 |
ISIL's 26th World Freedom Summit
August 2007 – Williamsburg, Virginia
Celebrating America's Roots and Looking
To The Future
– a conference report by Vince Miller –
Jacques de Guenin, president of Le Cercle Frédéric Bastiat (Les Landes, France), poses with a cannon used in the final battle of the
American Revolution at Yorktown, Virginia. This particular cannon had been recognized by La Fayette years after the battle due to a unique impact damage. See Jacques'
presentation on La Fayette in this issue.
ISIL's world conference, held in historic Williamsburg, Virginia, this past August (11-15) celebrated the 400th anniversary of the
founding of America at nearby Jamestown (with visitations by John Rolfe, Thomas Jefferson and other famous personages from America's early days). Other speakers spoke
on the conference theme of "Re-founding America" – of the ongoing struggle to preserve the spirit of freedom as it had flowered in 1776 – vs. the ever-present
forces intent on expanding state power – a power struggle than began virtually from day-one and continues to this day. Many of America's founders, including
Thomas Jefferson himself, doubted that the Republic would last 200 years. Benjamin Franklin stated, "Gentlemen we give you a Republic . . . if you can keep it."
JOHN ROLFE SPEAKS
John Rolfe (aka Dick Cheatham) addresses new arrivals to the Jamestown colony in the year 1621.
The conference kicked off with an opening reception and welcoming remarks by ISIL president Vince Miller. This was followed by a highly
entertaining and informative performance by conference co-host Dick Cheatham.
Cheatham, a Richmond, Virginia native, operates a company called Living History Associates, which employs a troupe of outstanding
historian/actors who portray prominent historic figures – mainly from the periods of the Revolutionary War and the War Between the States. They perform regularly
throughout the state and country at schools, conferences and public events.
This night, Dick Cheatham, a descendent of John Rolfe, delivered an orientation speech as it might have sounded to new arrivals at
Jamestown colony in 1621.
He described how different the Indians were from the Europeans in their dress and ways of living, and how in turn the Europeans seemed
strange to the Indians. He described Pocahontas (the daughter of the Indian Chief Powhatan who ruled over many tribes in what is now Virginia) as being exceptionally
intelligent, curious, and courageous.
He told of the early history of Captain John Smith and the original 104 settlers in 1607, half of whom died within six months of their
landing. The worst period was the winter of 1609-10 when only sixty out of 500 survived. Illnesses, injuries, and Indian attacks took their toll, but the main cause was
starvation. Part of the reason was that the early settlers who were sent by the Virginia Company were gentlemen, who were expecting to find and plunder gold and silver,
as the Spaniards had done with great success to the south.
The original idea was that the annual ships would bring food and supplies, but erratic winds made for serious delays in crossing the
Atlantic. And the rule was that the colonists would share available food equally. This "common store system," an early form of communism, caused enormous squabbling.
A few gentlemen tried to lead the colony and failed, so in desperation, they elected Captain John Smith who used the stick of "work not, eat not", which averted total
disaster. But the investors in England were becoming restless, and in 1611 a new governor, Thomas Dale, changed the rules to "work more, eat more" allowing colonists to
keep the fruits of their labor and profit. Any colonist who paid his own way to Virginia got more land, plus extra if he paid for others. The colonists tried numerous
businesses like winemaking, glassmaking, etc. but none really worked, and prosperity came only when they began growing tobacco, for which there was a huge demand in
Europe.
Virginia was the birthplace of American democracy and liberty, with their General Assembly, and adoptation of the English tradition of
local elections and limitations of the powers of the king established through the Magna Carta.
WE MEET THOMAS JEFFERSON
From left: ISIL Scholarship Chairman Richard Venable, Gail Lightfoot and Prof. Mark Skousen joke with Bill Barker as Thomas Jefferson.
Lunchtime on Monday was enlivened by a superb performance by historian/actor Bill Barker, a regular performer at Colonial Williamsburg
who performed brilliantly as Thomas Jefferson.
He made a presentation as Jefferson might have delivered in 1807, after having ridden alone on horseback from Washington to Williamsburg.
He pointed out that in that day, most people did not know what a president looked like (due to the lack of mass publishing or broadcasting of images) so he was able to
stop off at taverns along the way and talk with people incognito.
He emphasized that the president is not a monarch, and that free and open debate between the people and their leaders was vital for the
preservation of American freedoms.
He had made a number of architectural improvements to the President's House (later to be known as the White House), and joked that if
the Federalists were to accuse him of accomplishing nothing as president, that he had removed the old outdoor privies from the south lawn and installed the first indoor
water closet in the country.
He talked of the "four mile per hour" world of transportation and wondered what kind of world future generations would live in –
and whether they could preserve a nation based on the principles as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, which he noted were not new, but had been discussed
throughout history by thinkers like Aristotle, Cicero, Algernon Sydney, and John Locke.
Aristotle had pointed out that "if an individual is incapable of governing himself, how could he be capable of governing others?"
Cicero had written of the vital importance of citizens to remember their history, so that they might not be children all their lives, ready to be led. Sydney had fought
for freedom of the press. Locke had explained that no government could long survive without the consent of the people.
Jefferson closed by saying the most special thing about America was that it is a meritocracy, where the truest happiness comes from
virtue and work – to improve the condition of oneself and of thus of mankind. And that to preserve liberty it was necessary to maintain eternal vigilance.
There was an extensive Q&A session. Barker handled all the questions with aplomb.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN AND HIS LIBERTARIAN CRITICS
by Mark Skousen
Prof. Mark Skousen, author of the newly published Compleated Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (Regnery) defended Benjamin
Franklin, who has been attacked by some libertarian scholars – particularly the late Murry N. Rothbard, who described Franklin as "a sinister, subversive devil . . .
an opportunist par excellence . . . cunning . . . fawning . . . meddling . . . an opportunistic hedonist . . . and on top of that a warmonger and a Tory imperialist."
All that?!
Prof. Skousen was curious as to how Rothbard could reconcile the way in which, by July 1776, the "Tory imperialist" suddenly became the
"radical revolutionary" and co-conspirator with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Indeed, Franklin was one of the first of the founders to call for independence. His "war
mongering" ideas on foreign policy anticipated George Washington's farewell address by nearly 20 years. In 1778 he stipulated that "the system of America is to have
commerce with all, and war with none".
Prof. Skousen admitted that Franklin was misguided on a number of important issues – such as his advocacy of a labor theory of
value and his support of paper money (he was a proponent of Hamiltonian-styled central banking and he supported the inflationary policies to support the war) –
but on the other hand he was actively involved in the creation of the three major documents of American government (the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of
Confederation, and the Constitution). He was an advocate of a limited central government.
Franklin, it has been noted, was second only to Washington as America's "necessary man," the man who single-handedly raised 34 million
livres (equivalent to $14 billion in today's money) to finance the Revolutionary War.
Most biographies of Franklin are laudatory of him and indeed of his stature as an outstanding founder seems firmly cemented. Even
Austrian economics founders Eugen Bõhm-Bawerk and Max Weber recognized his genius.
Prof. Skousen concluded: "Like all the founders, he had his share of foibles. How should one weigh his mammoth achievements against his
inscrutable flaws? Before you make up your mind, I suggest you spend a few days reading Franklin's own accounts of his life. You may see a different Franklin from the
man his critics and I have described."
Prof. Skousen is the organizer of the yearly FreedomFest which is held in Las Vegas, Nevada
every July. He was invited to speak at the First Day Issue Ceremony in Philadelphia for the four commemorative stamps honoring Franklin as a printer, scientist,
postmaster, and statesman.
To find more about the many facets and intrigues of this amazing man's life, click here
for a full text version of his speech – or better yet order a copy of Skousen's Compleated Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin from ISIL's Laissez Faire Books
A SCOTS-IRISH FARMER'S TALE
by John McClaughry
An address by John McClaughry, in the persona of his ancestor Thomas McClaughry who emigrated to America in 1765.
John McClaughry, in the persona of his ancestor Thomas McClaughry, related a tale of his ancestors fleeing religious persecution and
taxation from Scotland. The cruel dragoons of Sir John Graham of Claverhouse had devastated their countryside with fire and sword to suppress the independent
Presbyterian peasants. The McClaughrys were forced to flee to the Ulster plantations in Ireland.
But the liberties won by this move were short-lived. In 1699 the English parliament, protecting English monopolies, imposed the Woolens
Act which prohibited Scots in Ireland from selling wool and linen products into foreign markets. And more religious persecution and war was visited upon them as King
James II attempted to regain his throne.
"I tell you true, I was but a humble farmer, but this was clear to me: whenever government steps in to destroy a free market, the most
productive and virtuous people will suffer, and the most unproductive and corrupt will gain at their expense."
Despite a short period of relative peace under the rule of the Dutch William and Mary, conditions worsened and 21 of the McClaughry
clan, having had enough, decided to emigrate to America – a perilous undertaking in those days. Only one individual survived the trip in an inordinately long
nineteen-week crossing. Tom McClaughry and his wife, who emigrated 36 years later, fared better than his ill-fated brothers and sisters.
