June 28th, 2007

In my explorations of more community-based activism I've identified neighborliness and familiarity with one's fellow residents as an important element in the development of bottom-up institutions to replace the need for top-down, centralized, managerial government. In my exploration of community solidarity I attended my local neighborhood watch meeting. My neighborhood is in the west end and is pretty quiet and peaceful, with lots of families that engender a sense of a thriving, balanced community in me.

That's why I was struck by how kids were singled out as problems, not residents with interests and perspectives of their own:

Well, the vast majority of attendees were elderly and white. Their complaints were about kids, of course. Now, I don’t condone any criminal activity, but my impression of the complaints were that these elderly residents have a different lifestyle than their younger neighbors, and they feel threatened by kids who are out on the streets carrying on as kids will. Older kids were accused of racing cars. But generally, the younger generations were seen as nuisances, and their side of the story and their interests were not represented. Certain households of minority racial demographics were also singled out for scrutiny.

What is lost in these complaints is the truth that these kids, their parents, and others targeted by the meeting’s attendants are residents. They are part of the group of people whose interests the neighborhood watch organization should be representing! No talk of reaching out to them or presenting a way to work things out. No talk of whether they are being served by the neighborhood or county.

Moderating a significant portion of the meeting, and hearing these complaints, was an officer with the local police department, whose name I won’t mention but whose affiliation should be easy for a regular reader to ascertain. He encouraged people to call often on the slightest of suspicions, urging them to leave sorting out the good guys from the “bad guys” (a phrase often invoked) to the professionals. He singled out kids as a big problem, stressing that once their names are in the police system, they track them for life (as if that alone will stop kids from being kids). He even said (I couldn’t believe this) that his officers “like arresting people” and urged attendees to give his department opportunities to catch kids.

Just as I was working on this blog entry, I saw Radley Balko blog a YouTube video of police choking kids for simply riding skateboards. And Richmond City Council is apparently creating a snitch class among its residents to single out kids who party for special treatment by the police, according to SaveRichmond.org.

Where is the sense of proportionality - that these are children who deserve patience, attention, gentle - not brutal - reprimands, and engagement in the way neighborhoods and communities work? They are the future of the community, and people who ignore this and see them as mere obstacles to their retirement are incredibly short sighted (not to mention the naivete of moving into a college neighborhood and being flummoxed by partying!).

This, my friends, is what happens when communities break down. They require politicians, bureaucrats, and hired muscle to come in and mediate what should be organic, face-to-face interactions between neighbors. Gone is any sense that the community's children are worth tolerating is entertained - they're just somebody else's kids. I'm no fan of Hillary's "it takes a village" philosophy, because it expressly calls for more government intervention, rather than recognizing it as the root problem in society.

1 comments »

June 19th, 2007

Sorry it's taken so long to schedule another meeting. The next meeting for the Richmond Left Libertarian Alliance will be held on Tuesday, July 17 at 7 PM. Where would you like to meet? Please leave suggestions in the comments, and we'll decide no later than July 3 on the final place. I liked Commercial Tap House, but I wanted to give people a chance to suggest alternatives.

I am attempting to introduce a slight bit of organization into this next meeting. I was dumb and didn't even collect contact information for people! So please, if you're reading this and interested in the group, send me an email at:

admin at left libertarian period org

and I'll add you to our mailing distribution list, so we can better remain in contact. And, please, do me a favor and register your attendance - or absence - from the next meeting on upcoming.org. It really helps me plan for the next meeting.

I'm going to try and put together a semi-formal presentation on local opportunities for activism based on conversations I've engaged in with various Richmonders. But this will again be an ad-hoc, informal get-together. No leaders need show up. :-) Hope to see you there!

Finally, this site is open to all RLLA members / sympathetics to journal on issues they care about. Please, if you'd like to contribute to this blog, email me and I'll set you up with an account!

