What Lew Rockwell said...

This has been another edition of "What Lew Rockwell said..."

As an added bonus, a classic by Lew where he accurately describes the teabaggers and the core of Republican support:

Red State Fascists.

This is just to clarify that while libertarians don't like Obama's policies (and neither do I), they also don't support the idiocy of the 9-12ers or the Tea Party movement.

First Principles

For those who ask 'why?'

Its nice to be reminded in an elegant way why some of us are so adamant in our quest for liberty.

Yes, it really is this simple.

No dog in the fight, but...

I am an unabashed libertarian and Market Anarchist. That means I don't want any "government" that isn't explicitly voluntary - if I don't agree explicitly to follow the rules and pay the taxes, I don't. I don't think we need coercive government of any kind to have a just and fair society. I firmly believe, based on evolution and studies in behavioural economics, that people will cooperate rather than compete most of the time, even in a true "free market" economy.

That means on principle I have no dog in the current fight between the newly minted Coalition and the Conservatives. I could care less who runs the circus in Ottawa because in the end, I will ignore any laws and rules I do not agree with, no matter who passed them.

The battle over the last 4 days has been highly entertaining and great spectator sport. It has even revived some of my imaginative juices, as can be seen in my previous post.

Now all of that being said, I am not totally neutral. On principle I agree with the Conservative policy of ending direct subsidies to political parties - no $1.90 per vote. But I want to end all subsidies and that includes the tax credit for political donations - the very tax credit used by the CPC to subsidize 75% of their coffers from the government. I think any individual or any organization should be allowed to donate any amount they deem fit to any and all political parties they wish. Any of these individuals and parties ought to be able to advertise on behalf of their chosen champion. This stand is not popular amongst my progressive friends. Neither is it popular among the right either - they know that doing away with the tax credit will cripple the Conservatives.

So, in the end, this particular move by Harper turns out to be abusing the power of government to attack his opponents, in order to, one can only assume, move to a state dominated by the CPC.

I don't care for the CPC social conservative bent and I don't care for the Liberal and NDP interference in the market for short term gain. On social issues I am squarely with the the extremes of the left and with economics I am a full blown laissez-faire libertarian.

What I cannot stand is lying and outright dishonesty, no matter who uses it. Until yesterday, I saw this whole thing as entertainment, but not any more. The Conservatives have stooped to dirty tricks, violating privacy (and probably a section or too of the criminal code) and are proud of it.

Well, that kind of authoritarian hubris, along with their mean-spirited anti-democratic behaviour now has me rooting for the Coalition. The brain trust in the CPC needs to be removed, because right now, they are a far greater threat to my liberty than any misguided NDP or Liberal economic policy, any Taliban militant or Quebec separatist combined.

So, for the Conservatives who are whining and screaming about "treason" and "coup d'etat" let me remind you:

Nothing the NDP, BQ or Liberals is doing is remotely illegal (unlike say, taping a private conversation without the express consent of those involved and distributing it). Talking strategy in a minority parliament is prudent, not sinister. Under our parliamentary system, the government is formed by the party or parties that can gain the confidence of the majority of the House. Usually that happens to be the party with the most seats, but not always - see Ontario in 1985.

If you call this a coup, you are lying. If you call this undemocratic, you are lying. If you call this against the will of the Canadian electorate, you are not just lying, you can't add.

This is the way our system works and has worked since 1867. Yes, its broken. Yes, its archaic. Yes, its terribly unfair.

So, dear Conservatives, rather than whine and whip outrageous hyperbole, perhaps you ought to look at changing the system. In the interim, perhaps try learning about it.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but that doesn't mean I like or dislike the dogs equally. The Conservative Party of Canada and Stephen Harper in particular deserve to be destroyed for their mean-spirited, authoritarian and divisive rule over the last 3 years. Their latest Nixonian moves have only served to show how proto-fascist they really are and how the people of Canada should utterly distrust them - if they did this with a Minority, what on earth would they have done with an unquestioned, 5-year Majority? I truly shudder at the prospect. As bad as the Liberals and NDP are going to be, they would not be nearly as horrific as a Conservative Majority.

I'm rooting for the Coalition.

Free Market Anti-Capitalism

Libertarianism, it seems, has taken a beating lately. Of course, that is only if you take terms like 'libertarianism' and 'free market' to means something they don't - in this case the presently exiting state capitalist plutocracy.

