I’ve talked here a couple times before about the notion of mass education and targeted persuasion and how important it is to what I take myself to be doing in writing a crazy-ass blog about all my crazy-ass positions like I do. (The basic notion here is that one way to advance crazy-ass radical views — views which you’re not likely to convince many people of, just as they are, outside of a relatively small, somewhat self-selected target audience — you can still move the conversation forward in really important ways just by taking the time to put the position on people’s intellectual radar — by explaining the view, and why some people might hold it, clearly enough that you thereby push out people’s horizons of intelligible dissent. Most folks still won’t accept your position, but if you do it right, you will get them to where they’ll consider it as a position that’s open for discussion. And just doing that much has a big damn effect on where discussions can go.)

Anyway, the point of mentioning all this is to bring up a really fine post that Roderick put up last month, entitled Wild Cards, which I think does some really important work towards just that kind of dialectical project. After some excellent introductory material which introduces several of the same notions, in other terms, Roderick comes around to this really quite excellent effort to distill the left-libertarian position down to six key points:

Our vital task, then, is to get the word out that there is a position out there that includes the following theses:

1. Big business and big government are (for the most part) natural allies.

2. Although conservative politicians pretend to hate big government, and liberal politicians pretend to hate big business, most mainstream policies – both liberal and conservative – involve (slightly different versions of) massive intervention on behalf of the big-business/big-government elite at the expense of ordinary people.

3. Liberal politicians cloak their intervention on behalf of the strong in the rhetoric of intervention on behalf of the weak; conservative politicians cloak their intervention on behalf of the strong in the rhetoric of non-intervention and free markets – but in both cases the rhetoric is belied by the reality.

4. A genuine policy of intervention on behalf of the weak, if liberals actually tried it, wouldn't work either, since the nature of government power would automatically warp it toward the interests of the elite.

5. A genuine policy of non-intervention and free markets, if conservatives actually tried it, would work, since free competition would empower ordinary people at the expense of the elite.

6. Since conservative policies, despite their associated free-market rhetoric, are mostly the diametrical opposite of free-market policies, the failures of conservative policies do not constitute an objection to (but rather, if anything, a vindication of) free-market policies.

Of course we should be prepared to defend these theses through economic reasoning and historical evidence, but the main goal at this point, I think, should be not so much to defend them as simply to advertise their existence. We need to make our red spades and black hearts a sufficiently familiar feature of the intellectual landscape that people will be able to see them for what they are rather than misclassifying them – at which point we'll be in a better position to defend them.

— Roderick Long, Austro-Athenian Empire (2009-09-10): Wild Cards

Read the whole thing.

Now, part of the point of this kind of thing is to provoke discussion. And here’s Stephan Kinsella’s reply to principle (1) in particular:

As I noted there, Do you mean big business as it exists in today's world, or big business per se? If the former, you have a point (and from my quick read I don't disagree with any of your other points). But to argue for the latter interpretation would imply that there could be no big business in a free society.

It seems that the bigger a company is, in today's world, the more they have to play ball to prosper. I'm not sure, though, why this observation is limited to big business, or even business in general. Even individuals drive on public roads, and are incentivized or coerced into using public schools, say. And what about Big Medicine, Big Education, Big Research, and so on? (And let's not forget Big Labor!)

Come to think of it—most larger charities I'm aware of continually seek state partnerships and funding, and encourage state redistribution schemes. Down with charity!

— Stephan Kinsella, The LRC Blog (2009-09-15): Big Charity

Sometimes with Stephan, it’s hard to tell whether he intends this kind of but-what-about, doesn’t-everybody move as just some further observations riffing on the general theme or whether he really intends for it to be taken as support (by means of a reductio) for some specific objection. But if this is intended as part of an objection to (the per-se interpretation of) Roderick’s claims about the alliance between Big Business and the interventionist State, then what exactly is the objection here supposed to be?