In America, McClaughry was elated over the many freedoms he found. He described them as "more priceless than rubies". But when the
taxation and repressive acts that ultimately led to the American Revolution were inflicted on colonists, he noted: "We Scots-Irish Americans had our still-vivid
memories of persecution by Crown and Parliament"
"I was then in my 59th year, but my four sons stood to the militia colors, and helped wreak havoc on Burgoyne's invading British army.
When the war finally ended in 1783 with America free and independent, together we rejoiced at our hard-won victory."
"It was my sons' generation that gave America the Declaration of Independence. Their generation shed their blood to vanquish a powerful
and overbearing foe. Their generation produced a wondrous Constitution to guide this nation into its bright future."
"Friends – fail me not, nor fail ye America, nor fail ye all humanity. Freedom is won by courage and often by the shedding of
blood; it is preserved by brave men and women who hold it as their highest value, speak and act boldly in its defense, and advance its gleaming banners throughout the
world.
"Be ye those brave men and women".
John McClaughry is president of the Ethan Allen Institute, a
Vermont free-market public policy thinktank and educational organization. McClaughry served in both the Vermont House (1968 and 1970) and Senate (1988 and 1990) and was
Senior Policy Advisor to Ronald Reagan in the White House Office of Policy Development. He was a Major in the US Marine Corps Reserve and a Colonel in the Vermont State
Guard.
McClaughry is a strong proponent of town-hall democracy and is proud to have been Moderator for the Town of Kirby since 1967.
His book The Vermont Papers: Recreating Democracy on a Human Scale has influenced the thinking of prominent libertarians.
For a full text version of McClaughry's speech click here.
FROM LA FAYETTE ONWARD:
The Perennial Link Between
French and American Liberals
by Jacques de Guenin
Jacques de Guenin, the founder and current president of Le Cercle Frédéric Bastiat in Les Landes region of France,
provided a historical perspective on the considerable contributions of the French to American liberty – starting with the Frenchman who made by far the greatest
contribution: the Marquis de La Fayette.
La Fayette and the
American Revolution
In 1777 La Fayette at the age of 20 had sailed to America to assist the Americans in their revolutionary war with the British. He met
with George Washington, carrying with him a letter of introduction from Benjamin Franklin, who at the time was US consul in Paris. The understanding between the two men
was instantaneous and was to last throughout their lives. Washington's support, and the fact that the young man insisted on enlisting without pay and assuming his own
costs, won the consideration of Congress who appointed him Major General.
On January 11, 1779 La Fayette returned to France where he convinced King Louis XVI to send 6000 men under General de Rochambeau and a
war fleet of 30 ships under Admiral de Grasse to support the American war effort.
La Fayette was active in many battles throughout the war and was wounded in one early clash with General Cornwallis's forces, but
perhaps his most important contribution was at the decisive battle at Yorktown.
Washington had ordered La Fayette to rebuild his forces and keep Cornwallis bottled up in Yorktown, to where Admiral de Grasse with
his French fleet was sailing, while Washington himself and Rochambeau were coming down from New York.
At the siege of Yorktown which began on October 6, 1781, La Fayette was in the thick of the action, leading the capture of British
positions. Cornwallis was almost out of food and ammunition, and about a quarter of his men were ill. He surrendered at noon, on October 19. La Fayette then returned to
Paris.
Up until 1790, he received at his home many famous Americans who had been staying in Paris – like Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, as
well as European liberals like Germaine de Staël, Benjamin Constant, and Horace Say. He promoted free trade. He pleaded the cause of Protestants to the king. He
corresponded with Bolivar, the liberator of several South American States. He encouraged the Italian liberals, the Spanish constitutionalists, the Greek and Polish
freedom fighters. He spent a lot of money to help free slaves in French colonies.
La Fayette played a decisive role in the preparation for the French Revolution, but by mid-1791 the revolution was badly off track and
had degenerated into a reign of terror. He was charged with treason for leaving the front on the conflict with the Austrians to plead for the French king's life, and
only narrowly escaped the guillotine himself. During the war he was captured by the Austrians and imprisoned for 5 years.
He was freed by Napoleon in 1797 and eventually settled in an old castle that his wife had been able to recover. But he no longer had
the same luster in France as he had in the United States, even though he was the same character. The reason is that there was a total symbiosis between himself and the
philosophy which drove the American people, while in France, in spite of the liberal burst of the early Revolution, those of the Jacobin disposition praised La Fayette
only for his military glory.
In 1823, while he was 66, La Fayette accepted President James Monroe's invitation for a farewell tour of 24 American states where he
was greeted by huge cheering throngs of grateful Americans.
And then he reached Monticello where he fell into Jefferson's arms. The two men burst into tears. In Charlottesville the Nation's most
honored guest was seated at a patriotic banquet between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
Other Famous French
Classical Liberals
The following are examples of other great French liberals – not appreciated at home, but highly praised by educated Americans.
Destutt de Tracy. His Commentary on Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws, in which he criticized the monarchism of the
philosopher, was praised by Jefferson, who translated it himself in 1811. It was not until 1817 that the book was authorized in France. Destutt's Treaty of will,
a very liberal book, was used as a manual of political economy in the United States, thanks again to Jefferson.
Jean-Baptiste Say's, Treatise on Economics drew the attention of Jefferson and Madison. Madison thought that it was the
best treatise on economy written to that date – even superior to the famous treatise by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. Say's first treatise was
first published in France in 1803. But newer, enriched editions could not be published in France before 1814, because of opposition by Napoleon.
Frédéric Bastiat, and Alexis de Toqueville were both forgotten in Europe throughout the 20th Century, while
their masterpieces never stopped being sold in the U.S.
Raymond Aron, a friend of Friedrich Hayek's, created throughout the second part of the 20th century a liberal, Atlantist and anticommunist school of thought
De Guenin concluded, "I would say that liberal thinking has so far been the strongest link between the French and American people, a
perennial link which has enabled us to overcome the occasional vagaries of such and such a Head of State."
Acknowledgment. This paper owes a lot to the article by Jim Powell – "Lafayette, hero of two worlds" (The Freeman, September 1997), for
the description of the battles and the reception of Lafayette by the people of the United States in 1824-25. Some sentences of the article have been reproduced
verbatim.
Jacques de Guenin, is a graduate of the Ecole de Mines in Paris and holds a Master of Science from the University of
Berkeley (California). He worked for 22 years in the oil industry (Exxon), then for 12 years in the car industry (PSA Peugeot-Citroën) where he was a director before
his retirement in 1993. He has lived, worked, or traveled in fifty or so countries, but he has always remained close to his village of Saint-Loubouer in Les Landes
region, where he was mayor from 1995 to 2001.
Having been taught by two winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, he has himself published various works in this discipline. His favorite
author is the great economist and humanist Frédéric Bastiat, who came from Les Landes, and about whom he has written numerous articles and given many talks.
In 1980 he founded in Les Landes Le Cercle Frédéric Bastiat – which he still runs. He is currently president of that
organization.
In 2001 Jacques was host for ISIL's world conference in Dax, France. The conference celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of
Frédéric Bastiat.
For a full text version of Jacque's speech click here.
WAS THE US CONSTITUTION
A BETRAYAL OF THE
AMERICAN REVOLUTION?
George H. Smith
Sharon Presley and George H. Smith enjoy lunch as Thomas Jefferson performs.
George H. Smith provided an overview of the struggles that occurred between the advocates of centralized power and those of limited
government that occurred in America following the War for Independence – particularly the conflicts surrounding the adoption of the Constitution.
The Federal Convention in Philadelphia in September of 1787 had been held ostensibly to amend and correct deficiencies in the Articles
of Confederation, America's first constitution of 1781 – but ended up calling for a vote to hold a convention to ratify a new Constitution. The idea was viewed
with considerable alarm in many quarters
The conflict was between the Federalists (Hamiltonians) who favored the new constitution, and the anti-federalists (Jeffersonians) who
were opposed, and saw the new document as a dangerous consolidation of state power. The specific lack of a bill of rights was also a major factor.
It's interesting to note that the omission of a bill of rights by the federalists was not an accident. Almost to a man they actively
opposed a bill of rights.
One anti-federalist wrote that the new constitution was: "A total dereliction of the sentiments which animated us in 1775". Many others
expressed fears that America under the constitution as then presented was sure to degenerate into a despotism.
Anti-federalist delegates from New York and New Hampshire at the 1787 convention tried to scuttle proceedings by disappearing to a local
bar so that the meeting would fail to have a quorum – but were found and rounded up and dragged physically to the convention and held until roll call. With a
quorum, the vote to hold a ratifying convention passed.
Heated ratification debates in the states went on for over a year, with many people being leery of the new constitution. Unfortunately,
Thomas Jefferson was American ambassador to France at the time, and John Adams ambassador to England, so they could not attend. Patrick Henry, who did not attend either,
remarked cryptically "I smell a rat."