Some folks are genuinely confused when they find out I am not just an anarchist, but a 'free market' anarchist.

If you really want to understand the left-libertarian, free market anti-capitalist mindset, I cannot think of two better examples than these two posts by Auburn Professor Roderick T Long at Art of the Possible.

Highlights:

From Regulation: The Cause, Not the Cure, of the Financial Crisis :

"The bailout is just diverting resources from the productive poor and middle-class to the failed rich, which doesn’t seem like a very good idea one either ethical or economic grounds. The only good effect such a bailout could possibly have (at least if you prefer costly boondoggles without piles of dead bodies to costly boondoggles with them) is if it convinced the warmongers that they just can’t afford a global war on terror right now"

From History of an Idea :

But what if friendly politicians rig the game so that favoured companies can reap the benefits associated with economies of scale while socialising the costs associated with diseconomies of scale? Then we might just possibly end up with an economy dominated by those bloated, bureaucratic, hierarchical corporate behemoths we all know and love.

....

All too many libertarians still rush to defend giant corporations like Microsoft and Wal-Mart (two firms whose whole business model in fact depends heavily on government intervention – via, e.g., IP protectionism for Microsoft, eminent domain plus socialised transportation costs for Wal-Mart, and general suppression of competition from the less affluent for both) as though such a defense were part and parcel of a commitment to markets. As libertarians we can hardly complain when we’re accused of being apologists for corporate plutocracy, so long as we’re actually contributing to that perception ourselves by allowing ourselves to lose track of the basic facts about the price system that we of all people should remember.

Check out the links in both pieces and the links to Roderick, Brad Spangler and Kevin Carson in my sidebar.

Anyone that says they are libertarian and supports the bailout or government intervention of any kind is a liar.

The words 'free market' are not dirty words and libertarians are not Ayn Rand-loving apologists for the rich and powerful. Those are the 'vulgar libertarians' and are not libertarians at all.

Update:



Stefan Molyneux cuts through the guff and lays it out, plain as day. Please try to tell me after watching this insightful explanation that the current economic problems are caused by the 'free market' rather than regulations and government action. Think about it.

Vulgar Conservatism

If you ever venture around the LeftLibertarian Yahoo Group, or read much from the left libertarian blogsphere, you'll notice a term we use quite often - "vulgar libertarianism".

Vulgar Libertarianism is a term coined by Kevin Carson and it refers to those who use libertarian words and ideas to promote or excuse definitely unlibertarian actions. The Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute are examples - they say they promote free markets and enterprise, but have no qualms with government bailouts or the enforcement of laws and regulations designed to favour certain companies or industries to the detriment of others. (Update: To be fair in this instance, the Cato Institute is against the bailout. However, they have been known to indulge in vulgar libertarian at other times, which is why they are included in this.)

For all their talk, these people aren't libertarians, but economic fascists who merely want the state to work for their enrichment and benefit, rather than removing state barriers and enhancing liberty.

With the current meltdown in the US economy affecting our election, we are witnessing the rise of what I call Vulgar Conservatism. That is, the use, by the Conservative Party and their supporters, of the myth that the CPC is a party of small government and free markets. Even some Conservatives I respect and that are normally quite intelligent, are repeating this talking point.

The most obvious example is the idea that only Harper and the CPC are fiscally conservative and responsible to ride out tough economic times. And while Harper talks that way, he and Jim Flaherty act different. As Andrew Coyne pointed out a year-and-a-half ago:

The budget maintains, notwithstanding a $25-billion increase in spending over two years, that the government is showing unwavering fiscal discipline. How? Because it has kept the growth in spending to no more than the growth in the economy, “on average.”

Now, people like me would argue the percent-of-GDP measure is misleading: it implies that, so long as spending has not grown faster than the economy, it has not grown at all. But I suppose that’s within the bounds of acceptable political chicanery.

Or would be, if in fact spending had grown slower than the economy. But, again, the budget’s own figures show that it hasn’t. Program spending was 12.8% of GDP in fiscal 2006, 13.1% in 2007, and will be 13.3% in 2008.

How, then, do the Tories maintain that spending has grown no faster than the economy, even “on average?” By including in the average fiscal 2006, a year in which nominal spending actually declined slightly (though only after a nearly 15% gain the previous year). Just one problem: the Liberals were in power in fiscal 2006, or all but the last two months of it. The Tories are claiming credit for Liberal “restraint.”

