Phil's First Steinbeck

[caroljane]

> Many Objectivists are outraged when injustice is done to a great mind, a Galileo, a major creator or producer. [Phil, previous post]

And what if he's (i) doing something they don't approve of, like drugs or prostitution? Or (ii) not someone who they consider admirable or a solid citizen, as if he's a former criminal who did something stupid one time when he was a teenager and now has "a record" and can't get hired, gets leaned on by the police constantly, has his pay stolen from him by employers because he can't afford to report them, etc.? [Paging Victor Hugo...]

The biggest example of combining these two is those who have a record for the first (victimless crimes with no rights violation -- like drugs) and then are immediately in the category of the second. Their lives are ruined forever. I don't have the numbers, but if anyone knows, how many such people are in the 'system'....in jail, on probation, with a record who never harmed anyone except themselves?

Is it a hundred thousand? A million? How many Oists give a shit? Can anyone point me to a single op ed or conference speech done by ARI plus another op ed or conference speech done by TAS centered on such subjects (I'm not counting economics stuff -- such as how harmful it is to drain the energy, lose the productive contributions of the people involved, but instead on the fundamental issues of justice, morality, and supporting these parties.)

(I think the libertarians George mentioned are probably a lot better on this spectrum of issues.)

Phil, I think you have started a whole new topic here.

It is well known that the US incarcerates more of its citizens than any other Western nation. Your last-but-one president ordered the execution of more of his fellow Texans than any other governor in the century. This issue has been taken up as a cause by a prominent British "classical liberal" intellectual, formerly a Canadian and a lock-the-scum-up-and-throw-away-the-key proponent, until his recent sojourn as a guest of the US government in Coleman Prison.

Much as I despise Conrad Black, he has a point. The growth industry of private prisons, which depends on a steady supply of new prisoners, is not helping things any. When cancer researchers cure cancer, they'll still be doctors. But what will prison guards be?

The private prison industry is trying to expand here so the topic is of interest to me.

[Philip Coates]

> Phil, I think you have started a whole new topic here.

Michael, I started this topic with post #38. (Steinbeck made it occur to me, but it's much more than just a literary topic or about one book.)

Would it be possible to spin this off into another thread with the title "Fighting for *Everyone* Who is Oppressed...Even if They're Not Like You"?

[Rich Engle]

I'm just waiting around for Phil's First Hemingway<tm> . . .

"Decadence is a difficult word to use since it has become little more than a term of abuse applied by critics to anything they do not yet understand or which seems to differ from their moral concepts." --Ernest Hemingway

rde

"There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed." --Ernest Hemingway

Edited April 10, 2011 by Rich Engle

[Philip Coates]

> I'm just waiting around for Phil's First Hemingway . . . [Rich]

I don't remember my first time with Ernie H - and I wouldn't write a piece on "my first" something unless it was memorable or had an impact - like losing your virginity :-) or having an epiphany. Or both. I taught "The Old Man and the Sea" and we did "The Sun Also Rises" this year in my book group. Others I've read include "The Killers", "Snows of Kilimanjaro" among short stories. Perhaps more, but not memorable enough. While H. is not exactly one to use long sentences or write Russian-length novels, the two I've read tended to beat the same points (or the same one-dimensional characters) to death.

Jeff R thinks H's greatest novel is "A Farewell to Arms". While I don't always share Jeff's literary preferences, he has enough 'street cred' with me that I suppose I may give Ernie one more try at novel length.

But If H. thoroughly depresses me enough this third time, then: two shotgun blasts to the temples after I get stinking drunk, shoot some harmless Canadian geese, and beat up some women.)

Edited April 10, 2011 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

You seem to have the same concepts in terms of Tip O'Neil's mantra that all politics IS local.

Yes, at least where libertarians are concerned.

I've discussed some of my ideas about strategy before, so I will try not to ramble on for too long, but here is a summary (minus the arguments I would give in a more elaborate discussion):

Pure libertarians -- or what I dub libertarian ideologues -- will always be a relatively small minority in the United States. (Objectivists are in the same boat, except they will comprise an even smaller minority.) Our permanent minority status has nothing to do with any inherent problems in libertarianism (or Objectivism) per se. Rather, it is largely owing to the fact that most Americans have no serious interest in philosophical principles, and neither libertarianism nor Objectivism can flourish without this interest.