Let’s set aside Stephan’s mentions of individuals driving on government roads, or sending children to government schools. Sure they do; but this doesn’t strike me as even remotely compelling, if you pause for even a second to consider matters of degree, and it’s hard to see what purpose mentioning it really serves except as a way to just sort of scatter critique as broadly as possible. Last year, the Department of the Treasury sent me a $600 check, allegedly for the purpose of economic stimulus — just like how they also cut AIG a $170,000,000,000 check last year, also allegedly for the purpose of economic stimulus. But, well, so what? I’d say it’s still pretty accurate to see AIG as having a much closer relationship with bail-out statism than I do.

So let’s set aside the doesn’t-everybody move, and stick to the comments on other Bigs — large-scale, formalized institutions in which control is concentrated in a professionalized hierarchy and an administrative bureaucracy — whether it’s Big Medicine, Big Education, Big Research, Big Labor, or Big Charity. Kinsella points out that the other big institutions are, in general, tangled up with the interventionist state, just as big business is. If left-libertarians are going to lay down some heavy critique on Big Business, shouldn’t they be doing the same on the other Bigs?

Well, sure.

So what’s the problem?

What makes you think that left-libertarians would have some kind of problem critiquing Big Medicine (2, 3, 4), or Big Research, or Big Education (2, 3, 4), or Big Charity (2, 3), or Big Labor (2, 3, 4)?

Sure, public-private jobbery, state regimented, hypertrophic, centralized institutions, political capture, subsidized featherbedding, and unresponsive professionalized bureaucracies are hardly limited to conventional for-profit corporations. They happen all over the place — in big professionalized charities like United Way or the Starvation Army; in big hospitals and corporate adjuncts of the medical industry (insurance corporations, pharma corporations, etc.); in big administration-heavy multiversities; and in top-down, centralized business unions like the UAW, the Teamsters, or SEIU. Just like the Fortune 500, they’re also major beneficiaries of State regimentation, subsidy, and captive audiences; just like the Fortune 500, they’re also major causes of State regimentation, through their lobbying and political influence. And just like with hypertrophic, centralized, top-down corporate commerce, there’s some solid reasons for thinking that their hypertrophic, centralized, top-down not-for-profit operations would be fundamentally unsustainable in a freed market.

But that’s hardly an objection to the left-libertarian critique of big business; it’s a perfectly acceptable complement to it. Left-libertarians — at least, the sort of left-libertarians that Roderick is an example of — aren’t just conventional libertarians who believe you ought to voluntarily give more to charity. The critique of corporate capitalism is just the most high-profile part of a broad critique of the state’s promotion of credentialism, bureaucracy, and top-down centralized control — which is why folks like us generally promote community mutual aid over professionalized charity; grassroots, rank-and-file unionism over AFL-CIO-style union bosses and collective bargaining; unschooling over bureaucratic-liberal public education; etc., etc., etc.

So, yeah, down with Big Charity. I agree. Where’s the problem?

Jury: Police Had Right To Beat Suspects

Grand Jury: Officers ‘Used Reasonable Force’

PHILADELPHIA – MyFoxPhilly has learned that a grand jury says Philadelphia police officers who beat three suspects "used reasonable force" in accord with "training guidelines."

No officers will face criminal charges in the case from May 2008.

An advance release says the three suspects, because they eluded police, fell under the guidelines that justified the actions of the 20 officers who beat the three men on camera in a 14-minute video shot by Fox 29.

After a careful thorough and exhaustive year long invest we the jurors have independently concluded that criminal action is not warranted against any of the officers. We found that the police on the scene used only the amount of force — and no more than that amount — that they reasonably believed was necessary to bring under control and into custody three suspects in a shooting who had tried to elude capture, who were resisting arrest and who were creating a potentially significant danger to police.

We found that the design of the force applied by the police was helpful rather than hurtful; the kicks and blows in other words were aimed not to inflict injury but to facilitate quick and safe arrests. We found that the kind of force administered was completely consistent with police training and guidelines and the laws of the commonwealth.

The three men beaten by Philadelphia police after a triple shooting were acquitted in June of all charges in the shootings that led to the beating incident.

I’m really upset because justice still wasn’t served so the cops can just go out and do the same thing to anybody randomly, like they want to, says former suspect Brian Hall.

