George Mason University's
History News Network
New entry

Liberty & Power: Group Blog



David T. Beito
The following is my response to comments made by Mark Brady and Bill Woolsey on the Max Borders' affair. To recap, as Matthew Barganier has noted, Borders said the following: "If boiling people alive best served the interests of the American people, then it would be neither be moral or immoral."

In response to Bill, Borders' wording about boiling people alive was more than"bad public relations." It was appalling regardless of context and strikes against the grain of every liberal tradition I understand and respect. It also shows a certain callousness and insensitivity which represents a dangerous, but increasingly important, strain among some"Team America" libertarians and many, many conservatives post 9-11.

I fully agree with Mark Brady that the quotation (in whatever context) is dangerously anti-cosmopolitan and dare I say jingoistic or, at the very least, encourages attitudes of that type. Many of us, including Mark, were first attracted to this movement in great part because it embraced universalism and respect for the dignity of individuals wherever they lived.

As to Bill's broader point, I do not think I ripped the quotation unfairly out of context (though I provided the necessary links so others could read all of Borders' comments). The fact that he made the statement at all shows a certain cavalier attitude which invites criticism.

Bill interprets Borders' view as a" contrarian notion that those who reject respecting the rights of some persons, have no rights that the person whose rights they reject is obligated to respect. And there seems to be some notion that those who live in communities where the rights of some persons are not enforced what no rights that the persons whose rights are not enforced have an obligation." I do share this specific contractarian notion (nor particularly fathom what it entails) but let me address both of those points.

As to the first, there are thousands of criminals in the United States who"reject respecting the rights of some persons." That is why so many are in prison in the first place. Since they do not respect my rights, does this mean that it is not immoral to boil them alive? If we lived in a society that did not condemn such an act as immoral, it would certainly not be a liberal one in any recognizable sense.

Perhaps, as the second section of this quotation indicates, Borders believes that it is not necessarily immoral to condemn the act of boiling people alive who are in" communities where the rights of some persons are not enforced."

Let me point out first, of course, that no society on earth (certainly not ours) fully enforces the rights of all individuals. The thousands of Americans who have lost their property through eminent domain to build shopping malls or have been thrown in jail for using or selling drugs are proof enough of that. Therefore, we have already flunked the test of respecting rights. To be sure, we are better than most societies but....that still leaves remarkably far from approximating the ideal.

Leaving aside morality, making it open season on foreign rights violators who do not live in societies which respect rights is not a very effective way to promote pro-liberty ideas in the world. If we do not lead by example, why should anyone bother to take what we have to say seriously?

To this day, for example, the United States has still not lived down the black mark of intentionally"boiling alive" thousands of non-combatants (including infants) at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Monday, April 4, 2005 - 09:59


David T. Beito
And, apparently, he once met with Eliott Abrams during the Reagan administration. You can't make this stuff up....or can you?

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 19:12


Kenneth R. Gregg

Bayard Taylor Rustin (b. 3/17/1912) was raised by his maternal grandmother in Pennsylvania, a Quaker by inclination, although nominally with the AME Church, and a charter member of the NAACP (in 1910). He adopted those Quaker principles--the equality of all human beings before God, the vital need for nonviolence, and the importance of dealing with everyone with love and respect. Rustin was one of the most important leaders of the American civil rights movement from the advent of its modern period in the 1950s until well into the 1980s. His behind-the-scenes role never garnered Rustin the public acclaim he deserved.

Rustin's career as political activist began in high school when he was arrested for refusing to sit in the balcony of the local moviehouse, dubbed Nigger Heaven. As offensive lineman on the football team, he instigated a revolt among his black teammates to their Jim Crow accommodations. He led a group of classmates in acts of defiance to such practices in restaurants, soda fountains, movie houses, department stores, and the YMCA. Graduating with honors in 1932, Rustin was class valedictorian and received a prize for excellence in public speaking.

In 1937, his permanent residence became New York City and enrolled in the City College of New York, , while singing in local clubs with African American folk artists Josh White and Huddie Ledbetter. At this time, Rustin began to organize for the Young Communist League of City College as their position on racial injustice appealed to him, although he later became disillusioned after the Communist Party's abrupt about-face on the issue of segregation in the American military in the wake of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. He broke with the Young Communist League and sought out A. Philip Randolph, head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and the leading articulator of the rights of Afro-Americans. Rustin led the youth wing on a march on Washington that Randolph envisioned. Randolph called off the demonstration when President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 8802, forbidding racial discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries. Randolph's calling off of the march caused a breach between them and Rustin transferred his organizing efforts to the peace movement.

A member of one of the government-recognized peace churches (the Fifteenth Street Meeting), he was entitled to do alternative service rather than serve in the armed services. Rustin found himself unable to accept this, given that many young men not members of recognized peace churches received harsh prison sentences for refusing to serve. In 1944, Rustin was found guilty of violating the Selective Service Act and was sentenced to three years in a federal prison. In March 1944 Rustin was sent to the federal penitentiary in Ashland, Kentucky where he set about to resist pervasive segregation in U.S. prisons. Rustin faced frequent cruelty with courage and nonviolent resistance.

