Frontiersman, January 1997

Notice:
This issue of the Frontiersman contains contact information that is out-of-date. For current contact information, click here.

Frontiersman, January 1997

Foundations for Anarchist Debate
Don J. Cormier
Based on my reading and my experiences as a libertarian activist, I believe that many anarchist and libertarian debates are sterile because an attempt is made to discuss freedom in a non-specific, ambiguous, context. Ambiguous thinking is not very persuasive, and it leads to muddled, futile action.
To facilitate establishing contexts for debates, I would like to make the following suggestions:
In the first place, it is sensible to pick some definition of freedom and to stick with it throughout the discussion. There are many possible definitions of freedom, and it matters little which one is chosen as long as it is used explicitly and consistently throughout the discussion.
Secondly, no matter what definition of freedom is chosen for the discussion, it would be useful to consider Isiah Berlin's distinction between "freedom from" and "freedom to". Berlin teaches that "Freedom from" refers to freedom from restrictions, rules, and obstacles invented by human beings. "Freedom to" refers to an individual's ability to be, do, or have something in a given context.
It's possible to imagine a solitary hermit who completely embodies "Freedom from" as defined above. "Freedom To" is a trickier concept. No one is completely free to do anything, but nearly everyone is free to do something.
Therefore, from Berlin's perspective, the problem of designing a free society might be described as the problem of devising a plan for group living with minimum restrictions and maximum opportunities — realizing that in NO society can both "freedom from" and "freedom to" be absolute.
A basic knowledge of Berlin's distinctions would save anarchists and libertarians from wasting words and time on convoluted and muddled debates about absolute freedom.
Thus we come to a third major consideration in defining the context for discussions of freedom. Namely, that since freedom in any society is relative, the freedom experienced by members of any society is determined by the specific structures of that society, and the environment in which it operates.
No debates about anarchism are practical unless mention is made of the specific features of the proposed anarchist society, because the chosen definition of freedom may or may not be relevant to the structures of the proposed society. For example, it's useless to worry about being "free" to enter the market if the proposed society is one which would "free" people from private property.
These three suggestions, faithfully followed, will greatly enhance the usefulness of libertarian and anarchist discussions and, hopefully, move the argument away from semantics and on to practical proposals.

We don't need to design a free society, as Mr. Cormier suggested in this article. The very concept of "designing a free society" implies a central source of control, and is fundamentally statist. Instead, we need to acquire freedom as individuals. When society consists of free people, then the free society will happen all by itself.

— editor

The Supreme Law
Sam Aurelius Milam III

As a treaty to which the USA is a party, the UN Charter is part of the Supreme Law of the Land.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ...."

— Article 6, clause 2, U.S. Constitution
<emphasis added>

The UN was allegedly intended to address only international matters and was restricted by its Charter from interference in domestic disputes:

"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter ...."

— Article 2, clause 7, UN Charter

Last July, Kofi Annan, then Undersecretary for UN Peacekeeping, made this statement:¹

"I think that over the last few years the [UN Security] Council and the world has made it quite clear that it is no longer acceptable for leaders, or, you know, cruel leaders, to hide behind sovereignty and national boundaries and brutalize their own population and if the International Committee comes to that judgment I don't believe we need to wait for consent or invitation."

Kofi Annan is now the UN Secretary-General. He is actively advocating "change" as the program for the future. The nature of that change is all too clear. The UN is positioning itself to supersede all present world governments. Unless we stop it, the UN will be — within our lifetimes — the Supreme Law of the World.

The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, December 16 and 17, 1996

The Gov't Wants to raise your kids
John Webster; http://www.vikora.com/CWS/jwebster/

This article is reprinted from Metro, 550 South First Street, San Jose, California 95113-2806, October 31-November 6, 1996, Vol 12, No. 35

Maybe not in person, but the politicians and bureaucrats do want to write the laws that will dictate how you must raise your children. Those laws will enforce Political Correctness in child rearing. If you try to raise your children otherwise you will find yourself charged with felony "Child Abuse," facing many years in prison. Of course, you could accept a plea bargain and voluntarily give up your kids. Either way they will to be raised by a government agency.