The idea of a national "consolidated" government as advocated by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton was not popular with Americans.
Not that many years ago, after a long and bitter conflict, they had kicked the tyrannical British out.
Jefferson called Hamilton a monarchist. Hamilton wanted a president and senate elected for life (like the British House of Lords). He
wanted the president to have veto power over every law passed – federal, state, local.
On the other hand, a federal government as proposed by the anti-federalists called for decentralized power – a league or
confederation of sovereign states – the sort of thing the Articles of Confederation established.
Jefferson asked: "Is it possible to draft a constitution that is really going to check the power of government?" There was a lot of
skepticism, cynicism, pessimism about limiting government power. Jefferson said that he expected America to lose its liberties over two or three centuries. "Liberty
will decay and people will lose their civic virtue" he warned.
On June 29, 1787, James Madison said: "Under the proposed government the powers of the states will be much further reduced –
according to the views of every member of this convention, the general government will have powers far beyond those exercised by the British parliament when the states
were part of the British Empire."
Specific Flaws in the Constitution
The constitution did violate a number of well-received maxims in the revolutionary tradition. These points were brought up by the
anti-federalists:
1. Opposition to a standing army.The constitution expressly provides Congress with the power to raise a national army. This was viewed as a great threat to
American liberties.
2. Short terms in office. They wanted to keep representatives on a close leash. They feared a distant "federal city where they would lose contact with their
constituents and become an aristocracy – a cliquish group that would feed off one another." The Articles of Confederation stated that a congressman could only
serve 3 out of 6 years. They worried about the senate with 6-year terms becoming an aristocracy – i.e. a distant elite of the rich and powerful.
3. The Matter of Slavery.The anti-federalists did complain bitterly about the Slavery Clause in the Constitution. There was the notorious "Three-fifth"
clause. For the purpose of computing representation in the House, slaves (referred to euphemistically as "all other persons") were counted as 3/5th of a person.
Another provision was that slave importation would not be prohibited until 1808 (a 20 year moratorium) and would not prohibit slavery
per se. There were some legitimately anti-slavery people (including Benjamin Franklin) who were deeply disturbed to have such odious items included in the law of the
land.
And to top it off, there was the Fugitive Slave clause which called for the return of escaped slaves back to their "owners" in the
South. This and the other rulings blindsided and enraged abolitionists. As an unintended consequence, it also encouraged the kidnapping of free blacks.
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the
United States."
The Anti-federalists said that you can't define "general welfare" and correctly argued that it was an arbitrary term – a blank
check on government power and a nullification of the concept of enumerated powers. "The government can do anything it likes and argue that it is for the general welfare"
they claimed.
"Congress shall have the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers listed by
this constitution in the government of the United States and any department or officer thereof."
The anti-federalists went ballistic over this clause. "What does it mean" they demanded? Jefferson and the Anti-federalists feared that
such arbitrary wording would lead to unbridled expansion of the powers of the federal government – and they were right.
Well, was the Constitution a betrayal of the American Revolution? From a philosophical standpoint it wasn't. Everyone – even
Alexander Hamilton – agreed on the principles in the Declaration of Independence – the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness idea. But it did
violate the political science (i.e. the nuts and bolts application in the real world).
However, many of the founders, including Jefferson and Franklin, remarked that the Constitution was a good a document as could be
expected under the circumstances. The early fears were somewhat assuaged when Madison, upon his election to the House of Representatives, kept his promise and pushed
through a Bill of Rights – a document that has served Americans well over the years – but other concerns about the eventual growth of the US government and
the eventual loss of liberty were well- founded.
George H. Smith has served as the Director of the Forum for Philosophical Studies in Los Angeles and as a lecturer on
American history at the Cato Institute. He was also a lecturer on political philosophy and intellectual history at George Mason University's Institute for Humane
Studies. As a leading expert on American history and the US Constitution, Smith created the scripts for the official US Bicentennial tape series (narrated by George C.
Scott and Walter Cronkite).
WOMEN RESISTERS TO AUTHORITY
Sharon Presley
Sharon Presley, a social psychologist who studied under Prof. Stanley Milgram and who was co-founder of Laissez Faire Books back in
1972, began her speech by recognizing that the location of this ISIL conference in Williamsburg, Virginia was home to many great resisters to authority – including
Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and many other patriots. "But," she asked, "How many of you have heard of Voltairine De Cleyre or Lilian Harman?"
Presley told of many women who were active but little-known heroes in the evolution of freedom in America. Abigail Adams,
wife of President John Adams, was famous for her writings – particularly her "remember the ladies" letter. Anne Hutchinson wrote on religious freedom in America,
and Mercy Otis Warren wrote a book on the history of the American Revolution.
The 19th century was a turbulent time and a hotbed of social change, and many women were prominent in many of these movements.
In the Abolitionist movement, the better-known names are the peaceful William Lloyd Garrison and the not so peaceful John Brown, but
many women were down in the trenches – actively collecting a million petition signatures to rid America of slavery. This did not make them popular, and they were
routinely attacked from the pulpit by the clergy who were rigidly puritanical and thought such actions were "unladylike".
The women protesters called for the end of slavery because, in their words: "Every man is a self-owner and every human being has
jurisdiction over his or her body." But they took it even farther, asserting that the philosophical doctrine applies to women as well as to slaves.
Abby Kelly noted: "We have great cause to be grateful to the slave for the benefit we ourselves have received in
working for him. In striving to strike his irons off, we found most surely that we were manacled ourselves."
The clergy called her a "Jezebel" for daring to speak on women's rights and tried to silence her.
One outstanding woman was Harriet Tubman. A former slave, she was the main person behind the "underground railway"
which smuggled runaway slaves into Canada.
The Freethought Movement
The "free-thought movement" may be described as: "the use of reason in forming opinions about religion rather than basing belief on
faith, authority or tradition."
Probably the best known woman in the movement was Frances Wright, who was the first woman to speak publicly from a podium to both
men and women. She was the first American woman to publicly advocate women's rights. Like many activist women of the day, she was involved in the anti-slavery movement.
Earlier on, she had been praised by Thomas Jefferson, was a confidante of General La Fayette, and was idolized by Walt Whitman.
The press and clergy were highly critical of her, calling her the "red harlot of infidelity and the priestess of bealzebub" (infidelity
in those days meaning the free-thought movement). She criticized not only religion, but promoted womens' rights in law.
Lucy N. Coleman left her church in New England because of its complicity with slavery, and she contributed to the Truth Seeker
which is still published today. She was also involved in the abolitionist movement and was mobbed and egged for her positions.
Lucy Stone represented the transition from the free-thought to suffragist movement. She was also an abolitionist. In the free-thought tradition she did not
take her husband's name when she married. Definitely a radical lady – even by today's standards. She is reported to have quipped, "How can you bear to be tagged
with a man's name as if you were his luggage."
Lillian Harman was an individualist anarchist, and feminist. She wrote an essay on the age of consent. She was wed at 16 which wasn't that young in those
days. She married her husband K. C. Walker in a non-state wedding. But for daring to get married without a state license, they spent six months of their honeymoon in
jail. At her wedding she said, "I'm not taking my husband's name. My name is my own." Her father Moses said at the wedding: "I'm not giving her away at this wedding
because she owns herself."
Ernestine Rose, originally from Poland, was the daughter of an Orthodox rabbi. She wrote a book In Defense of Atheism (you can imagine how popular
that was). She was the first to lobby for the passage of the Women's Property Act. Married women in the 19th century had few rights. They had the legal status of
chattel and did not control their property. Once they were married, all property was controlled by the husband and women gave up all their rights. For lobbying for
women's rights she was labeled by the clergy as 1000 times lower than a prostitute.
Other famous names were of course Susan B. Anthony – suffragist, feminist, agnostic, and one of the founders of the
National Women's Suffrage Association. Lucretia Mott was involved in the underground railway.
Victoria Woodhull, an intimate friend of Benjamin Tucker, was the first woman to run for president.
Voltairine de Cleyre was second only to Emma Goldman in the annals of anarchist feminism. An outstanding writer and speaker, she also wrote poetry
and novels. Emma Goldman said of her that "The American soil does sometimes bring forth exquisite plants." Dr. Presley has written a book – a collection of essays
by de Cleyre entitled Exquisite Rebel (available through ISIL's Laissez Faire Books).
Presley closed by saying: "How much these women contributed to the general cultural climate we take for granted today. Not only
political freedom, not only the right for women to vote, religious freedom, more liberal churches, more separation of church and state, the decrease in traditional
gender roles, but freedom to go to college (very few women went to college in those days). We have these women to thank for that and we owe them a tremendous debt of
gratitude."
Sharon Presley is the co-founder and former co-proprietor of Laissez Faire Books. She has a Ph.D in Social Psychology
from City University of New York Graduate Center where she studied under the mentorship of Stanley Milgram, author of the classic book, Obedience to Authority.