— MyFoxPhilly.com, Jury: Police Had Right To Beat Suspects

Government prosecutors could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But they can’t get them to indict out-of-control cops that were caught on tape dealing out horrendous extended gang beatdowns. You might almost think it’s as if they weren’t even trying….

(Via John Petrie @ Blagnet.net 2009-09-17.)

See also:

• GT 2008-04-25: We need government cops because private protection forces would be accountable to the powerful and well-connected instead of being accountable to the people. (in which the police murderers of Sean Bell go free)
• GT 2008-06-23: We need government cops and government courts because private protection forces and private arbitrators would be accountable to the powerful and well-connected instead of being accountable to the people. (#2) (in which the gang-rapists of Hope Steffey are cleared of all charges)

• Hugo Mexicano. Austro-Athenian Empire (2009-10-11). in which Roderick reviews Juarez — one of my stronger memories from high-school Spanish. (Linked Sunday 2009-10-11.)
• Dyer Lum on Mutualism, and a note on Proudhon. Shawn P. Wilbur, In the Libertarian Labyrinth (2009-10-02). I’m working on gathering the pieces for a series of pamphlets documenting the mutualist tradition, and ran across this rather strange, but very interesting piece, but the frequently strange, but always interesting Dyer D. Lum. Tucker’s translation of the first volume of The System of Economical Contradictions was published in… (Linked Sunday 2009-10-11.)
• diveintomark: "Dive Into Python" has now earned me over $10,000 in royalties, despite being Free and online for 8 years. Twitter / diveintomark (2009-10-11). But without Intellectual Protectionism laws, how would anyone ever make a living writing books? (Linked Sunday 2009-10-11.)
• Keene, the Peaceful Civil-Disobedience Apex. James B Schlessinger Jr, Fr33 Agents (2009-10-08). Activists light up a marijuana cigarette in the Keene Police Station James B Schlessinger Jr. October 5th, 2009 Words on paper are not stopping activists and locals from living like free people in Keene, New Hampshire.  Whether it is marijuana consumption on the Commons or a young woman going topless… (Linked Sunday 2009-10-11.)
• The Good Old Days. Jill, Feministe (2009-10-11). This article will make you lose your lunch. The idea is that sex with children is more taboo today than it was in Roman Polanski's era — thanks to victims' rights groups and a family values revival. The evidence? Well, Polanski himself, and this one Woody Allen movie. The article… (Linked Sunday 2009-10-11.)
• Anarchist Elliot Madison wrongfully arrested, robbed. John, Blagnet.net (2009-10-06). In a continuation of law-enforcement agencies' general disdain for and dismissal of our civil liberties, Elliot Madison, a self-described anarchist, was arrested for using Twitter and a police scanner to help G20 protesters coordinate their efforts and avoid police officers. The charges on which he was held don't indicate any… (Linked Monday 2009-10-12.)
• A Shocking Development. Daily Brickbats (2009-09-14). Two Gwinnett County police sergeants have resigned and Cpl. Gary Miles has been arrested after Miles allegedly used a Taser on a Waffle House waiter as a joke. The sergeants reportedly saw the incident and did not report it. The department is investigating claims a fourth officer pointed a Taser… (Linked Monday 2009-10-12.)
• Ending the Cycle. Daily Brickbats (2009-10-12). Green Government in a nutshell. (Linked Monday 2009-10-12.)

(Via a private correspondent.)

Officer Marc Rios. New York Police Department. The Bronx, New York, New York. A few months ago, a New Yorker named John Roperto was leaving a nightclub in Kingsbridge at about 4:20 in the morning. A speeding car almost ran him down, so he smacked the hood of the car and said some unkind words. Normally that would be about it; civilized people understand that when you almost run someone down, emotions run high, and the best thing to do is just say you’re sorry and let the poor guy cool down. But it turns out that, instead of a civilized person, the driver of the car was Officer Marc Rios, a 12-year veteran of the New York City government’s police force. Rios, who cruises the city heavily-armed and looking for trouble, got out of his car, whipped out a baton, and smashed John Roperto so hard in the face that it broke the baton — and Roperto’s cheekbone. Then Officer Marc Rios, as a public servant supposedly paid and legally privileged to Serve and Protect, jumped back into his car and sped off with his buddy-cop — while his victim was still lying in a gutter. Neither of them thought to call it in; Roperto didn’t get any medical attention until a concerned stranger called 911.

