Liberty Alone

Who love an underdog.

Supporting the Chicago Cubs can be heartbreaking at times. They have the longest dry spell in Major League baseball history. They last won a World Series in 1908, they last won the National League (earning them a place in the World Series) in 1945.
The Cubs are the but of many a joke (John Scalzi has made jokes at the expense of the Cubs in both the books I’ve read by him).

Despite this they have many many dedicated followers, with fans turning up to support the team even in the worst seasons, despite the existence of the Chicago White Sox (whose last World Series win was in 2005).
This just goes to show that it is not just the British who love an underdog.

Us Cubs fans are desperately hoping that 2008 will be the year. Last year they won the division only to fall in the playoffs. This year they have the best record in the National League but have not performed as well on the road (perhaps this is changing, they’ve dominated the second placed Brewers in the first three of a four game series at Brewers, taking their lead in the division from one game to four).

If 2008 is not to be the year, then well, there’s always next year…

Catching up from my holiday I’ve read several very good posts recently.
I’m sharing them in Google Reader and they can be found on my sidebar.

In particular I’ve come across some fascinating articles detailing the history which has led to some current situations.
First up is a potted history of Persian/Arab animosity at The Art Of The Possible and a commemoration and condemnation of the shooting down of an Iranian civilian aeroplane during the US’s covert war againt Iran during the Iran-Iraq war at LewRockwell.com
Both of these give an important insight into the situation today in the Middle East and the US administration’s duplicity when it comes to these issues.

Closer to home we have Nosemonkey’s short history of Belgium which gives a good glimpse into the tensions which may split the country in two (hopefully in a peaceful manner).

One of the points I’ve come across whilst reading around the Heller vs DC gun control case* is that the first gun control laws were brought in after the US Civil War.

They were brought in, not to protect ordinary people, but to prevent black people and former slaves from having weapons. That is to remove the ability of blacks to defend themselves against their former owners and to entrench racist politics in the former slave states.

Its like the gun control laws in the UK which were originally brought in to prevent the working class from gaining access to them to try and ensure the dominance of the political classes over them.

The origins of weapons control were not about protecting people but about keeping power over people. That is the effect the laws have today. Ensuring the coercive classes have control over the productive classes, whether the coercive classes be the state or the criminals of the ‘red market’.

As for the decision in Heller, its a step in the right direction, the court has decided that there is a constitutional right for the individual to possess arms, kept in a usable state, for self defense, but it stops short of affirming an absolute right to bear arms and the decision will be used to justify new restrictions.

(* most of this comes from the radical left who oppose gun control).

All those neoconservatives who support military action and foreign intervention to counter the ‘islamofascist threat’ must be a little confused.

Christian fundamentalist private military firm Blackwater are asking a US Court to use Sharia law in a case brought against them.
The case is being brought in the USA by the families of US servicement killed in a Blackwater plane crash in Afghanistan.
Blackwater wants Shari’a to be used as it means the case would be dismissed due to Shari’a law not holding a company responsible for the actions of its employees.

So its not through militant Islamists that the much feared Shari’a may get used in the US but through the corporatist, militarist state which is meant to be defending our freedoms…

41 one years ago today, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against the state of Viriginia in the case of Loving v. Virginia over turning all US race-based legal restrictions on marriage.

Mildred Loving died earlier this year, but the legacy of her love for for her husband and her battle to let it be recognised live on.

I hope that before long we will have a ruling overturning restrictions on marriage based upon the gender of those involved, thus allowing gay marriage.

The US Supreme Court has ruled the Guantanamo detainees have the right to habeas corpus.

A 5/4 split is disappointing, but good news overall.

ScotUSBlog has live coverage of all the decisions being released before the court goes into recess.
Us hard core civil libertarians are also waiting for the 2nd amendment case District of Columbia v. Heller. I hope that the court decides with Heller and in favour of the right to bare arms and to self defense, although if it doesn’t several Montana politicians have threatened to secede from the Union (which would be interesting)

Despite some serious misgivings about Obama’s economics and some of his domestic policy, I think he’s rapidly becoming my preferred candidate.
This is largely to do with his foreign policy. McCain and Clinton are both militaristic in outlook. They are concerned with perception of strength and the use of force.
Obama on the other hand appears more willing to negotiate and to talk:

“Here’s the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons and Iran doesn’t have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn’t we have the same courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies? That’s what strong countries do, that’s what strong presidents do, that’s what I’ll do when I’m president of the United States of America.

“So, you know, for all their tough talk, one of the things you have to ask yourself is what are George Bush and John McCain afraid of? Demanding that a country meets all your conditions before you meet with them, that’s not a strategy; it’s just naïve, wishful thinking. I’m not afraid that we’ll lose some propaganda fight with a dictator. It’s time for America to win those battles, because we’ve watched George Bush lose them year after year after year. It’s time to restore our security and our standing in the world.

“And you can vote for John McCain and nothing will change.”

One of the biggest problems the US has is foreign perception. Already many outside the US view Obama as being the best candidate for foreign relations, this sort of rhetoric will enhance that view and will be a great asset even if he doesn’t fully follow through on it.

(HatTip: The Art of the Possible)

“What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God. Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.”

Illinois State Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago)

This said to an atheist who happened to be testifying to committee of the Illinois house.

(hat tip: Reason)

A new favourite blog of mine - aimed at seeking common ground between US liberals and libertarians - rather like Rothbard’s alliance with the New Left.
Certainly there’s ground to start with - libertarians tend to be against ventures like the Iraq War, as do many on the left. Both are often concerned with freedom and many libertarians are also deeply concerned with social injustice and the suffering of the poor.

The quality of much of the writing is very high and very informative, largely due to the involvement of Kevin Carson whose critique of vulgar libertarianism is often very hard hitting and well aimed. He is definitely well placed to try and bring together libertarians and US-style liberals given his left-wing and libertarian radicalism which can appeal to many on both sides.

From a LibDem point of view, this is interesting because in many ways we are in the hinterland between libertarianism and US liberalism. Some of us are definitely libertarian, others very close to US liberalism, most are somewhere in between the two.

Its well worth a read. I find the attacks on corporatism (state intervention on behalf of corporations) particularly interesting. Its an area missed by many on the right, but is responsible for much of the actions of the New Deal (which just wrapped them up in left-leaning rhetoric).
I’m sure there’ll be something for everyone.

Update: Corrected the URL…

The US has a massive problem with powerful Unions who are directly harming the prospects of children in the country. The Teacher’s
Unions stand opposed to anything which may upset their power base and deny them money. From forced membership of a Union and the Union decisions being binding upon non-members to arguing that teachers should not have to prepare lesson plans they directly affect the prospects of children, especially the poorest.

Drew Carey’s latest video for Reason TV is about one of the worst performing schools in the US and how the Union tried to prevent reforms designed to improve the school for the children. Listening to the Union spokesmen you’d think that schools are for teachers, not for pupils.
Thankfully, the story has a happy ending (so far - I would like a follow up to see what happened) with the school being granted charter status and being run by a non-profit organisation which successfully runs other schools with similar demographics and runs the schools for the pupils not the teachers (the head of the organisation says he’d sooner give up on a teacher than a pupil).

Also here

Thankfully, the situation is not as bad in the UK, although I’m sure there are trades unionists who would happily take such a line. Also the Professional Association of Teachers shows that it is possible to have a Union which looks after its member’s interests whilst placing the care and education of children foremost in their actions (Disclosure: My parents were both members for that very reason).