America 2084

I’ve been torn up by the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Teddy Roosevelt’s as well as other campaign reforms. I am always an advocate of free speech first and as an advocate of free speech I applaud the court for recognizing that “Hillary the movie” is no different that any other piece of media. It is no different that Fahrenheit 911, or Zeitgeist, or 60 minutes for that matter and has every right to be covered under free speech and every right to obtain funding from any source as well as any amount; however as a opponent of corporatism this ruling has me quite vexed. I feel stretched thin, and I just don’t know how to react. This is probably by far the most important Supreme Court ruling in our lifetime.

As a student of media I feel that censorship of any documentary cannot be tolerated. This movie is someone’s intellectual property; the federal government has no right to abridge production or distribution of said film. The idea that the Federal Election Commission can stop a political documentary from being distributed is new to me. If I were to make a political documentary, which I have done in the past, I would fully expect to promote, distribute and finance the film anyway I see fit. Why does the Federal Election Commission have authority over the entertainment industry anyway? Shouldn’t they be more concerned with direct contributions to candidates? Why can big oil and coal buy candidates off directly, but yet they can’t spend freely on political adds? I mean, I should be celebrating this decision. This is a big win for free speech, but instead I’m hanging out with Glenn Beck; curled up in the fetal position saying to myself “I need my foil hat, I need my foil hat, I need my foil hat.” It makes me wonder what else has been censored; what other documentaries, books have we yet to see?

While the idea of having lots of foreign capital in our electoral process scares the hell out of me, this blatant censorship of press goes against the core principle of the first amendment. My two greatest fears with this ruling is that: 1) with corporate interest having higher stakes in government will mean bigger government, bigger authoritarian style government; much more scary and oppressive than you will get with lefty style socialism. 2) with trade unions and non-citizens having nothing to stop them we could have a western version of the E.U. in a matter of decades.

I’ve always said for years that it’s unions and corporations that undermine and overturn the basic principals if our Constitution. With unlimited involvement from these entities the only way to bring this corruption to a halt is to rethink the fundamental roll of government. We need to recognize that the motivation for the corporations to be involved in our government is the size of the government itself. In other words if the government is small there is nothing for the corporations to control. I’m starting to get the feeling that health reform is the least of our worries now. With special interest unlimited the government will just grow and grow. It won’t matter who is the White House or Congress whether it’s a Democrat or Republican. I feel like any day now I’m going to wake up in 1984 with a television that never turns off and a barcode tattooed on the back of my neck. Perhaps this is an exaggeration, perhaps I’m over thinking this a little, but honestly are my fears completely unfounded?

MUSIC FOR THOSE WHO LOVE LIBERTY part3

This is Deltron 3030, they are an Anarchist hiphop group that hides there criticism of the government through a sci-fi storyline.

Here are some of the lyrics to Virus:

I wanna devise a virus
To bring dire straits to your environment
Crush your corporations with a mild touch
Trash your whole computer system and revert you to papyrus
I want to make a super virus
Strong enough to cause blackouts in every single metropolis
Cuz they dont wanna unify us
So fuck it total anarchy
Can't nobody stop us

Livin’ Leviathan Loca!

This quarter I’ve declared political science as my corollary, which is practically a minor(except it is required), so I’m taking political theory 270. This class has some interesting reads (which I will be commenting on throughout the quarter), some I’ve already read, most I haven’t. The readings include a spectrum of political theorists such as John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Emma Goldman, John Locke, and of course Carl Marx. We seem to be moving chronologically through these works. Our first read is Thomas Hobbes “Leviathan” which is new to me. To me this concept is really strange. I’ve read many political books and I’ve argued both for and against many political ideas, but I don’t think I’ve ever read up on such a theory that defends absolute power. Even Chinese legalism had a hierarchy. Hobbes seems to be certain that the only way to maintain a state is to concentrate power to one individual. Wow! Where do I get in line to complain? Unlike many of my colleagues I am not in favor of the abolition of our state or any state for that matter, but I may make an exception for the state described in the Leviathan. In my opinion the reason our Constitution is the oldest in the world that is still in use is because it denies absolute power, but as I thought about it I realized that I was projecting my own personal America into this juxtaposition. When you look at the principals behind the Leviathan in comparison to our own government there are much more parallels than contrasts. Like the rights of the sovereign: to halt protest, to decide what doctrine shall be taught, to dictate property rights, and defend the country without question of actions taken or fear of punishment by the subjects. The few liberties that are given to subjects in the Leviathan also mirror the American justice system. So we’re living it baby! This sounds just like the Bush-Obama administration. Livin’ Leviathan Loca!

Links for 1/6/10

Can a Libertarian Also Be a Conservative?

Whether a libertarian can or should be a conservative will depend on what a conservative is. I consider ten sorts of conservative here—the traditionalist, the organicist, the fallibilist, the localist, the hierarchicalist, the culturalist, the fundamentalist, the constable, the marketeer, and the warrior.

What It Feels Like to Be a Libertarian

Political analysts frequently consider what it means to be a libertarian. In fact, in 1997, Charles Murray published a short book entitled "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" that does an excellent job of presenting the core principles of libertarian political philosophy. But almost no one ever discusses what it feels like to be a libertarian. How does it actually feel to be someone who holds the principles described in Murray’s book?

Yemen Opposes any US troops in Terror Fight

SAN'A, Yemen – Yemen's foreign minister said Wednesday that his country opposes any direct intervention by U.S. or other foreign troops in the fight against al-Qaida.

Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi told The Associated Press in an interview that "there is a lot of sensitivity about foreign troops coming to Yemeni territory."

The Meaning of Ists

One of the Bush administration’s most pernicious legacies is the never-ending War on Terrorism, a perpetual state of emergency that supposedly authorizes the president to break the law, abridge civil liberties, and ignore due process, all under a cloak of secrecy. Last week former Vice President Dick Cheney accused the Obama administration of forsaking Bush’s War on Terrorism. If only it were true.

Nations Don't Trade with Each Other: Individuals Do

It might be a subtle point, but it's important to realize that countries don't trade with each other as countries - rather it's individual consumers and individual companies that are doing the buying and selling.

Reason on Health Care Reform