This political agenda to control how your children are raised, is being pushed by those that believe that the Government could make everything right if it just had more control. This message is even being pushed by our daily newspaper and the TV media. They are trying to seduce us into accepting this Government control of how the other person raises their child.
Page 2 Box

Well, as far as the government is concerned we are the other person. First we get a barrage of media hype telling us how evil it is that someone is raising their children differently than you or I would. Then come the laws, and eventually arrests with the children being taken away from their parents.

We recently saw this with the Female Circumcision issue. Nowhere in the Media's hate rhetoric did they mention that this ritual was being conducted by parents that really cared deeply for their children and who thought this was best.

This is the dark side of democracy: the Tyranny of a Majority led by a media that believes in ensuring Political Correctness laws. These new laws are then enforced at the point of a gun by the police and courts that believe that "Political Might makes Right" and "The Ends justify the Means."

During recent years in Congress and our state legislature, any bill that purported to be against "Child Abuse" automatically got voted into law since it would be political suicide to vote against it. Page 2 Image

Yet, many of the add-ons to these bills had very little to do with child abuse and everything to do with enforcing politically correct parenting. For example, in California it now is a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison, for parents to advise or encourage their teenager to become sexually active. It doesn't even require the teenager to act on the advice; giving that advice is the crime. Is this really child abuse?

Take it from me, the problem is not with parents that care about their own children but just want to raise them differently. The real problem is when others interfere in the raising of our children. Today, much of that interference comes from a government bent on enforcing Political Correctness in parenting.

Many of these laws would be normally unenforceable. So a Federal task force was put together to aid local law enforcement, including our own San Jose Police, in catching these supposedly deviant parents. The entrapment scam they used, depended heavily on the ability of the police to hide evidence and to do professional alteration of tape recorded evidence, it also depended on the local courts, the Santa Clara County Courts for example, to seal important documents, to prevent altered evidence from being analyzed, and to do whatever else was necessary to cover-up the illegal nature of this police activity.

This is an example of Organized Criminal Activity committed by the Fed's and our local San Jose Police, and condoned by our "Justice" System. These are Law enforcement agencies that apparently see themselves as being above the law. And this effort was not being directed against hardened criminals, but against Politically Incorrect parents, supposedly in an effort to "Protect the Children."

If you love and care about your children, are you prepared to raise your children the way the Politically Correct majority rules, or should you, the parent, be the one that decides what is best?

Letters to the Editor
Dear Sam

Just a line to let you know I agree with you completely — 1. morality must come from within us. (Of course, unfortunately, it is possible to legislate away all demonstrations of it) and 2. It would be highly preferable for Christians & whatever to live side-by-side in toleration. It sometimes works out that they do — until some government interferes ....

— Shirley; Urbana, Illinois

Dear Sam
The concept of world government has changed drastically since the 1950's. The picture painted in the 50's is no longer taken seriously by anyone. One of its best-known promoters then was Einstein, who was seen as a kindly genius who had thought up the atom bomb by accident, & now wanted to make amends. The US then perceived itself, & was largely perceived by the world, as the great citadel of freedom, which had defeated the evil fascists (although it was actually primarily the evil communists who had defeated the fascists). The world government was conceived of as a United States of the World, & this was seen as an ideal situation — in fact the only objection to it was that it was just too, too utopian to be real — that it would take at least a million years for people like the benighted Japanese, Argentinians, or Angolans to learn to live like us civilized Americans. Now perceptions are very different. People realize that the many smaller nations of the world in the General Assembly are often more rational & moderate than the US, but that the US often gets its way by bribery, bullying, & the veto power of the victorious Allies of WWII, & their position on the Security Council, which makes the UN not a democratic institution, but a system created to help the winners of WWII rule over the world — much less efficiently than Hitler ran his huge empire in his bid for world domination. Now the US no longer wants to have any part of the UN except "peace keeping", so that it can control the way hot spots are run after they are pacified (& of course any time the US doesn't like the way a country is run, they send in the CIA to create a hot spot). The US wants no part of third World development, which might develop a country in a way that would make it independent of US control. The US doesn't pay its dues at the UN, even though the UN is largely a US puppet. It's no accident that the UN is located in the US. Ideally it would be located outside Rome, & the Allies would no longer be permanent members of the Security Council. But that too might take a million years to happen, & so other means to world cooperation must be developed.
Your Treaty for the Alliance of American States is an okay way to present your political ideals. Of course I agree with some of them, & disagree with others. But of course nothing like your Alliance is going to happen any time soon. The problem with Frontiersman is that it presents many abstract ideas in their "ideal" form, without ever taking up issues that are being argued in US politics today, & making a stand on a particular side of a particular issue, based upon these ideals, & demonstrating how your view is in accordance with ideas about the social contract & constitutional government. This is the only way to have an influence on the way the government & society moves, gradually, in the future.