After release from prison, Rustin became involved with the Fellowship of Reconciliation, which staged a Journey of Reconciliation through four Southern and border states in 1947 to test the application of the Supreme Court's recent ruling that discrimination in seating in interstate transportation was illegal. Rustin's resistance to North Carolina's Jim Crow law against integration in transportation earned him hard labor on a chain gang, where he met with the expected racist taunts and tortures.

Between 1947 and 1952, Rustin traveled to India and then to Africa under the aegis of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, exploring the nonviolent dimensions of Gandhi. Most of FOR's leaders were disciples of Mahatma Gandhi. With James Farmer as its race relations secretary and Rustin as field secretary, FOR was the progenitor of the Congress of Racial Equality. Founded in 1940 with Rustin as its first field secretary. CORE combined the racial militancy of Randolph with the tactics of the pacifist movement, centered around nonviolent direct action, for challenging Jim Crow in the South. Although CORE's experiments with sit-ins and boycotts were minimally effective in the 1940s, they constituted a political legacy that was readily adopted by the evolving civil rights movement in the 1950s. Then he worked for several years in a campaign against America's development of nuclear weapons and its programs for war preparedness. Soon after the abortive Journey of Reconciliation he traveled to Paris and Moscow with David Dellinger and other pacifists. In Paris he learned of emerging anticolonial struggles in Africa.

In 1953 Rustin was arrested for public indecency in Pasadena, California. Rustin's conviction and his relatively open attitude about his homosexuality set the stage for him to become an elder gay icon in the decades to come. Gay rights became a part of his belief in the inherent dignity of all oppressed people. As a consequence of his arrest, Rustin was to lose his position on the staff of the Fellowship of Reconciliation.

Rustin then began a twelve-year stint as executive secretary of the War Resisters League. Rustin also contributed greatly to a compilation of pacifist strategy, published in The Progressive and also as a monograph in 1959 by the American Friends Service Committee titled Speak Truth to Power.

When Rosa Parks's act of courage in December, 1955 precipitated the Montgomery bus boycott which would catapult Martin Luther King into a leadership position, Rustin was summoned to Montgomery the following February. In 1956 Rustin was approached by Lillian Smith, the Southern author of Strange Fruit, to provide Dr. Martin Luther King with some practical advice on how to apply Gandhian principles of nonviolence to the boycott of public transportation then taking shape in Montgomery, Alabama. On leave from the War Resisters League, Rustin spent time in Montgomery and Birmingham advising King, who had not yet completely embraced principles of nonviolence in his struggle.

At 44 he was a seasoned organizer; King, at 27, was a neophyte who by sheer accident was drawn into the swirling vortex of black revolt. King had previous academic exposure to Gandhi, but it was Rustin who prevailed on King to dispense with armed guards and to embrace nonviolent action as the trademark of the budding movement. It was also Rustin who forged links to radicals in the North. In April 1956 Liberation carried King's first piece of political journalism, and Rustin and the War Resisters League mobilized leading pacifists and radicals into a Committee for Nonviolent Integration which funneled aid to King. Rustin helped to organize yet another group, In Friendship, which sponsored a rally at Madison Square Garden that raised some $20,000 for the Montgomery Improvement Association. There was always nervousness among King's advisors about Rustin's Communist past and his homosexuality, but his organizing skills and political savvy proved indispensable.

It would be difficult to exaggerate Rustin's contribution as the Montgomery boycott evolved into a broad strategy for protest. Rustin" conceived and charted" the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957, along with Ella Baker and Stanley Levison. This was to serve as the organizational mechanism for King's ascent to national prominence. Over the next decade Rustin remained a close advisor to King, especially during moments of crisis. Rustin was the chief organizer of the Prayer Pilgrimage to Washington that took place on May 17, 1957 to urge President Eisenhower to enforce the Supreme Court's 1954 ruling that the nation's schools be desegregated.

Held at the Lincoln memorial on the third anniversary of the Brown decision, the Pilgrimage drew some 30,000 participants from labor, student, religious, and civil rights organizations. This was King's first major protest event outside the South, and his oratorical gifts captured the attention of commentators both inside and outside the movement. Rustin also had a hand in drafting King's first book, Stride Toward Freedom, which reached a national audience with the riveting story of the Montgomery boycott. In 1958 Rustin organized yet another mass demonstration in Washington -- the Youth March for Integrated Schools. These were the feats of creative organizing through which the civil rights movement grew from a regional protest against Jim Crow to a national movement for racial justice.

Rustin was"a leading member of the radical jet set," flying off to conferences in Europe, India, and Africa. In late 1959 Rustin was abroad protesting France's first nuclear test in the Sahara, and was absent from the planning for the 1960 national conventions, much to the ire of Randolph. According to Anderson,"Rustin therefore found himself in the middle of a tug-of-war between the two political causes to which he was equally committed, pacifism and black protest activism."