She currently teaches at Canifornia State University, East Bay. She is also founder and Executive Director of Resources for Independent Thinking,
a nonprofit educational foundation that provides educational resources for independent and critical thinking. She is co-editor of Exquisite Rebel: The Essays of
Voltairine de Cleyre.
TRANSCENDENTALISTS AS LIBERTARIANS
Jo Anne Skousen
The transcendentalists were mainly collectivists and utopians who lived off the largesse of one of their group – Ralph Waldo
Emerson – so they were not free-marketeers or libertarians. But they generated some interesting ideas that later became part of the modern libertarian philosophy.
Transcendentalism, a new name for an old way of thinking, was influenced by the ancient Greek philosophers and by Eastern religions.
Transcendentalists attempted to answer fundamental questions such as "Who am I," "How do we know things", etc. through intuitive thinking, feelings, and emotions –
as opposed to rigorous scientific methods (although they did not reject the scientific method).
They dealt with questions about God and man's relationship with Him. Since they believed God transcended the physical world, He became
more and more remote as man better understood Him. So man relied increasingly on physical intermediaries like priests to form a relationship. Eastern religions said God
was a part of all of us and of nature. As one sought to improve himseelf, he became more God-like.
The transcendentalists believed in God, and in man as divine creatures, but rejected organized religion as getting in the way of
individual discovery.
Ralph Waldo Emerson was the founder of 19th-century American Transcendentalism. Living in Concord, Massachusetts, he became the magnet
for the other transcendentalist writers like Bronson and Louisa May Alcott, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry David Thoreau, and Herman Melville.
Other prominent transcendentalists were poet Emily Dickenson and Margaret Fuller. As a point of interest Fuller came to the attention
of Horace Greeley, famous editor of the New York Tribune newspaper, who hired her as his literary critic. Fuller thus became one of the very first women in America to
make a living as a journalist.
Henry David Thoreau is famous for his essay "On Civil Disobedience" in which he made the case that peaceful disobedience of unjust
authority was far more effective than violence. He influenced Gandhi and later Martin Luther King.
Thoreau's other best-known work is Walden Pond, where he wrote about living a secluded life and observing nature with few
interactions with people in the outside world. In actuality, he was fully supported by Emerson and lived in a shack by a pond in Emerson's very large back yard, and
went into town quite regularly.
But he wrote this fiction to illustrate the transcendentalist belief in the importance of spirituality and the rejection of crass
materialism. In Walden he wrote the famous line about "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation," in that they were owned by their possessions. It was especially bad
for those who inherited substantial property – they were stuck taking care of it and had (or thought) they had no other choice in how to lead their lives. Walden
became the anthem for the anti-materialism of many people in the 1960s.
The transcendentalist philosophy of self-discovery is quite compatible and useful for modern libertarians.
Jo Anne Skousen is a professor of English Literature and Writing at Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, NY, and Entertainment
Editor at Liberty Magazine. She is currently Associate Editor of orecasts & Strategies Newsletter,
and co-authored several of husband Mark Skousen's investment books.
FROM SLAVERY TO FREEDOM IN
THE LAND OF GHENGIS KHAN
Elbegdorj Tsakhia
Elbegdorj Tsakhia, former Prime Minister of Mongolia, tells of great strides toward liberty being made in his homeland.
We were pleased to have Elbegdorj Tsakhia (EB), former Prime Minister of Mongolia, as a speaker at the Williamsburg conference. Just a
month before our conference he had been involved in a serious automobile accident in Mongolia and had been hospitalized for several weeks with head and back injuries.
Just before our conference he was transferred from a hospital in Soeul, South Korea to one in the US – so happily when his condition improved sufficiently he was
able to attend and speak. He stated that he didn't want to miss meeting his libertarian friends in the international community. Freedom Network News readers
will remember our meetings with EB and the work that resulted in his being dubbed "Mongolia's Thomas Jefferson".
EB began by noting that when talking about Mongolia, most people think about Genghis Khan and his fierce warriors. But he explained that
Khan had protected free trade along the Silk Road and had fostered a highly free-market economy. Marco Polo spent 20 years in the Mongolian Empire and wrote of its
riches in his famous Travels. The Mongolians also had excellent communications through their pony express he added.
The country fell under communist rule around 1920. In 1988, EB, working for a newspaper in the capital, Ulaanbataar, started discussing
the problems of the system and the feasibility of forming a democratic movement with some young people. EB led their first public demonstrations against the regime on
Sunday, December 10, 1989 with about 1000 in attendance (including many KGB agents). They presented the government with a list of 14 demands involving a free market,
democracy, and civil liberties.
The government propaganda machine smeared the dissidents, but on the second Sunday, 5000 showed up to demonstrate, and on the third
there were 10,000. Soon demonstrations occurred all over the country, and the regime collapsed. EB observed: "I think no authoritarian power or military regime can
stand against the collective will of their people who are determined to be free."
The first election was held in June, 1990, and EB became a member of parliament. The media was freed from government control, and much
of the economy was freed up. Inflation has fallen from 300% then to 6% today. They now have a 10% flat tax.
He said that many people think that freedom and individualism are not the "Asian way", but Mongolia is disproving that.
As prime minister, EB had believed that the Iraq war was a fight for freedom, and had sent some Mongolian troops there (non-combatants,
we understand).
EB and his friends are seeking to educate the general population in the principles of liberty, because they know that only with popular
support can freedom endure. Otherwise, new governments can reverse reforms.
Along with spreading ideas of liberty, the Mongolians are taking advantage of new technologies such as cell phones (already 1 million
people in a country of 2.5 million people own them) and nationwide Internet access. Also, English as a second language is being aggressively promoted to make it easier
for Mongolians to access Internet information.
BUILDING BRIDGES – NOT WALLS
Edgar Piña Ortiz
Edgar Piña Ortiz, president of the Sonora-based Foro Libre, a thinktank promoting individual liberty and free markets in Mexico,
spoke about recent developments in his country and of the prospects for future trade and cooperation with the United States.
Recent positive developments on which he reported include the fact that US-Mexico trade has more than doubled in the decade since NAFTA
was enacted – and that a string of political reforms have resulted in the election of Mexico-s first opposition president in 71 years, and a more independent
Congress and judicial system is evolving.
But the problems of development in Mexico have been hindered by statist practices.
Foreign investment in Mexico's large telecommunications and energy sectors is limited by law to protect private and government
monopolies. Some examples are radio, television, Internet, oil, gas, electricity, steel, and cement, just to name a few.
According to some analysts, the Mexican petroleum company (Pemex) claims that the company loses more than $1 billion annually to
internal corruption. Outside Pemex, public corruption and limits on foreign investment may cost Mexico the equivalent of 9 percent of its annual gross domestic product.
In a few words, to build economic and political development, Mexico, first of all, must unchain its stifled economy and encourage
foreign investment by ending monopolies and corrupt practices.
Then a necessary development of the political structure must begin by educating the middle class, small entrepreneurs, professionals,
scholars, and urban employees. Universities, research centers and NGOs have an important responsibility in this huge task. Here, the libertarian and free market US
organizations have an important role in resolutely and efficiently supporting these Mexican efforts.
Ortiz closed by encouraging libertarian thinktanks in the United States to work with Mexican organizations like Foro Libre to bring
about changes to the system.
Edgar Piña Ortiz is currently working as a professor at the Centro de Estudios Superiores del Estado de Sonora (CESUES)
in Hermosillo, Sonora State, Mexico. Mr. Piña is also a radio and TV anchorman and has produced and conducted TV programs and video productions.
Since 1999 he has been working on the development of Foro Libre, a civil organization which aims to promote individual freedom and a free-market economy in Mexico.
Professor Piña was host of ISIL's 2002 world conference in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.
For a full text version of Edgar's speech click here.
THE SOMALI WAY:
AUTHENTIC RULE OF LAW
WITHOUT THE STATE
Spencer H. MacCallum
 Social anthropologist Spencer MacCallum began his speech by saying that if there were such a category, Somalia would hold a place in
the Guinness Book of Records as the country with the longest absence of a functioning central government. The Somalis dismantled their government in 1991 –
and despite the determined efforts of various statist folks around the world to inflict a central government on them, they are doing just fine. Living standards have
improved across the board – not just in absolute terms, but also relative to other African countries – and international investors like Dole, British
Airways, General Motors and Coca Cola are finding that the level of security of property and contract in Somalia warrants doing business there.
The Call to Establish Democracy
The United Nations has spent over two billion dollars trying to establish a central government in Somalia, and the EU, the Italian
government, and the US have been trying to force a democratic system on the country. But democracy is not an answer. It would divide the population into two groups
(one that rules and one that is ruled) – a move that would clash with Somalian traditions.