— Elliot; N. Merrick, New York

PS. A states' rights issue dear to my heart right now is the current decriminalization & legalization of marijuana & other drugs by referendum in Arizona & California. The Drug War is of course an unconstitutional atrocity, & now the federal government wants to nullify the will of the people, as if Arizona & California were Angola, Haiti or Nicaragua. Democracy only applies if the herd votes the way the Ruling Class wants it to vote. US citizens have as much democratic freedom as the Algerians — they're just too vegetablized to notice.

To debate issues without first understanding the doctrines, assumptions, and definitions which underlie those issue is doing it backward. Such a process will result in issues being decided based on whim, preconceived notions, or expediency. However, if you first resolve the basics — doctrine, assumption, and definition — then you can reason your way to consistent positions on every issue. This is why I try to concentrate on the basics in the Frontiersman.

— editor

Hypocrisy Breeds Contempt
Sam Aurelius Milam III

Santa Clara County, California has forced me out of my home because of an alleged arrearage of $32,000 on an unproven child support obligation. At the same time, the U.S. government is $1.4 billion in arrears on its acknowledged obligation to the UN, and is unlikely to be punished at all.¹ The contempt that I feel for such hypocrisy surpasses my powers of description.

The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Monday, December 16, 1996

New Year's Resolution
Sam Aurelius Milam III

I pledge deliverance from the flag of the United States of America, and from the repugnance for which it stands: one abomination sundered from God, inexcusable, with no liberty or justice at all.

Acknowledgment
My thanks to Sir Donald the Elusive for paying the production costs of this newsletter.

— editor

Frontiersman
479 E. 700 N.
Firth, Idaho 83236

Violent resistance
is an
appropriate response
to
violent government.

On the Road with Buffalo Hunter

Buff was riding the bus in Seattle recently, and observed that a woman who boarded the bus was weeping piteously. The only seat available at the time was beside the man directly in front of Buff, so that's where the woman sat.

As the woman continued to cry, the man beside her looked uncomfortable, but sympathetic. Presently, he cleared his throat and, with some hesitation, asked the woman if he could be of some assistance.

"Well," sobbed the woman, "I doubt it. I just finished my last visit with my analyst!" She cried louder.

"The last visit?" asked the man uncertainly.

"Yes!" wailed the lady. "He said he can't help me!"

"Gee, I'm sorry," said the man sympathetically.

"You see," confided the distraught woman through her wracking sobs, "I'm a nymphomaniac!"

"Oh, I see," said the man uncertainly.

"But you see," continued the woman with a cry of despair, "that isn't really the big problem!"

"It isn't?" asked the man.

"No!" she wailed. "The real problem is that I can only get turned on by Chinese cowboys!"

"Ahh!" said the man with a growing smile. "Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Bucky Chang!"

Sadly, at this point in the conversation the bus arrived at Buff's destination and he was unable to tell us what happened next.

Sesame Suite

Bernie: Hey Burt!

Burt: What do you want?

Bernie: Why do nuns dress the way they do?

Burt: I don't want to know!

Bernie: Force of habit.

Burt: Ahhhgh!

Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Dear Buck
Why are you so stupid?

— Curious

Dear Curious

Sometimes my old back injury keeps me from straightening up all the way.

Frontiersman

Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by phone, letter, fax, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me.

Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.

Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other publications. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.

Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise.

Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and postage stamps. I don't accept checks, money orders, anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives, or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.

— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

Back to the Beginning of This Issue