Shameless Self-promotion Sunday #41
Here's a pretty old post from the blog archives of Geekery Today; it was written about 15 years ago, in 2009, on the World Wide Web.
Happy International Women’s Day!
Besides that, today is also Sunday, which means it’s a day for shameless self-promotion. And so, what’s up with you? What have you been up to this week? Write anything? Leave a link and a short description for your post in the comments. Or fire away about anything else you might want to talk about.
Follow
I wrote a post reflecting upon anarchism, as a Rothbardian who has just finished reading Kropotkin’s “Mutual Aid” and is currently listening to an audiobook version of Bakunin’s “God and the State”, alternating chapters with Joseph Conrad’s 1907 novel “The Secret Agent” which deals with anarchists.
I also posted a song (which I do every Sunday): a weird Dylan parody by an obscure singer from the 60’s known as “Race Marbles”. Stop by and tell me if you dig it!
Has anyone else read this New Scientist article?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126971.700-how-to-survive-the-coming-century.html
The more I read about climate change, the more I become… well, terrified.
Andy Worthington has a good journalistic treatment of the present legal status of the “enemy combatant” doctrine in the U.S.
It’s a tangled mess of differing court rulings and treading water by the Obama admin. — not entirely affirming but not entirely dismissing the power.
His justice department is also claiming only the president has the authority to decide whether classified information can be introduced into the court system. The lawsuits against Bush officials are being opposed by the new justice department.
See the article below:
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0903b.asp
Aster, I just read the New Scientist article on climate change. What terrifies me most of all is the complex denial strategies of some replies, which illustrate how the biggest polluters find ways to continue getting away with it.
This article poses some frightening challenges, and also proposes some possible solutions. However the political will is still lacking, so it is our task to spread more knowledge and promote an ever stronger spirit of resistance against corporate capitalism’s attempts to rip us off.
Announcement: This coming weekend is San Francisco’s annual Anarchist Book Fair, in Golden Gate Park at the Ninth Ave and Lincoln Way entrance, the SF County Fair Building. Saturday 3-14, 10am-6pm; Sunday 3-15, 11am-5pm. Info at:
Info at: http://www.sfbookfair.wordpress.com
I wrote about how those concerned about fair trade issues should not support the State, since it is one of the most unfair “tradesmen” of all.
http://notcaesars.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-is-most-unfair-trade.html
Victoria,
Thanks for the note about the Bay Area Anarchist Bookfair. In point of fact, I’ll be there, as well some other ALLies from around the West — we will have a vendor space with many of the different booklets, buttons, pamphlets, journals, and other things that ALL locals have been producing. I’ve posted the notice here.
If you’ll be there, be sure to drop on by our vendor table. I’ll be staffing it in the morning (i.e., up to about 12 noon) on both Saturday and Sunday.
Victoria,
Do avail yourself of a chance to meet Charles! Wish all three of us could chat in good ole SF ( :
This kind of sweeping rejection of bottled water strikes me as the wrong approach. What if a person wants the convience of having water on the go? They will need some kind of container. You can’t entirely erase the impact of human beings on the planet without destroying them.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2007-06-23-bottledwater_N.htm
Now that is a misleading headline, Nick. According to the text, this forbids the city government to buy bottled waters using tax money. It does not forbid the individuals involved to bring water in bottles.
Didn’t catch that…
Lew Rockwell article rant: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=16
This article makes some interesting points. I certainly agree that the state making economic independence more difficult made it harder for blacks in the South during the era mentioned.
That said, this is flawed:
“Learning from History. . . or Maybe Not
The Montgomery Bus Boycotts represent what I think is an educational example of exactly the wrong way to approach the issue. The fact that Montgomery also represents what most would call the start of the Civil Rights Movement, and with it a further enhanced role of government in actions such as this one by President Barack, makes it particularly germane to this discussion.
To review, the bus companies in Montgomery, Alabama made it a habit, as did most business at the time, of treating black customers differently than white customers. In fact, this mistreatment was codified in the laws of the time. This treatment involved requiring black bus riders to begin loading from the back of the bus, and eventually to stand if a white rider wanted to sit down. In a now-famous gesture of defiance, (which, by the way, was not spontaneous) Rosa Parks refused to relinquish her seat and was arrested. Her act of defiance led to all the blacks in Montgomery boycotting the bus company for the next 14 months.
Almost immediately after black bus patrons began to walk, the black community devised a network of carpools. The city pressured local insurance companies to stop insuring cars used in the carpools. Additionally, black taxi drivers began to charge ten cents per ride, a fare equal to the cost to ride the bus, in support of the boycott. When word of this reached city officials, the order went out to fine any cab driver who charged a rider less than 45 cents.
Statist Lesson #1: Punish people for making their own choices and spending their own resources in the way they wish.
Shortly after the black patrons began to walk, the bus company realized that it was losing money much faster than it could afford to. Ready to cave-in, the bus company received pressure from racists (and financiers) outside Montgomery to “keep those Negroes in their place.” In an attempt to punish the boycotters the local White Citizen’s Council took part in violence directed against boycott organizers.
Statist Lesson #2: If people won’t do your bidding voluntarily, use violence.”
The implicit argument seems to be that the Montgomery Bus Boycott was a bad idea, because it provoked a backlash involving a statist mentality.
My response:
The boycott itself was an entirely peaceful affair — and also wildly successful, no? Whatever one thinks of the civil rights statism that eventually emerged, it’s indisputable that a boycott is a tactic consistent with classical liberal principle.
The boycotters can’t be blamed for the reprisal actions of White vigilante groups. That’s arguably not the author’s point, but you always risk opposition when taking a necessary principled stand-action — barring other reasonable choices; a refusal to boycott is pragmatic folly.
The eventual Supreme Court ruling that struck down mandatory separation of races is arguably a net decrease in statism. It was the restraint of more localized agents of state from the initiation of force.
Nick,
I don’t think that Alston was criticizing the actions of the boycotters in the Montgomery Bus Boycott; he’s criticizing the city government (and freelance white supremacists like the WCC). He makes clear in the final paragraph the article that his point in bringing it up was that the coercive strategies that the state used against civil equality during the bus boycott are the same strategies the state is now using supposedly on behalf of civil equality.
My apologizes to Mr. Alston then. I thought I’d read correctly and didn’t proffer a knee jerk reaction.
On a related note: those who live by the sword die by the sword seems to be a central libertarian insight — one well supported by the many shifts coercive power has taken over time.