The turmoil we have seen in Somalia consists of the clans maneuvering to position themselves to control the government whenever it
might come into being
When the United Nations withdrew in 1995, the expectation of a future central government began to diminish, and things began to
stabilize. But the United Nations continued its efforts to re-establish a government through a series of some sixteen failed "peace conferences." In 2000 it set up a
straw government, the Transitional National Government (TNG). However, not only did the northern Somali clans not recognize the TNG, it ended up not being able to
control its intended capital city of Mogadishu. Today a combined "peace-keeping mission" of United States-backed troops from Ethiopia, Somalia's traditional enemy, and
Uganda under the aegis of the African Union, are in Mogadishu attempting to prop up the TNG and secure its control over the rest of Somalia. Violence soars.
The Xeer – Somalia's Constitution
What these people have in common, even more than similar language, lifestyle, and physical character, is a body of customary law, the
"Xeer", which differs from clan to clan in non-essential ways (such as founding myths) but is remarkably uniform with respect to its provision for the protection of
persons and property. Every Somalian youth memorizes the Xeer at an early age.
Fortunately, we know something about the Xeer because of the late Michael van Notten, a Dutch lawyer (and ISIL Advisory Board member)
who in the early 1990s married into the Samaron Clan in the northwest of Somalia, the fifth largest of the Somali clans, and lived with them for the last twelve years of
his life. He took full advantage of that opportunity to research the Xeer. The result was his pioneering study, The Law of the Somalis (Red Sea Press, 2005).
Van Notten died when his manuscript was half finished but fortunately, he had largely completed assembling the ethnographic material. In his will, he asked that Spencer
MacCallum edit and complete the manuscript for publication. The task now is to have the work translated into Somali.
The law of the Xeer is compensatory rather than punitive. Because property rights require compensation, rather than punishment,
there is no imprisonment, and fines are rare. Such fines as might be imposed seldom exceed the amount of compensation and are not payable to any court or government,
but directly to the victim.
Fourthly, there are no victimless crimes. Only a victim or his family can initiate a court action. Where there is no victim
to call a court into being, no court can form. No court can investigate any evidence of an alleged misconduct on its own initiative.
Lastly, the court procedure is interesting. From birth, every Somali has his own judge who will sit on the court that will judge him
should he transgress the law. That judge is his oday, the head of his extended family consisting of all males descended from the same great grandfather, together with their spouses and children.
There may be much we can learn from the Somalis and their "Xeer". Buy the book.
Spencer MacCallum (Mexico/USA) is a social anthropologist who played a key role in the economic miracle of the Mata Ortiz, a village of potters in northern Mexico that, without government assistance or encouragement, became affluent and commanded the attention of the art world. He is also author of The Art of Community.
For a full text version of Spencer's speech click here.
BRINGING FREEDOM TO AFRICA
Agwu Amogu
 Aguw Amogu – ISIL Rep/Nigeria
Agwu Amogu began his speech by announcing that the Williamsburg conference was his second ISIL event, the first being in 2001 in Dax,
France. He said that the Dax conference changed his life and the lives of a lot of young people in Nigeria, and that since that time libertarian ideas have spread like
wildfire among the youth of Nigeria – particularly in the high schools and colleges.
Amogu argued that the title of his speech should have been re-introducing the ideas of liberty to Africa – i.e. to rediscover
lost institutions.
"It is an enduring myth," he said, "not only among westerners, but African leaders, that Africa had no viable institutions before the
Europeans".
Markets were ubiquitous – and they employed various mediums of exchange. Salt was used
They had copper and steel works in West Africa and produced large quantities of goods for trade.
Property Rights
In West Africa, what a person grew on his land he owned. It didn't belong to anyone apart from the individual. No system, no king, no
chieftain, no government could force an individual to submit any part of his wealth or his property for the community.
The looting of property by soldiers and elites (what Agwu's friend George Ayittey calls the "vampire elite") was not a part of
traditional African society. Even a chief could not dispossess a man of his property. They didn't have the land-use acts we have today.
The Marketplace
The marketplace was a vital part of the African community. It was a place where exchanges could be made more easily. It was also a
center for social and political functions. It was the central nervous system of the community where communications took place.
They didn't have regulations. No one regulated the market. No one told the traders what to trade and at what cost. There were only
laws to guarantee the security of traders and standards of measure.
The Rule of Law
A strongly-held value among Africans was that disputes should be handled peacefully, relying on customary laws. As in some other
African countries, extended families were very important in the observance and implementation of these laws. Tribunals formed to deal with various problems had to reach
a consensus
What are the problems associated with bringing traditional systems back to Africa? Problems were created by the "vampire elite" and the
western governments in Washington and London. The "vampire elite" who had power handed over to them at the close of the colonial era adopted a Marxist command system of
governance – and to their everlasting shame the West encouraged them by funding such governments – and increasing aid.
Aid has been increasing since the 1970s but the continent is regressing and the West does not seem to want to address the issues that
are the real causes of poverty in Africa.
The political elites control the parliament, the media, the monetary system, the military, and the judiciary (sounds familiar – Ed).
With such control, corruption is inevitable and the elites enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.
Tony Blair called for $50 billion in aid to Africa by 2015 – but according to the African Union, Africa loses $150 billion a year
to corruption. It would be money poured down a rat hole.
Agwu pointed out that besides corruption, another serious problem is how western governments distort trade flow by subsidizing their
own agricultural sector. "Under these conditions, free trade is a joke" he said.
On the subject of foreign aid, Agwu noted that it can help sometimes – if properly directed.
In Nigeria 65 to 70% of Nigerians live below the poverty line of $1 a day.
If aid is directed to the rural areas to the villages, to the civil society it can have some impact – but if aid is sent to the
government, the politicians will only buy more aircraft and weapons and channel money to their personal Swiss bank accounts.
 Daniel Orfeng (Botswana)
Q & A
The question was brought up about which charitable foundations were doing good work in Africa. Agwu noted that the Save Africa
Foundation did good work, helping locals and providing startup capital for indigenous peoples.
Daniel Orufeng of Botswana suggested the integration of traditional decentralized systems of social organization into a modern setting
– while respecting individual liberties. Agwu agreed and shared the observation that Botswana has done exactly this, and has as a result become one of the
fastest-growing economies in the world.
THE MENACE OF GLOBAL DRUG REGULARIONS
Mary Ruwart
Dr. Mary Ruwart, a prominent libertarian author and speaker, an ISIL director, and a former Senior Research Scientist for the Upjohn
pharmaceutical company, said that when she was in the industry, the joke went around that "we were so busy fulfilling the regulations that were increasing every year,
that we had no time to find new drugs."
Dr Ruwart reported that many of the US-style government drug regulations are slated to be globalized, and draconian new ones are on the
way. This is not good news, as the existing regulations have hampered the golden age of medicine that awaited us 20 or 30 years ago, and have affected all of us.
Everyone wants drugs to be safe and effective, but how do you decide what is "safe"? Safety depends on your situation. A standard of
"no side effects" would mean no new drugs, because all drugs have side effects (at least for some people) because of different genetic factors, etc. A standard of
"minor side effects" doesn't help either. A person with a life-threat-ening disease may want to try a risky new drug, even it may kill him, because it might just cure
the disease and avoid otherwise certain death.
Mary stressed that no drug is effective all the time. Individuals should be free to take a chance, but government regulators are
restricting that possibility. The 1962 Kefauver-Harris amendments, passed after the thalidomide crisis in Europe, greatly increased the regulatory burden. The Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) demands 2 major United States studies (foreign studies are inadmissible), and they had to show a very high standard of effectiveness of 95%,
with chance factored out. FDA has also demanded extensive animal studies before approving human clinical trials, and then many more human trials. The number of required
studies keeps growing.
Finally, since the FDA issues approval that a drug is "safe and effective", no bureaucrat is willing to risk making a mistake and get
called before Congress - even for complaints regarding side-effects. As a result, many new drugs that could help at least some people are rejected and kept off the
market.
The FDA also sharply regulates pharmaceutical advertising and labeling, so that in most cases a company cannot make health claims –
and they have to list every possible side-effect. The FDA has also gotten control of the manufacturing process since the Kefauver-Harris bill, and is demanding extremely
detailed paperwork on every step of manufacturing – a burden that has driven 50% of drug manufacturers out of business.
Between 1948 and 1961, it took an average of 4½ years for a drug to go from the laboratory through testing to the market. Since
the Kefauver-Harris bill, times have been steadily increasing, and since the FDA has no incentive to speed things up, and indeed has only negative incentives, the
average time to develop a drug and get approval is now over 14 years!
By 1984, the pharmaceutical companies were telling Congress that they could not develop more new drugs because they could not recover
their research and development costs before the patents ran out. Drugs could then be manufactured by others as generics. It was calculated that 84% of the development
costs were due to regulations. The Waxman-Hatch Act passed that year extended the patents, but did not lighten any of the regulatory burden.
The cost of drugs without the Kefauver-Harris amendments would be 15% of what they are today. Now, if drugs were far safer and
effective today than before, maybe Americans would be willing to pay the higher prices. But in the 1950s, only 10% of drugs were useless. Unsafe drugs were rare, and
were instantly pulled from the market when problems were discovered. In the decade before Kefauver-Harris, about 1200 people died from drug reactions.
