception of those looking in.


Follow me on Twitter @PatriotPapers
                          or
Connect with me on Liberty.me @BeardedLibertyGuy

Brutalism As A Trend

As many in the Libertarian circles and liberty movement general groups are aware there is a stir growing around an article by Jeffrey Tucker. His article, "Against Libertarian Brutalism",Tucker tried to explain the thought of what he calls the brutalist, or  for me better labeled the coarse libertarian. These coarse and abrasive libertarians, explains Tucker, are drawn to the ability "to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontent with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms."  As I read the article I had my ideas of who this could be directed at or who at least fit the description and the various reasons why I could see a quick and unrelenting response from the person. Sure enough, within an hour of reading the article there was a response, and from none other than who I felt the original post defined well.

While I do not agree with the severing of the small group of libertarians, I can see where Tucker was coming from. The language and demeanor of the now self gratifying and self identifying Brutalists is something I had noticed before, but shrugged it off as just a way for someone to express themselves.Though it is not the way I would do things or even a way I see as beneficial to advancing the case of liberty.  Even if I don't agree with the ways in which someone wishes to be, I have no power to stop them from doing as they see fit.

Jeffrey Tucker compared this nature of people to an architectural style used from the 1950's through the 1970's. "Brutalism asserted that a building should be no more and no less than what it is supposed to be in order to fulfill its function. It asserted the right to be ugly, which is precisely why the style was most popular among governments around the world, and why brutalist forms are today seen as eyesores all over the world."  What Tucker says here is important, and mostly missed by the responses I have read into since its publication. It is seen that the right to be crude or abrasive is inherent in the rights of all men, but it does not do well in the stand of time, what is seen today as form or function will later be seen as an eyesore or impediment to the advancement to an idea. An idea of individual freedom should not hinge on a case to be offensive just for the sake of being offensive and then to justify the behavior by stating you have the freedom to do so. Of course the freedom to say and do things is a natural right of all people, and of course the right to be offended is in there too. One note that I did take from a lot of the responses to this article is the assumption that Tucker would want to somehow limit or restrict the ability to being a brutalist, I could not find one mention of this idea in any of words he has written on the subject. He even says in his article,"Thus do the brutalists assert the right to be racist, the right to be a misogynist, the right to hate Jews or foreigners, the right to ignore civil standards of social engagement, the right to be uncivilized, to be rude and crude. It is all permissible and even meritorious because embracing what is awful can constitute a kind of test. After all, what is liberty if not the right to be a boor?" Yes you do have a right to be the way you are and are even encouraged to be this way; for what is freedom but the inner most expressions of oneself to the world without the restrictions or regulations of outside forces?

In order to build a city many styles will be used; some used out of necessity, some out of function, some even for subjective beauty. This is an important idea in the building of any city, while what may seem as an eyesore in the later years, or in the present seen as a style without style, so to speak, still contributes the basis for the idea of that city, it performs a function of being a vessel inside whatever environment it inhabits. The houses and building in any city vary from one another and each has its own value attached by those in and around those structures. Just as in the Humanitarian Vs. Brutalist argument, these two styles will naturally draw and dispel certain people to its respective ranks. As time goes on we will see the effects of what we do and say to other in the progression of this idea of Liberty we all hold dear.

In all the conversations about this topic there is a clear dividing line, and this is the worst of what is happening in my opinion. Instead of being able to work together for the common goal there has come this divide in sections of the same general groups. Mending this gap, I don't think is possible at this time. But we hold hope that together we can move past the smallest details and work for that common end. Individual Liberty.

A friend of mine on Facebook stated it wonderfully.
Say you are to buy a car. Would you want the sales person to come at you with an attitude, to belittle and offend you? Or would you be more receptive to the offers given if the salesperson has a pleasant attitude and disposition? For me this signifies the greatest belief in the good of people and the good that people can bestow upon others. Just because you have the freedom to be brutal doesn't mean you have to be. Selling the idea of liberty and freedom does far more for those that see it in the most positive ways and can again present it in a most positive way.

I hold no discontent or judgement against those that view themselves as the Brutalists, and I hold no higher esteem or reverence for those who identify as the Humanitarians. I see everyone as the individual they are and the many different things they bring into my life and the surrounding environments we both enjoy.