Officer Marc Rios’s explanation is that this brutal, unprovoked hit-and-run assault — committed against a man who had every right to be angry, and who had done nothing more than bang on a car hood and shout at a cop — is justifiable as self-defense. I’m not sure what sort of self-defense is supposed to be involved in leaving a man bleeding in a gutter without even calling in an ambulance, but in any case, Officer Marc Rios figures that the original beating was a righteous beating, because he’s a cop, and he (allegedly) gave an order, and John Roperto (allegedly) didn’t immediately snap to obeying it. That may not seem like self-defense, exactly, to you, but you’ve got to keep in mind that government cops like Officer Marc Rios are trained to believe that disregard for their prerogative is tantamount to an assault on their persons, if not indeed a threat to their very lives. So no matter how little physical threat you may pose, any refusal, or even hesitancy, to immediately obey their arbitrary bellowed commands is, just as such, a justification for maximal uses of force against you.

Meanwhile, Rios’s lawyer is telling the press that Roperto ought to be grateful that experienced Officer Marc Rios didn’t just shoot him in the face.

One of the nice things about my recent journey to Alabama is that I got the chance, along the way, to hang out with my folks in Auburn for a couple days, and, before I left, also managed to drop in at my second favorite used bookstore in the world, The Gnu’s Room. (Now both a used bookstore and a café, apparently; also now enjoying the patronage of the Auburn University Philosophy Department.) Here’s what I scored while I was there; I found all but two of these books sitting together in one stack, apparently recent arrivals. The other two came from the Philosophy shelf. And none of them cost me more than $4.00.

• Raymond J. McCall (1952/1961), Basic Logic: The Fundamental Principles of Formal Deductive Reasoning, 2^nd edition (Barnes & Noble, Inc.). A peculiar and (judging from the Preface) delightfully cranky textbook in logic. The peculiarity comes from the crankiness: McCall is a Catholic Aristotelian who spends the preface railing against the Wolffian perversion of the modern mathematicized logic (which he believes is due to a confusion of material logic and formal logic). He then devotes the entire textbook to a hardcore course in the categorical syllogism with some closing material on the theory of judgment.

• Mary Hartman and Lois W. Banner (eds.) (1974), Clio’s Consciousness Raised: New Perspectives on the History of Women. An anthology with a great title and a pretty good spread of topics from Feminist Studies Inc., published by Harper & Row. The modal topic is, as usual, women in Victorian America and Victorian England, but several other things get covered too.

• Evelyn Reed (1969/1970), Problems of the Women’s Liberation Movement: A Marxist Approach. From Pathfinder.

• Hugh Hawkins (ed.) (1970), The Emerging University and Industrial America. A short anthology of essays — some from participants like Josiah Royce, others from historians looking back — from D.C. Heath’s Problems in American Civilization series.

• Bertrand Russell (1926), Education and the Good Life. A paperback edition from Avon Books, which looks to be a printing from the early 1960s or so, but I can’t find the date of the reprint.

• E. David Cronon (ed.) (1963/1969), Labor and the New Deal. A documents reader from the Berkeley Series in American History.

• Albert A. Blum (1963/1972). A History of the American Labor Movement. An alleged survey of American labor history, published as American Historical Association pamphlets #250, which I read on the plane back from Alabama. It’s actually just a recitation of the AFL-CIO party line on the triumph of state unionism, the wisdom of George Meaney and Walter Reuther, and the glory of the NLRB; any mention of the labor radicals (land-redistributionists, money reformers, the IWW) is only to summarily push them aside in a few opening paragraphs about their utopianism, foolishness, or failure. Blum, remarkably, manages to discuss the big drop-off in unionism from 1919-1929 without even once mentioning either the Palmer Raids or the Red Scare more broadly.