0 comments »

June 15th, 2007

I just wrote a new article on my left libertarian approach to the recent Virginia Senate race in the 12th District. Excerpt:

Now, some libertarians might call me out for not supporting the challenger who was strongly in favor of cutting taxes and spending. And they’d have a point - but only if they think taxes trump personal freedom and equality under the law. Yes, a well-funded government is perhaps more likely than a less-well-funded government to trample liberty. But Republicans have demonstrated for about two decades that borrow-and-spend is just as viable as tax-and-spend. And since Blackburn clearly does not seek to reform government injustices towards minorities, he’s certainly not opposed to funding certain intrusions into peoples’ private affairs - the most despicable intrusions as what goes on in a couple’s bedroom, I might add. This is very typical of conservatives: leave me alone for politically favored groups, and a nanny, police state government for those not so lucky.

Incidentally, I'll be announcing a meeting date in the near future. Stay tuned, and contact me with any suggestions.

0 comments »

June 6th, 2007

Over at Counterpunch, John V. Walsh reflects on the recent Future of Freedom Foundation conference on "Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties". Listen to what one Green has to say about the anti-war stance of libertarians:

It was also quite open and tolerant. Yes, it was Libertarian through and through, weighted heavily with scholars like Robert Higgs and Joseph Stromberg, writers like Lew Rockwell and the irrepressible Justin Raimondo . And of course there was Ron Paul who had lots of old friends there and was greeted like a rock star. But there was also Daniel Ellsberg who gave the most moving and inspiring talk of the conference and The Nation's Robert Scheer who received a standing ovation. And then there was Joseph Margulies the attorney whose clients include Guantanamo detainees and Mamdouh Habib, the victim of CIA rendering from Pakistan to Egypt. And when I explained that I was a Green there were a few double takes but everyone was welcoming.

This contrasts mightily with the UFPJ demonstrations and assemblages in D.C. Ask for Ron Paul or Justin Raimondo as a speaker; and UFPJ Co-chairs Leslie Cagan and Judith LeBlanc, of the "C"PUSA, turn thumbs down. Dem political hacks are always welcome at the UFPJ confabs, but no Libertarians, no Left radicals like ANSWER, no Ralph Nader; Greens are encouraged by UFPJ to work on these things but not to speak up with the Green message.

Clearly we are in a time of shifting political alliances, where the old divisions no longer make sense. As more and more honest seekers of truth and justice start to look outside the established movements, we will see an explosion of unorthodox radicalism and new coalitions of thinkers and activists who start to change the way success is defined. Walsh recognized this trend at the conference:

There is also a generational shift in the Libertarian movement. The Cold War Right is disappearing, and Libertarians like Raimondo who came of age in the 1960s or later are coming to the fore. That too was evident at the conference where some of the older participants would on occasion lapse into loyalty to the Repbulican Party. But for the new generation, this kind of partisanship is not on the agenda. The battle for their own ideas is paramount, and they are not in a mood to compromise on them.

At the front of the hall throughout the proceedings, FFF had placed a portrait of Jefferson. And we were reminded more than once of the quote from Benjamin Franklin that "we must all hang together or surely we will all hang separately." It is time for the official antiwar movement to seek out allies like the Libertarians, who can reach many who cannot be reached with the antiwar message of a socialist or Green. If we do not, we may find ourselves, gradually, oh so gradually, put in the same fix that Franklin feared.

That begs the question, though - is the official anti-war movement ready to stop acting like a special interest lobbying group, trying to use the system to their short-term advantage, and instead start smashing parts of the system that get in our way? The Democrats' shameful capitulation on war funding demonstrates exactly where to begin. How the mainstream anti-war movement behaves now will determine exactly how much we have to dismantle to get anything resembling peace and justice in this world. Will they apologize for the Democrats, or will they turn on them? Left libertarians should be waiting with open arms for any of our anti-war brethren who seek principled, uncompromising opposition to the corporate welfare-warfare state.

1 comments »