Or, as he put it a few days earlier:

"With this budget -- including another 6% increase in spending, on top of last year’s 8% blowout -- Jim Flaherty officially becomes the biggest spending finance minister in the history of Canada.

It’s true. The $200-billion in program spending Mr. Flaherty has budgeted for this year works out to about $5,800 for every man, woman and child in Canada. Even adjusting for inflation and increases in population, that’s more than Paul Martin spent in his frantic last hours. It is more than the Mulroney government spent in its last days. It is more than the Trudeau government spent in the depths of the early 1980s recession. All of these past benchmarks of out-of-control spending must now be retired. Jim Flaherty has outdone them all."[emphasis mine]

That is "vulgar conservatism". Say you are for fiscal responsibility and restraint and act completely the opposite. His assessment of the 2008 Flaherty budget wasn't much better.

This is fiscal conservatism, apparently - outspending Paul Martin, Brian Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau at their worst, while cutting taxes (or claiming to). I was under the impression fiscal conservatism was about reducing taxes and spending, keeping the books balanced and getting government "out of the way".

Then this same Prime Minister and Conservative Party claim that it is the opposition that will drive the country into deficit and only they can keep us afloat. Even after their actual record while in office and even after their own "orgy of pre-election spending", amounting to $8.8 billion or $94 million per day. And after years of massive surpluses under the Liberals, it was the Conservatives that sunk into deficit this spring for a few months. It is the Conservatives that cut $45 million in arts funding under the guise of fiscal prudence while maintaining $1.5 billion in subsidies to the most profitable industry on the planet, oil and gas.

Reminds me of when Jim Flaherty was the Finance Minister in Ontario under Harris and Eaves and drove us into deficit, while telling us we were in surplus. Deja vu?

This is nothing compared to the very idea that someone can be a small-government fiscal conservative on one hand, while demanding the state intervene in private matters such as marriage or abortion on the other. They wish to move the state out of the boardroom and into the bedroom.

Now that is a lot of things - populist, authoritarian, reactionary - but it is not "conservative". It is a repeat of both Reagan and Bush, where promises of small government and fiscal prudence gave way to growth in government and massive debt and deficit.

Right now, no party is fiscally conservative and no party has sensible plans to manage government finances well. But only the Conservative Party is trying to tell you that they are the "natural fiscal responsibility party" when they are not.

Ask your self this - if you suddenly found yourself in a lower paying job, with less income than last year or the year before, would you opt to spend more money or less? Seems Stephen Harper would spend more, but have you stop buying one coffee a day and call it fiscal conservatism and think that will get you through the hard times.

That is vulgar conservatism and that is what the Conservative Party is.

WALL*E the libertarian

Cross-posted from theConverted:

Since it came out, the Pixar film WALL*E has generated great kudos. On the second night it was out, I took my entire family - my wife, my 9 year-old daughter, my 7 year-old son and their 2 1/2 year-old brother - to see the film.

It is a wonderful, heart-warming and cute film, with incredible animation and a fairly good story.

Unfortunately, that has not stopped some knee-jerk, anti-environmentalist Randroids and slack-jawed conservative idiots from labeling it as "environmentalist, anticapitalist, and antitechnological propaganda" (sic).

Really?

**Spoiler Alert - do not read any further if you haven't seen the film**

Lets see, we have an planet ruined by garbage, as the result of what appears to be the monopoly of a single company - Big and Large (BNL) - because they cater to every whim. They seem to be able to dump garbage because they seem to be able to externalize the cost of doing so. Now that could be a metaphor for pure socialism, but it seems more likely to me to be a metaphor for our current state capitalism.

Now, when faced with environmental disaster, what is the answer? why a more technological and nanny state existence on a cruise ship in space. Every aspect of life, from cradle to grave, is taken care of by the State - the cruise ship - and its minions - the service robots. Indeed, the humans become so lazy and distracted by this they do not realize they are always following the carefully controlled and laid out plans of the State to the point that they don't realize the ship has a pool and that other people are more than just picture on a view screen.

It is not until the people of the ship are awakened and remember their past, fight against the agents of the state - the service robots trying to stop them from going to earth - shut off the "Autopilot" and leave the ship are they truly free.

They leave the control and comfort of the ship (state) and enter a fairly barren, despoiled land. It is not a paradise, but harsh - literally a garbage dump. But they courageously step forward, awkwardly, and start their new lives without the ship and its nanny-state society.