Generally speaking, for a minority group to compete in the national political arena is a pitiful waste of time, labor, and money. (I am speaking of forming a distinct political party for this purpose. It is another matter if a libertarian runs as a Republican or Democrat.) If libertarians wish to play the political game, they should focus on local politics. Electing a libertarian to a school board or to a city council is not only more feasible but more effective as well. For example, a libertarian sheriff, in the name of "prioritizing," can relegate the enforcement of drug offensives and other victimless crimes to a very low status. This has actually happened in a few cases that I know about.

People who know early American history may be familiar with the phrase "salutary neglect." This phrase, coined by Edmund Burke, referred to the British policy under the Walpole administration of not enforcing trade regulations in America. Rather than push for the repeal of these regulations, Walpole appointed relatives and political cronies to key positions in America, with the understanding that they would accept modest bribes from American smugglers rather than enforce the laws. It is said that Walpole had a closet full of unopened letters from royal governors in America who complained about the anarchy in America. Smuggling was rampant and open, and anyone who tried to correct the situation soon found himself the target of local hostility.

Burke called this salutary neglect because he believed that the consquences of this "corruption," by promoting commerce, were highly beneficial to both America and to Britain.

Consider the case of a British correspondent who was attempting to expose a smuggling ring in New York City during the Seven Years War (known in America as the French and Indian War). The British were fighting the French, so Americans were strictly forbidden to trade with the French West Indies. With one exception, British ships would stop any American ship heading for French ports. The exception was ships that carried French prisoners of war on their way to a prisoner exchange. These missions could proceed without molestation -- and when they were stopped, they merely had to produce the French prisoners, after which they were sent on their way.

Prisoner of war ships were given special flags, issued by the colonial governments, that indicated their special status. These flags provided an excellent opportunity for profit, and American smugglers and their many supporters were geniuses when it came to such matters. The governor of New York sold these special flags to American merchants. Indeed, this practice became so common and respectable that the flags were traded on the New York stock exchange. Thus when a merchant acquired a flag, all he needed to do was to pay a few local Frenchmen to dress in ragged French uniforms and -- presto! -- he had a free pass to engage in a lucrative trade with the "enemy."

Now, back to our intrepid reporter who was going to expose this anti-patriotic practice to British readers. When news leaked out, he was arrested on some trumped up charge, and then locked in a cart for a ride through the streets of New York, where the locals pelted him with rotten fruit and vegetables. Then he was thrown in prison for a few weeks. I'm not sure what eventually happened to this guy, but New Yorkers got their message through, and his article was never published.

Major conflicts, which eventually led to the Revolution, erupted after the close of the Seven Years' War in 1763, when Lord North, Townshend, and other hardliners gained control of the British government. These law and order types decided to crack down on American lawbreakers by strictly enforcing the trade regulations. By this time, however, Americans had lived for decades under the policy of salutary neglect, so they viewed the crackdowns as tyrannical oppression, even though the regulations had been on the books for decades.

There is a lesson to be learned from this and countless similar stories, to wit: Laws do not need to be formally repealed in order to become ineffective. If public opinion in a given community strongly opposes a law, then it can become extremely difficult to enforce it. And libertarians in local political offices can do a great deal to hamper law enforcement.

Now, I fully understand that we are not living in pre-Revolutionary America, a time when the federal government was nonexistent. And I realize that federal laws pose especially difficult problems. There are many problems like this, so I am not suggesting that we attempt to turn back the clock.

What I am suggesting is an educational campaign that stresses the basic principle involved here. No modern strategy involving salutary neglect is even possible so long as Americans retain a mystical reverence for the U.S. government and its laws. The 18th century way of thinking, which clearly distinguished between just and unjust laws and afforded no moral respect to the latter, has all but disappeared in America. It is well known that many of our Founders believed in the right of revolution against a tyrannical government -- but no libertarian in his right mind would advocate such a thing today.

Less well known and understood today is the right of resistance against particular unjust laws . This was regarded as a separate and distinct right from the right of revolution, and it was widely exercised by Americans from 1763 to 1775, before the outbreak of violent conflict at Lexington and Concord.

I have often said that modern libertarians could learn a great deal from the Founders from a close study of their views on the right of resistance. Unlike the right of revolution, which, though interesting theoretically, has no practical application in modern America, the right of resistance is highly relevant. I get depressed when I hear libertarians preach that we should obey all laws, even those that are manifestly unjust; and I get annoyed when these same libertarians praise the Founders to the skies.

