Grand strategy for Libertarians in an era of wanton federal crimes and terror
by Brian Wright
Reposting this review on the eve of my 2018 campaign for state representative in Michigan. The LP is the vehicle upon which I’m seeking the office, but my mission is more fundamental: establishing a system in Michigan for First Principles grand juries via legis-lative act. My brochure lies here: http://brianrwright.com/BW38th.pdf. The book reviewed is about how the LP became controlled opposition and must change its stripes entirely. A bit dated now thanks to my First Principles GJ route, but still worthwhile ideas for the LP.
Reviewed by the author.
Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism…
A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.
— Aldous Huxley
Leaving the Sandbox is my book on grand strategy for the Libertarian Party, in particular, and for the liberty movement in general (in terms of what can be done sans party to bring about a free society).
From the Foreword
The motive force of the Old Paradigm—a political-economic Western Cabal with immense and concentrated state power and material resources—is desperately trying to hang on to its Old World privileges. The average American feels this in the onrushing accouterments of the federalized, militarized police state, where citizens have all the rights the Occupying Government tells us we can have. Continue reading →
Some ruminations on how panarchy can be made to work in the real world
In part 1 of this column I began from a local Republican convention where a couple of the customs—the invocation and gratuitous friendliness nod toward Israel—got me to thinking that there surely must be a better way for human beings to deal with their political needs (than to spend copious time working to elect public officials by majority vote, who then, together, exercise a comp- ulsory monopoly over providing an ever expanding range of services, whether you want these services or not). Unlike the normal marketplace, an individual cannot simply choose something else or opt out entirely. Again, the analogy to ordering breakfast is apt:
First of all, let’s assume that what I truly want for breakfast is on the menu. Go down to my local Kerby’s or Leo’s coney islands or regular coffee shop: virtually anything I want will be on the menu somewhere… and if it isn’t the owner will work with me, say, if I want salmon with my eggs. It may just cost a little more. Okay, then let’s contrast that with a system where if I want something, a majority of the patrons have to want that same thing before I can have it. Aliens in a space ship looking down at this kind of breakfast system would say to one another, “Boy, these humans are majorly retarded.”
Thus democratic politics in a coercive, compulsory government system means that in the neighborhood of zero persons get the government services they would freely choose, nor do they obtain the public officials (elected by ‘everyone’) they would prefer to provide these services. It’s all a bizarre, horrendously complicated and time-consuming process that no one in his right mind would spend a minute on, were it not for the fact that the actions of these officials can seriously eff up beyond recognition the lives of you and your loved ones. Continue reading →
Novi, Michigan. It came on suddenly, triggered I think by the invocation—in this WASPish crowd, always a nod to the Christian God—that meandered to an end by stating how we should always cherish our great friend, Israel. What?!
First—and I’ve felt this way about virtually all of the Republican meetings I’ve been to since becoming a precinct delegate roughly two years ago—what’s an invocation of faith in ‘God’ doing at a political meeting? This is America, where people’s religious beliefs are their own business so long as, “they neither break my bones or pick my pocket,” as our great sage and secular saint Thomas Jefferson put it.
Second, what is the state of Israel doing in a Christian invocation? Is the speaker trying to ward off accusations of excluding Jews? If so, why not say, let’s be nice to Jews… not let’s be nice to Israel? Then if we’re invoking kindness toward Jews, why not Muslims, Buddhists, humanists, and Great Pumpkinists? Which leads to the obvious conclusion that it’s best to dispense with religious observances in secular gatherings of this nature. If you want to solemnize the occasion, lead a moment of silence. Continue reading →
Making a clean transition from Old Paradigm to New
by Brian Wright
So what’s panarchy? Interestingly, until a couple of weeks ago I’d never heard or read the term, but I pinged a Google ad for an active-looking site called Panarchy South Jersey, then sent the Webmaster a note. Which led to more search, esp. this Wikipedia entry, showing the idea of being able to choose governments dates back to at least 1860 with a man named de Puydt… who wrote: Continue reading →