And if you stayed to watch the credits, the back story that unfold in the background animation, you'll see they better their world not by taking orders from the "Autopilot" but by cooperating and working together to plant food, recover from garbage and to rebuild without the over arching authority.

That certainly seems like a libertarian storyline to me?

I would also add that WALL*E indulges in a few verboten activities that libertarians would love and the MPAA and the RIAA would despise - he watches his pirated version of "Hello Dolly" on his iPod and plays the ripped version of the music on his internal tape deck. He is self reliant, gathering and using spare parts he finds to fix himself and create his home, without relying on "the mother ship" to do it for him, like the bots on the Axiom do.

All that, but some people still call it a liberal propaganda film.

As others have pointed out, if you are so humourless as to be caterwauling about a kids movie like this, without seeing that obviously there are elements of both liberal and conservative politics, than how can anyone take you seriously.

"The fundamental story of the movie is about a culture beholden to a nanny state - in this case, a literal nanny state that coddles them like babies from the cradle to the grave, a world where individual initiative is destroyed and cultural history is entirely alien to the entire human race. Basically, it’s the exact thing that conservatives have been warning us about for years, wrapped up in a movie with cute robots who rebel against it and lead humanity to a hunting-gathering-growing Earth."

Indeed.

Environmental destruction happens and sometimes, the best laid plans of a statist, technological solution are worse. Only when people are free to face adversity and make free choices, not preprogrammed one, will the world be saved.

That is the message of WALL*E. That is the message to the environmentalists who think that answer to state capitalist created pollutions and environmental destruction is more state regulation and exemption.

And it has cute robots, which will be used to market thousands of toys for the next two year.

But its anti-capitalist.

Right.

These people really need to get a sense of humour and get over themselves.

Note:

No doubt, people will not agree with my opinion that WALL*E is really a classic of libertarianism. That's ok. Like most art and literature, there is enough within the characters, story and animation to evoke the sentiments of nearly any political leaning. My point is not so much to convince people that WALL*E is about libertarianism or libertarian ideals, but rather to point out that I was able to find, rather easily, some very libertarian themes in a film that is being panned by conservatives and vulgar libertarians as "liberal propaganda". I found much more libertarian ideas than liberal ones.

It merely shows that some humourless conservatives and Randian libertarians will immediately put on their dogmatic blinders and try to find anything they can use against 'teh libruls'. they are just angry and jealous that this film is popular.

Its just a movie about cute robots. Get over it.

(h/t to John)

A discussion for another day

That is often how my forays into discussing state often end up with my friends in the Progressive blogsphere. If I inform then that libertarianism isn't what is preached by CATO or the AEI, they thank me but almost always tell em they will get around to discussing that more in-depth another day. Given the recent issues around free speech, human rights commission and the role of the state, I thought today was finally a good day.

"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.... The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases." Thomas Jefferson

The "state" is a social institution, merely a relationship among people, laying down rules for human interaction. In that sense, the state is morally neutral; that is, it is a tool that is neither good nor evil in and of itself, but only in how it is used.

Sounds pretty tame, right?

That tool, unfortunately, is unique in human existence in that it is not voluntary and, to paraphrase Max Weber , it "claims to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force" usually within a geographic area. That means it can do things 'legitimately' that if you did them, it would be a crime.

The state become "evil" when it is used by people to do "evil" things. The Holocaust, the Gulag, genocides in Rwanda and the Balkans are examples of evil people utilizing the state for evil purposes.

The state can also seemingly be used for "good" as well. When placed in the hand of "good" people it can by used to stop the atrocities above.

The entire struggle between ideologies, between "left" and "right" has been to wrest control of this Leviathan and to use its power - the power of the sole use of force and coercion - to do "good". That power can force people to do things against their will, can confiscate and redistribute property and wealth to solve inequities.

If only the right people can just control it....

But the right people can never just "control it". The state is not just about relationships, its about privilege. The state is an entity which not only claims the monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force, it bestows that power on those who have wrested control of it and those people use that power and privilege to their own advantage, even to the detriment of others. And the whole time, they say its for "the greater good". Witness the crimes of Robert Mugabe, crimes that would be impossible without the apparatus of the state to carry them out - central bank printing presses and armed police.