If the new regulations actually made all drugs perfectly safe with no side effects, based on those 1959s death figures and accounting
for population growth, the regulations would have saved about 6800 lives over forty years.
However, because of the addition of an average 10 years to the development time of new drugs, and the known benefits of such drugs once
they got on the market, it can be calculated accurately that 4.7 million Americans died prematurely during those forty years due to the delays in availability of new
life-saving drugs!
On top of that, the regulations are killing innovation. The high cost of development leaves little money left for research.
Mary herself was working on a new drug for liver disease. She even got a phone call from an FDA official who had heard about her patent
application, and encouraged her and Upjohn to develop the drug. But he could not change the FDA requirements, and due to the variability of the forms of liver disease
in different people, and the additional extensive studies that would be needed to establish the optimum dosages, it would have taken a massive amount of time and
expense, and even then it would have been unlikely to pass the 95% threshold for efficacy demanded by FDA. So Upjohn killed the project.
Loss of innovation also raises total health-care costs. When the first ulcer drug came out in the 1950s, the existing cure was through
surgery at $25,000, while the drug cost $1000-$3000. Mary estimates losses in the U.S. health-care system due to loss of alternative developments in the hundreds of
billions of dollars and in millions of lives annually. Probably 20% of the millions of people who have died over the last 40 years did so prematurely due to
unavailability of life-saving drugs or procedures – thanks to the FDA. The Kefauver amendment alone adds at least 25% to health-care costs.
Soon after the Kefauver-Harris amendment passed, Bayer went to the FDA to suggest that aspirin had benefits for people with heart
conditions, and asked what it would take for FDA approval. They would have had to go through a hugely expensive process of testing, so they dropped the idea. The news
finally got out about 20 years later, through clinical experience and word-of-mouth.
Vitamins are vital for good health. In fact, they found in animal testing that the only way to get rats sick was to take away their
vitamins! B vitamins can greatly reduce damage from alcohol.
Plans to "harmonize" international regulation of pharmaceuticals and nutrients are being pushed by the UN's World Health Organization
and the Food and Agricultural Organization. These "Codex" regulations are now in force throughout the European Union, and are being adopted by the World Trade
Organization – which has the power to levy economic sanctions.
Maximum allowed doses of key vitamins are a small fraction of the optimum for good health. In Germany now, fish oil (which contains
Omega-3 fatty acids, which is excellent for hearts) is on the negative list!
In the US, nutrients are classed as a food, due to a mass public outcry against an FDA takeover attempt that led to congressional
legislation in 1994. However, the FDA has announced that it will abide by international standards (Codex) which will impose massive regulations and limitations upon
the US supplement industry.
The FDA has publicly announced that it expects to put many nutrient manufacturers out of business and cause price increases by the
survivors!
The FDA actually has a website discussing these horrible new proposals at http://www.csfan.fda.gov/%7Edms/hclmgui5.html
If this global harmonization of draconian regulations takes place, how would we know if a nutrient can do wonderful things, because
they will not be around. Everyone in the world is at risk.
Rep. Ron Paul has introduced the Health Freedom Act (HR2117) to allow nutrient companies to make public health claims unless there is
no scientific evidence supporting such claims. (This is to prevent the FDA from blocking publicity unless there is a wide consensus among the scientific establishment
– which seldom exists at the time of discovery of a new benefit). More on Ron's bill and his surprisingly successful presidential nomination campaign at
www.RonPaul2008.com
Mary closed by asking everyone to get involved in this fight. "It is truly, truly, a matter of life and death."
In Q&A, Sharon Presley asked a devil's advocate question: "What about the claim that the FDA is in the pocket of big pharma?" Mary said
she had no direct evidence of that, but that it was common for those who were regulated to demand the regulations – to force competitors out of business. One bad
incentive for the FDA is that since their workload is so huge (because the required paperwork from the drug companies literally comes by the truckload), they accept
substantial user fees for expedited review, which favors the big companies.
In response to another question, Mary said that getting rid of sovereign immunity laws would allow lawsuits against regulators who
caused harm to people.
Heavy regulations have indeed led to cartelization in the pharmaceutical and many other industries. Mary is hopeful that due to the
Information Age, that this information about the damaging impact of government regulations will now get out to the public through the Internet.
Editor's Note – See Mary Ruwart's ISIL pamphlet Death by Regulation: The Price We Pay for the FDA
on the ISIL website. It is available from ISIL for bulk distribution.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PROHIBITION
(Ending The War On Drugs)
Jerry Cameron
 Jerry Cameron – Training Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP).
In August of 2006 I was first introduced to Jerry Cameron, who was speaking on the subject of ending the War on Drugs at the Reason
Foundation's international conference in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. What was interesting, and surely surprising, is that Jerry, a former police officer, and at one
time a high-energy drug warrior – is now Director of Training at a relatively new organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). This
organization, which boasts over 5000 members from the law-enforcement community – and which includes in their ranks many high-level police officials – takes
a hardcore, no-compromise libertarian position on ending the war on drugs.
One police chief in LEAP has described drug prohibition as "the greatest disaster to hit America since slavery."
I was greatly impressed and invited Jerry to speak at Williamsburg.
Jerry declared what should be no surprise to libertarians: that the war on drugs has become a hideous failure. The policies have
totally failed to rein in the use of illegal drugs and have provided an enormous boost to organized crime – with resultant elevated levels of violent criminal
activities on the streets as drug dealers shoot it out in turf battles. Moreover it has filled our prisons with people who have committed no real crime against person or
property. Jerry spoke of police officer Lt. Jack Cole (ret) in New Jersey who lamented, "Over a thousand young people went to jail as a direct result of what I did out
there as one undercover agent . . . something I'm certainly not proud of today."
Lt. Cole is not alone in thinking the drug war has to end.
LEAP is gaining increasingly more influence – and as officers who have been on the front lines of the drug war, they can't be
ignored.
We will be doing an in-depth interview with Jerry and other members of LEAP in the next issue of the Freedom Network News,
but in the meantime we encourage you to check out the LEAP website at www.leap.cc. There you can view a presentation "Ending Drug Prohibition" on line or order the DVD
for $16.00.
"Anyone concerned about the failure of our $69 billion-a-year War on Drugs should watch this 12-minute program. You will meet frontline, ranking police officers who give us a devastating report on why it cannot work. It is a must-see for any journalist or public official dealing with this issue."
Walter Cronkite
The latest news on the LEAP site is a report on the release of a TV documentary entitled "Damage Done: The Drug War Odyssey" produced
by the National Film Board of Canada.
LEAP also provides speakers who are available to address your events: Call
(781) 393-6985 or write . . .
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
121 Mystic Ave. Medford MA 02155
THE FAILURE OF GOVERNMENTS TO LIMIT STATE POWER
How a Collapsing, Top-Down Civilization Can Be Transformed Into a Free Society
Butler Shaffer
Prof. Shaffer began by observing that "we have a sense that America got off to a pretty good start, but that things got fouled up along
the way."
Western civilization in general, and the American branch of it in particular, is in a state of turbulence. Our social systems no longer
work the way we expect them to, and the institutional order is in a state of collapse, with particular attention focused on the state, which no longer enjoys popular
approval – thanks to radically-increased surveillance of citizens, abolition of habeas corpus, expanded police powers, war, and other tyrannical practices.
Constitutionalism
Those who put their faith in the idea and practice that governmental power could be limited (and individual liberty protected) through
written constitutions, have had to face the truth so well expressed by Anthony de Jasay: "There is no way – constitutional or otherwise – to keep a sizeable
number of people from doing whatever they want to do." Before the US Constitution was ratified, the anti-federalists were well aware that Americans were being asked to
buy into a dangerous system – indeed a brief review of constitutional law cases reveals that, far from government having been delegated limited powers, it enjoyed
an expansive grant of authority which, in turn, has been given a very broad interpretation favorable to the political establishment – and its corporate surrogates.
As you consider my proposal, keep this thought in mind: the Soviet Union also had a written constitution, broadly modeled upon the
United States Constitution.
Collective Power
Another factor resides in the dynamics of collective power. "Why do large corporations, for instance, have so much influence within the
government – indeed, provide the base of the political establishment – while you and I have virtually none?" I have defined "democracy" as "the illusion that
my wife and I, combined, have twice as much political influence as David Rockefeller."
Western society has become thoroughly institutionalized – a process Prof. Shaffer explored in his Calculated Chaos book.
In what has come to be known as our "corporate-state" system, government – with its monopoly on the use of force – is available to corporations –
whose concentrated economic interests provide them with an incentive to influence government to serve their ends.
A couple years ago, I made a proposal to our law school faculty that we stop teaching "constitutional law" or, for the traditionalists,
include it in a "legal history" course alongside Magna Carta, the Code of Hammurabi, or the Articles of Confederation. My colleagues thought I was trying to be humorous!