The idea that we are obligated to obey unjust laws until and unless we can get them repealed, that we should stand around like sheep to be shorn until we can convince the government to put down its shears, would have been denounced by American revolutionaries. Indeed, they condemned this doctrine -- which was known as "passive obedience" and constituted the bedrock of absolutism -- many, many times.

We thus arrive at an essential role for a permanent minority. We libertarians can educate others in matters like those I have described above. This involves far more than teaching abstract theories about rights and the proper role of government. It involves teaching others about the moral propriety of engaging in nonviolent resistance against oppressive laws.

This kind of education, which attempts to change the attitude of people, is not a tactic per se. Rather, it lays the groundwork for a number of possible tactics. During my Voluntaryist years, I called this general approach "demystifying the state." And before some lunatic jumps on me for supposedly pushing "anarchism," let me point out that this has nothing to do with anarchism. The right of resistance follows logically from a proper understanding of individual rights and the nature of government. Most 18th century Americans believed in the right of resistance -- and many practiced it -- and you won't find an anarchist among them.

Ghs

[Selene]

George:

It is a refreshing pleasure to see a modern realistic approach to where we stand today. I ran for my local school board when I was twenty-five, had no children and was living with a woman.

My reason for running was because my local school board had passed a censorship policy. Needless to say, I ran on repealing censorship, teacher accountability, gifted and talented programs and opposition to the Central Board of Education's intrusion into our school districts right to spend its money without central control.

I carried around Atlas Shrugged, Ramparts magazine and still miraculously got elected. My first vote abolished censorship. I served for eight years and made the types of non-enforcement of central edicts the major face of our district. It worked.

I believe your ideas are applicable today. I will have more to say about what you posted over the next few days.

Great information in your post. It is a fantastic guide for a number of us who are politically involved locally.

Thanks.

Adam

[Xray]

In his important book, In Praise of Decadence, Jeff Riggenbach corrects many of the myths and misconceptions about the 1960's counterculture, but few O'ist types seem to have read it. This excerpt from Scott Ryan's Amazon review explains JR's approach:

Jeff Riggenbach's thesis in this book is a pretty straightforward one: that libertarianism is the real legacy of the 1960s, and that periods of "decadence" (really, disrespect for traditional authorities) are the most creative and inventive in history.

He makes it stick, too. Oh, there are parts I'd have handled differently, and I wish he'd ridden a couple of _my_ favorite hobby horses (the influence of science fiction being one subject to which I wish he'd devoted more space). But I learned to live long ago with my disappointment that not everything will fit into one book.

And what _is_ in the book is pretty uniformly excellent. Riggenbach begins, for example, by locating libertarianism/anarchism in U.S. history, correctly naming e.g. Emerson, Thoreau, and some of their contemporaries as examples of this tradition. And he has a fine chapter on Ayn Rand that goes far toward explaining why hippies liked her so much better than she liked them....

Hippies liked Ayn Rand? But weren't most of them totally opposed to capitalism?

Edited April 10, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

I'm just waiting around for Phil's First Hemingway<tm> . . .

"Decadence is a difficult word to use since it has become little more than a term of abuse applied by critics to anything they do not yet understand or which seems to differ from their moral concepts." --Ernest Hemingway

rde

"There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed." --Ernest Hemingway

http://grammar.about.com/b/2008/06/02/advice-on-getting-the-words-right.htm

from a 1958 Paris Review interview with Ernest Hemingway:

Interviewer: How much rewriting do you do?

Hemingway: It depends. I rewrote the ending of Farewell to Arms, the last page of it, 39 times before I was satisfied.

Interviewer: Was there some technical problem there? What was it that had stumped you?

Hemingway: Getting the words right.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

I'm just waiting around for Phil's First Hemingway<tm> . . .

"Decadence is a difficult word to use since it has become little more than a term of abuse applied by critics to anything they do not yet understand or which seems to differ from their moral concepts." --Ernest Hemingway

rde

"There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed." --Ernest Hemingway

http://grammar.about...words-right.htm

from a 1958 Paris Review interview with Ernest Hemingway:

Interviewer: How much rewriting do you do?

Hemingway: It depends. I rewrote the ending of Farewell to Arms, the last page of it, 39 times before I was satisfied.

Interviewer: Was there some technical problem there? What was it that had stumped you?

Hemingway: Getting the words right.

Try this one out, it's a hoot: Thompson, Kerouac, Hemingway review

[Selene]

Hilarious Rich!