But even in our own country, the use of state power to enhance and bestow privilege is commonplace. Regardless of who is in power, the regulations serve to help one group over the others. Even regulations said to be for safety can and are used to raise the barrier to entry into a market and stifling competition (thus raising prices). Laws are put in place that often help certain corporations or groups. Anti-union legislation, called "Right to Work" has the effect of keeping wages low, while pro-Union legislation creates artificial scarcity and drives prices up. So called "free trade" agreements allow for the flow of capital (good for big multinational corporations) but not labour (bad for small business and wage labourers). The state in Canada used its power to try to wipe out Aboriginal culture and language, "for their own good."

Our state today is no different in hierarchy and privilege granting, than it was 500, 1000 or 5000 years ago, we have merely changed the name of the King or Emperor or Chieftain to President or Prime Minister. Warlords, Dukes, and Oligarchs are now CEOs and Corporate officers, gaining the same kind of benefit and privilege from "legislatures" as their predecessors did from alliances with Kings. We aren't serfs and peasants, but wage slaves an indebted servants nonetheless, always hoping the next vote will actually make it all stop.

Because we have not choice. We must obey or the state and those who run it can 'legitimately' kidnap and imprison you or steal your property or enslave you for war.

Statism and the state are then, about preserving the privilege of those elites that can gain control of it. Just as racism, sexism and homophobia are really about maintaining or regaining similar privileges by oppressing others. It is a blunt, violent dangerous instrument.

What if there were no state? What if people could freely choose whether to associate and organize themselves? What if it were recognized that except for self-defense, there is no "legitimate" use of force against others? What if people could choose between differing, competing entities for the "services" the state currently "offers"?

I view the state as a gun. A large gun that is very powerful and has unlimited bullets. And there is only one and every so often, we decide who gets to shoot the gun. No the gun could be used to prevent one group from harming another, but often at the expense of another. Or it could be used to harm those groups. The gun never runs out of bullets because, no matter who controls it, they stick the gun in our face and steal our money in order to buy the bullets.

Lefties, if such a gun existed, would you not be demanding gun control? Or abolition of the gun?

Righties, if such a gun existed, would you want it used against you, to take your property? Would you want it to be given to those you disagree with?

I would like to see a truly voluntary society, one where we negotiate with each other, associate with each other and trade with each other, freely, without forced privilege or coercion. That means not state and "government" is only that which people agree to at any given time.

It would be easy to implement - make taxes voluntary. Make them specific. If I want my tax money to go to the SWC, and Planned Parenthood clinics or non-profit public healthcare, it would. If I did not want it to fund wars or subsidize the most profitable industry in the world, it wouldn't. If I decided I could get better service elsewhere, from non-governmental agencies, I could get it. I would be in control. We would be in control.

Considering how historically the state has more often oppressed people than helped them, why would you want to give anyone that power.

I don't expect to "convert" anyone with this. I do hope that some people consider the what the state is more carefully and not assume having a state is the natural order of things. I hope people question the very existence and necessity of the state, rather than accept it "just because"...

So, the question is, why do we need an institution with the monopoly on legitimate violence? Why do we need a state?

Left to Right - A perspective

With the latest electoral machinations going on in Quebec, the confusion that is the "left-right" paradigm has reared its head again. Despite the efforts of the Stageleft Bunker to bring some sanity to the discussion using the "quadrant" picture of political belief, clearly some people don't get it.

While the quadrant is much better than the old left-right idea, I prefer a simpler and more historically accurate line of reasoning as presented by Karl Hess in his book Dear America:

My own notion of politics is that it follows a straight line rather than a circle. The straight line stretches from the far right where (historically) we find monarchy, absolute dictatorships, and other forms of absolutely authoritarian rule. On the far right, law and order means the law of the ruler and the order that serves the interest of that ruler, usually the orderliness of drone workers, submissive students, elders either totally cowed into loyalty or totally indoctrinated and trained into that loyalty. Both Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler operated right-wing regimes, politically, despite the trappings of socialism with which both adorned their regimes....

The far left, as far as you can get away from the right, would logically represent the opposite tendency and, in fact, has done just that throughout history. The left has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands.

—Karl Hess, Dear America [emphasis mine]

Hess was a former Barry Goldwater speech writer and Republican hawk that went through a kind of conversion to anarchism in the 60's and 70's. It was through his travels across the spectrum that he came up with the above observations and I believe it is most accurate.