When the Iraqi government puppets were trying to draft a "constitution" for their country, talk-show host Jay Leno suggested that we send them ours. "It served us well
for many years, and besides, we're not using it anymore!"
Resistance to change
There is a cost to giving in to the demands of existing institutions for a sense of permanence: institutionalization destroys
civilizations! A number of historians have commented on how the effort to foster stability and equilibrium can contribute to the collapse of civilizations. This occurs
when the systems that produce the values upon which a civilization depends for its survival become institutionalized (i.e., become ends in themselves; their own
purposes for being). A dynamic and productive society depends upon the presence of individuals with sufficient creativity and resiliency to respond to changed
conditions. Whether – and how – these challenges to existing practices are met, will determine the fate of a civilization.
Those who seek security must realize that the only genuine security results from a continuing willingness to change; to remain adaptable
to the constant uncertainties of our world.
A central part of our political catechism has been that, "the more complex society becomes, the greater the need for central government."
But the study of chaos is revealing an opposite conclusion: the more complex society becomes, the more we must rely on spontaneous and autonomous systems to provide for
order. Complex systems are influenced by far too many variables for us to predict outcomes.
So our overly-structured, overly-regulated world doesn't function well anymore. We have just concluded a century in which political
systems killed off some 200 million people in wars and genocides – a number that does not include those dying as the "unintended consequences" of state regulation,
people that the statists further degrade by being labeled "collateral damage."
The American state resembles nothing so much, right now, as a chicken that has just had its head chopped off: it flaps around in a wild
and noisy display, splattering blood in its trail, . . . but its fate has been determined.
The technological revolution is giving us all not only access to non-institutional information, but is allowing us to generate and
communicate our own information and ideas to others. Such transmission can occur instantaneously, giving individuals the capacity to respond to what those in power
– and their establishment media lackeys – tell us. When Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" receives national awards for the best news reporting on television, you
can be assured that something significant is taking place.
The "Refounding of America" – as is the topic of this conference – is already taking place, not in the halls of government,
or in academia, or even at conferences such as this one. It is occurring where creativity and meaningful change has always taken place: in the relationships and
transactions among people within society itself. Our world is becoming rapidly decentralized, as horizontal networks are replacing vertically-structured systems of
power. Alternative schools, health-care, and systems of dispute resolution; the Internet and other decentralized forms of communicating information and ideas; the
collapse of the Soviet Union, and the breakup of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia; secession movements throughout the world; smaller business firms along with the
decentralization of management; Internet-based retailing and payment systems; "on-demand" publishing; on-and-on go the examples of centralized systems collapsing into
decentralized systems of individual interconnectedness.
As I said, I am quite optimistic. I believe that the life forces – assisted by emerging technologies – will insist upon a
new paradigm, . . . one that serves rather than destroys life. I further believe that America, as we have known it, no longer exists, and that "all the king's horses,
and all the king's men cannot put it back together again."
Butler Shaffer is a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles where he teaches courses in Legal Reasoning and
Property – and conducts a seminar on Informal Systems of Order. He is author of Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats To Peace and Human Survival and
In Restraint of Trade: The Business Camaign Against Competition, 1918-1938. He has a continuing EBook at LewRockwell.com –
"The Wizards of Ozymandias: Reflections on the Decline and Fall".
HOW ANY COUNTRY CAN BECOME RICH
Mary Ruwart
Mary Ruwart began by stating that: "Liberty has done far more for the poor than any welfare measure."
In the 1700s everyone was equal – equally poor – but something happened in the 1800s to change all that – increased
levels of freedom.
Freedom happened in America of course, but in the early 1800s the British eliminated many taxes and land use acts. The industrial
revolution would have been impossible without these changes.
James Gwartny in his Freedom Index explained that prosperity is dependent on:
- The size of government and taxation. When government spending is less than 25%, wealth creation is very high, but when it exceeds 60% wealth creation
drops. When governments cut spending in Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, GDP accelerated rapidly. All were hailed as economic "miracles" but of course the
outcome was quite predictable. Unfortunately in all three of these countries, once wealth creation rose, the politicians reversed their reforms – once again
killing the geese that laid the golden eggs.
- Private Property and the rule of law. Peruvian Hernando de Soto noted that 50 to 90% of people in 3rd world countries can't get clear title to their land
property. When the US west was settled, property rights were settled by common law. They drew up deeds among themselves and when government did come in they accepted
those deeds as legitimate. In 3rd-world countries this hasn't happened yet, which means the government can seize land and homes at any time. This makes property less
valuable and prevents individuals from getting bank loans, etc.
- Free trade and regulation. Trade openness is probably the best single predictor of whether a third-world country is going to have an increase or decrease
in wealth creation. Countries employing trade protectionism (tariffs, quotas and trade barriers) lost significantly. Countries whose industries focused on what they
could trade efficiently prospered. Countries that erected trade barriers experienced lower wealth creation and the levels remained low. It can't be emphasized how
important this is as the world becomes smaller and smaller through communications.
- Sound Money is of course important, as are levels of regulation. It has been calculated that each regulator destroys between 150 to 175 jobs a year
Mary noted that economic freedom usually goes hand in hand with political freedom and civil rights.
She stated that any country can become rich if they follow simple procedures:
- Lower government spending
- Deregulate
- Cut taxation and deficit spending
- Establish property rights.
It took just 50 years for little Hong Kong to rival the per-capita income of the US – because its freedom was the greatest in the
world
Mary concluded by saying: "People around the world want to better their lives, to have more wealth, to live happily, to be better
educated, and to live longer and happier lives. Freedom is the way, perhaps the only way, to achieve this. Once these facts are known . . . Governments will have to
step aside and let people become rich."
THE STICKINESS REVOLUTION
Sharon Harris
 Sharon Harris, president of the Advocates for Self Government
The libertarian movement has made progress, but not as much as we would like. A recent book called The Tipping Point
introduced the concept of "sticky ideas" – new ideas that become popular, while others fail. But that book did not say how to make ideas "sticky".
Now, two brothers, Chip and Dan Heath, have researched the history of sticky ideas, and published their findings in their book Made to Stick.
They found that sticky ideas had several traits in common.
People understand them when they hear them. They remember them later, and they change the way they think or act.
"Think of desserts. There are millions of them, but they all tend to have a few of the same ingredients."
The chief reason many people – including libertarians – fail to make their ideas sticky for others is the "Curse of
Knowledge". "We know something other people don't, and we have trouble remembering what it was like before we knew it".
Six traits of sticky ideas
(1) They are simple, but profound, and therefore memorable.
(2) Unexpected. Counter-intuitive, with surprise implications. "Common sense is the enemy of stickiness". If people think an idea is common-sensical, their reaction
is "I know that already, why should I care about this idea?" There is no mystery to common sense. Sticky ideas are unpredictable, but post-dictable. People hear it,
think about it, and say, "Oh yes, of course".
"Political cross-dressing" takes advantage of this trait. Talk to conservatives about drug laws in terms of the negative effect on law
and order, or how they lead to more gun laws. Talking to liberals on drugs – they will agree with the libertarian ideas of self-ownership, but on guns talk about
protecting the weak. [The Advocates have many excellent communications products for libertarians – Ed].
(3) Give concrete examples. Most people see with their senses. One example is the difference between the abstract "high performance" and concrete "V-8 engine". Or
using word problems to more effectively teach math. 85% of libertarians are abstract thinkers, while 75% of the general population are sensory thinkers.
(4) Credible. This is a good strength for libertarian ideas. We have many great thinkers and many books filled with knowledge. We have most of the Nobel Prize
winners in economics. We have loads of policy papers. We have celebrities who call themselves libertarians (listed on the Advocates website).
(5) Emotional. Individual situations are far more appealing than general statistics. Experiments with charitable appeals like "Save the Children" showed nearly
double the contributions for letters featuring helping a 7-year old girl, over listing statistics. They also found that trying to combine statistics and stories in a
letter doesn't work. Analytical thinking seems to turn off emotions. Most libertarians are analytical thinkers based on objective facts. Most other people, especially
liberals and women, are emotional thinkers, from the heart. They tend to show mercy instead of calling for harsh justice.
(6) Stories. In a Stanford University classroom experiment, student had one minute to present their idea. After a while doing other things, the professor surveyed
the students to ask what they remembered. Only 5% remembered statistics, while 65% remembered stories.
John Stossell is great at telling stories in his TV specials – like the young black women who braided hair and was arrested for
not having a license, and was forced to spend the money to go to cosmetology school and get a license – which had nothing to do with braiding!
There are challenges for many libertarians in becoming more effective communicators with the general public because of our
personalities, but libertarianism has the attributes that should readily fit into the sticky-idea model.
Sharon invited the audience to read Making it Stick, come up with ideas, and share them with her at. . .
Sharon[at]The Advocates.org.
She closed with "I want to "Stick it to statism!".
ON THE PROPER DEFENSE
FOR A FREE COUNTRY
Richard A. Cheatham
Richard Cheatham, co-host of the Williamsburg conference is a graduate of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), an institution whose
alumni include General George Patton – and our friend Bumper Hornberger at the Future of Freedom Foundation. Richard spoke on the proper defense of a free country
and the very important difference between standing armies and militias.
Cheatham revealed that a "patron saint" of VMI is Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, a citizen of 5th-century BC Rome. There is a monument in
honor of him at VMI. He was the classic example of the citizen soldier – as differentiated from a professional (regular) soldier. When there was a call to defend
the state, Cincinnatus left his farm to lead in the fields of battle – and when the fight was won, he declined offers of military and political glory and returned
to his farm.
Cincinnatus exemplified the idea of the citizen militia – a force formed to defend the homeland against invaders. It is in this
capacity they functioned best. But when you move the militia to distant places to occupy or defeat an enemy far from home, they characteristically have performed rather
poorly. Militias do not work well as armies of invasion.
Dick quoted George Mason from a speech at the Virginia ratification convention for the constitution on the 16th of June in 1788.
I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
It was everybody – the whole community defending itself.
In fact VMI was established in 1839 by the Commonwealth of Virginia to provide training for leadership of its militia.
The Swiss of course use a system of militias. Their strategy has been one of armed neutrality. Switzerland does not have an army.
Switzerland is an army. Archery (and now marksmanship) are the national pastimes. In 1912 Kaiser Wilhelm II on a visit to Switzerland asked a Swiss militiaman what the
Swiss would do if he sent 500,000 German soldiers into Switzerland against 250,000 Swiss militiamen. The militiaman answered, "Shoot twice."
Republic vs. Empire
Cheatham explained that republican free societies and empires have different military needs.
What is a free society? A bottom-up society. What are its dominant values? The values of a bottom-up society are jealousy of liberty,
skepticism of leadership, pride based upon self-esteem, tolerance, and mutuality (offering and expecting the same things).
What values push a society toward the pursuit of empire and an empire's defense? Cheatham said it was intolerance of other people and
other systems, irrational fear of those "others" and profit without the limitation of mutuality.
He also pointed out the difference between a purely defensive military vs. a standing army – the latter greatly feared by America's
founders as a deadly menace to liberty. The professional soldiers of the standing army, he explained, are those who kill who they're told to kill by those who pay them.
It's often true that they may believe in and trust in the competence, judgment and virtue of their leaders but some just want a job. They have been called the
"bodyguards of kings."
The Right To Keep and Bear Arms
Cheatham then dwelt on the importance of an armed citizenry in insuring a free society and quoted many of America's founding fathers on the subject.
"[W]here and when did freedom exist when the power of the sword and purse were given up from the people?"
Patrick Henry, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, June 9, 1788. Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions, 3:169
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, June, 1776
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the
people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788.
Cheatham concluded his presentation by quoting Thomas Jefferson in his 1801 inaugural address.
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." We need to be able to demonstrate the fact that free societies are
typically more peaceful and productive than non-free societies. There is more profit in having them as your friends than making them your enemies. This must be part of
foreign policy and defense policy.
CAMPUS ORGANIZING FOR LIBERTY
James W. Lark III
James Lark III, a professor of advanced math, and a new director of ISIL, spoke on campus activism. As founder of the longest-running
student organization in the US – Students for Individual Liberty at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, he has considerable experience on the subject
and is eager to share his knowledge with students and their supporters. The UVA SIL chapter has been running continuously for 21 years now.
Prof. Lark began by saying that there is no magic wand. A lot of hard work is involved.
Lark noted that you should never underestimate your ability to have a major impact. He told a story of how in 1992, a leftist complained
bitterly in the campus newspaper about how the Libertarians and their high profile on the campus (in promoting the Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord ticket and other activities)
dominated student activities. Yet 99% of the work was being done by three people, only one of whom was a student.
Lark provided many pointers and important elements required in a successful student organization.
The social factor is important. Providing gatherings of friends for mutual support is often overlooked by many libertarian organizers.
Be a "Black-belt" libertarian. It's important for students to hone their knowledge and communications skills. This is especially
important because there are so many bright kids around, often with strong anti-libertarian arguments.
It's also important to determine if you will be partisan or non-partisan. At UVA, they have several different organizations –
Students for Individual Liberty for general education, University Libertarians to promote the Libertarian Party, and single-issue organizations such as Students for the
Second Amendment to promote the right to keep and bear arms.
Along with friendly faculty, an important but often overlooked resource are members of the university staff. Gary Westmorland, who was
Jim Lark's right-hand man, worked in the UVA library.
And good libertarian campus groups are very often helped by strong local community organizations – and vice-versa.
Be sure to find out what the university's rules are for setting up an officially-recognized student group, and what facilities and
services are available and on what terms. And, simply tour the campus to seek out the best gathering places for students, the places where messages tend to be posted,
and the good meeting rooms.
UVA is lucky to be near the crowd of libertarian public-policy people in Washington, DC, so they can easily bring in many speakers. But
otherwise, a group can still bring in an occasional speaker, or show videos, or host local forums. These days, a group website is important as a portal to the wider
libertarian movement, and MySpace, YouTube, FaceBook, etc. are great for exposure.
Lark stressed that in the battle of ideas, it is vital that libertarians uphold the highest standards of integrity in their arguments
and behavior. Learn more about rhetoric (how to structure an argument). Learn your facts. Listen to your opponents – they may have very legitimate doubts about
whether libertarianism would work. And be courteous and show concern about the issues. Most people are decent. If you show them respect, they will at least listen to you.
And don't get discouraged if people don't immediately agree with you. It usually takes time.
Don't give up. Libertarianism is right, and will lead to the best society possible.
Jwlark[at]virginia.edu
WHO NEEDS UNCLE SAM?
Private Provision of Public Services
Jarret Wollstein
ISIL Director Jarret Wollstein began by asserting that government programs don't work particularly well – because they are not
only coercive, but extremely inefficient with 80% of welfare spending going to the bureaucracy – not to the poor.
The combination of government taxes at all levels plus the costs of regulation absorbs about 70% of middle-class incomes in America,
and Americans are forced to accept services, such as government schools.
Education
Private education is far cheaper than public schooling. In New York, the Catholic schools typically spend 1/3 as much per student in
the classrooms as the government schools, and 1/100 as much on administration – but private alternative schools are increasingly forced to teach the same
curriculum, and home schoolers are under attack. Yet, before government schooling, literacy in America was 90%. Now over half of the students graduating from government
schools emerge functionally illiterate (see "Bootie Zimmer's Choice" by John Taylor Gatto on this website).
Legal Systems
Police now spend at least 80% of their time on non-criminal situations, and are becoming increasingly more militarized and violent.
Wollstein thought that people should take more responsibility for their own safety by e.g. learning martial arts, or buying and learning
the proper use of firearms. Already communities have taken the initiative in this regard via organized neighborhood watches, or the hiring of private security companies,
of which there are 13,000 in the US.
As far as the law itself is concerned, common law arose without the state, to deal with disputes among the peasants. Private judges
traveled from village to village, handling cases on a common-sense basis and writing up the cases into books which formed the corpus of common law systems which are
today used in the free(er) nations of the world. Legislatures are hardly necessary for creating laws.
He suggested that in modern-day America there should be totally-independent grand juries to monitor government officials and indict
wrong-doers.
The Military
The U.S. military budget as another example could be cut by 90% if it devoted its resources to defending the US itself, rather than
being involved in conflicts all around the world.
The Pentagon routinely spends between 10 and 1000 times for equipment than for civilian counterparts. Wollstein suggested that private
military clubs and war games to test competing weapons designs would be interesting options.
He concluded that abolishing major taxes and removing excessive regulations could triple or quadruple the average person's wealth
virtually overnight.
KUDOS
Special thanks are due to Richard Venable, ISIL's Scholarship Chairman; Gail Lightfoot who (wo)manned the registration booth; Michael
LeCompte (who provided us with the little brass tinkly bell to alert people to get back in the sessions). Michael was also by far the most generous donor to the student
scholarship fund.
Thanks also to our host Dick Cheatham, and Patsy Arnett – our travel agent who handled liaison with the conference hotel –
and to the Williamsburg Lodge staff who gave such superb and friendly service.
And last but not least thanks to Mark Selzer of Libertarian Alternative TV for his services in videotaping the conference.
POST-CONFERENCE TOUR
As has been our custom, we included a post-conference tour so that visitors could learn more about the area. With Dick Cheatham as
guide we visited Jamestown, the Yorktown battlefield and then Richmond, Virginia, where we visited St. John's Church (the place where Patrick Henry gave his famous
"Give me liberty for Give me death" speech. At the Virginia Capitol (designed by Thomas Jefferson), we visited the courtroom where the treason trial for Aaron Burr
was conducted. Attorneys in the case were Chief Justice Marshall and Patrick Henry. We visited Thomas Jefferson's Monticello near Charlottesville and the campus of the
University of Virginia. An area steeped in history. Visit it sometime if you haven't already.
|
|