It is about authoritarianism and hierarchy, not who supports what program. Based on this then, out Canadian spectrum would look like this:


Libertarians------------>NDP->Liberals-->CPC-->Nazis/Communists-->Absolute Monarchs

Economically it resembles this:

Decentralized voluntary------------>Planned--Corporatist-->Planned Communist---> Feudal
Free Market----------------------------------------------------------------------->Total Control

So, as Sheldon Richman has observed, the true left are the libertarians and the anarchists, who most value freedom - both social and economic - while the right are those who wish to impose their authority - both social and economic - upon others. The imposition of authority can come directly from the state, or via crony capitalism and state intervention in the economy on behalf of the corporate elites.

In Canada then, we really only have varying degrees of authoritarianism in our mainstream parties. So, when a Conservatives says they are a libertarian, they are lying - as long as they are okay with state or corporate control and favors, they are not in favour of freedom. When a Liberal or NDP says they are concerned with your liberty, they are lying - as long as they wish to regulate and legislate your economic activity and behaviour, the are not in favour of freedom.

The only real difference between our parties are who their corporate and union friends are and who they will rule for.

Update:

As per Ron's comment below, I'd like to make it clear that I don't see much of a difference between the major parties. Sadly my ascii art capabilities are not up to the task. There are very little differences between them. The NDP would have you give up economic liberty for lots of (perceived) personal liberty and the Conservatives would have you give up personal liberty for lots of (perceived) economic liberty. The Liberals will take a bit of both, and tell you they are moderate. In the end, you are still ruled by people who will use force and coercion against you and tell you they are doing it in your best interests, when its really in their interests and that of their cronies, be they unions or corporations or both.

The Problem with Conservatives

While I'm sure most of my Prog Blog friends won't agree with everything Sean Gangol of The Libertarian Enterprise has to say, I'm sure they will agree with his assessment of Conservatives. Read it and see if it reminds of of anyone you have encountered in the blogsphere or in real life.

The money quote:

"If you truly want to live in a free society, you must have tolerance for things you don't like. You may not like abortion, drugs or homosexuality, but these are things you have to co-exist with if you want to live free. If you are the type that want control over other people's bodies or if you want to treat a certain group of people like secondary citizens, then a police state is the only place you belong."

Exactly.

(Hat tip to Strike the Root)

My Philosophy

A while back, I was asked "Why?" by many friends in the blogging world who were curious as to the changes I made.

This is my answer. (By Ken Schooland.)

These are the first principles from which my political stances emanate. It is neither "left" nor "right". It is about freedom and liberty - true freedom and liberty.

Any questions?

Update:

This from Catfarmer pretty much says it all too, and far more eloquently than I could.

Keep the questions coming.

A New Focus

Earlier today, I quit the NDP.

Now, this has nothing to do with the NDP per se, but with politics, parties and government in general. I am most certainly not leaving to join the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Greens or any other party. These last few months I have utterly and profoundly lost all faith that working in government and via the state can affect any real positive changes in society. Indeed, I see that it can have the exact opposite effect.

Liberals lie to get in power and stay in power. Conservatives do the same. For all its good intentions, the NDP seem to have lost its direct active and cooperative heritage and is trying to play the other parties on their terms instead of its own. I think my frustration showed through quite obviously in my last post.

No, from now on I will concentrate only on non-governmental organizations, direct action and community organizations. I now honestly believe that the only way to affect change is at the personal, local level, between individuals who want to change and take control themselves, instead of taking orders from others or relying on their 'good intentions.'

Does that mean I am no longer a 'lefty' or 'progressive'? Of course I am. I still believe that every person has dignity and is free to do anything or live anyway, so long as it causes no harm or infringes on the freedom and dignity of anyone else. I will simply have a new and different focus, a focus that does not include using the state. I will look for solutions that do not require multi-billion dollar programs or circus debates in parliament, but that small, decentralized groups of like-minded people or groups of people can do. I will look for solutions that fight corporate power, not feed it.

What do these changes make me? A left libertarian. An anarchist. Whatever other label you wish. Apart from no longer accepting the state, I hold the same principles I always have. I merely wish to work for them in a different way. I'll still post my opinions on the politics of the day as I always have, but I certainly will not be partisan about it - I don't have a dog in that fight anymore.

I will leave it to my blogging friends to decide if that's something they can live with. I genuinely like and respect everyone as I always have, if that makes a difference.

I will leave it to Rob as to whether I will still be welcome in the Blogging Dippers.

Any questions?