The high point of Bayard Rustin's political career was the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom which took place on August 28, 1963, the place of Dr. Martin Luther King's stirring "I Have a Dream" speech. King's celebrated I-have-a-dream oration has been embraced precisely because it vented no anger, cast no aspersions, but on the contrary, invoked America's ideals and substituted utopian reverie for political action. Rustin was by all accounts the March's chief architect. To devise a march of at least one-quarter of a million participants and to coordinate the various sometimes fractious civil rights organizations that played a part in it was a herculean feat of mobilization. While the March had all of the earmarks of protest, it represented the ascendancy of a new brand of coalition politics, the antithesis of the politics of confrontation that were at the core of the black protest movement.

By 1965 Rustin felt that the period for militant street action had come to an end; the legal foundation for segregation had been irrevocably shattered. Now came the larger, more difficult task of forging an alliance of dispossessed groups in American society into a progressive force. Rustin saw this coalition encompassing Afro-Americans and other minorities, trade unions, liberals, and religious groups. That Rustin's plan failed was due to the Vietnam war, which diverted the efforts into antiwar activism. Rustin's steadfast opposition to identity politics also came under criticism by exponents of the developing Black Power movement. His critical stance toward affirmative action programs and black studies departments in American universities was not a popular viewpoint among many of his fellow Afro-Americans, and as at various other times of his life Rustin found himself to a certain extent isolated.

Rustin worked as a delegate for the organization Freedom House, monitoring elections and the status of human rights in countries like Chile, El Salvador, Grenada, Haiti, Poland, and Zimbabwe. In all his efforts Rustin evinced a lifelong, unwavering conviction in behalf of the value of democratic principles. It was Rustin's human rights expedition to Haiti in 1987 that drew the final curtain on his life. After his visit, Rustin became ill. His symptoms were initially misdiagnosed as intestinal parasites and on August 21, 1987, Rustin was diagnosed with a perforated appendix. He died of cardiac arrest on August 24, 1987.

Although Bayard Rustin lived in the shadow of more charismatic civil rights leaders, he was an indispensable unsung force behind the movement toward equality for America's black citizens, and more largely for the rights of humans around the globe. Throughout his life, Rustin's Quakerism was a unifying force in his life. His efforts toward coalition politics, both within the labor movement and in Democratic Party politics, was to overtake his personal beliefs when he supported the Administration's line on Vietnam. In"An Open Letter to Bayard Rustin," Staughton Lynd had this objection:

"Why, Bayard? You must know in your heart that your position betrays your essential moralism over the years. The lesson of your apostasy on Vietnam appears to be that the gains for American Negroes you advise them to seek through coalition within the Democratic Party come only at a price. . . . The price is to make our brothers in Vietnam a burnt offering on the altar of political expediency."
[Jervis Anderson, Bayard Rustin: Troubles I've Seen: A Biography (New York, HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), pp. 295-96]

This from a man who chose prison over the Civilian Public Service; who had been a leading crusader for nonviolence in international affairs. There is paradox and tragedy that in his pursuit of coalition politics, The civil libertarian (although hardly an economic libertarian) Rustin betrayed the principles and the movement that he had done so much to advance. Once Rustin committed himself to the false god of coalition politics, all of his lifelong principles went asunder. There is also a lesson to be drawn from Rustin's political fall: to resist the blandishments of power during those rare moments of radical ascendancy.

A Selection of Articles by Bayard Rustin: We Challenged Jim Crow, Twenty-Two Days on a Chain Gang, From Protest to Politics, The Blacks and the Unions, Bayard Rustin Meets Malcolm X

Just KenCLASSical Liberalism

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 03:37


Jason Kuznicki
I have posted a reply to those who urged me to reconsider my views on Herbert Spencer. It may be read here (scroll down). The short verdict: He seems to offer a lot of good, but also one very serious mistake.

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 13:08


Kenneth R. Gregg

A recent report in the New Scientist by Celeste Biever of a yet-unpublished study suggests that modern humans may have driven Neanderthals to extinction 30,000 years ago because Homo sapiens unlocked the secrets of free trade, say a group of US and Dutch economists. The theory could shed new light on the mysterious and sudden demise of the Neanderthals after over 260,000 years of healthy survival.

Anthropologists have considered a wide range of factors which may explain Neanderthal extinction, including biological, environmental and cultural causes.

Jason Shogren, an economist at the University of Wyoming in Laramie, US, says part of the answer may lie in humans’ superior trading habits. Trading would have allowed the division of labour, freeing up skilled individuals, such as hunters, to focus on the tasks they are best at. Others, perhaps making tools or clothes or gathering food, would give the hunters resources in return for meat.

The idea that specialisation leads to greater success was first used in the 18th century to explain why some nations were wealthier than others. But this is the first time it has been applied to the Neanderthal extinction puzzle, says Shogren.

He cites archaeological evidence that suggests that humans, who joined Neanderthals in Europe about 40,000 years ago, specialised and traded both within and between regions. The evidence includes complex living quarters with different sections partitioned for different functions. Neanderthals, in contrast, lived in “largely unorganised” living spaces.

There is also evidence that the early humans, mainly one population called the Gravettians, imported materials. Ivory, stones, fossils, seashells and crafted tools were found dispersed through many regions. This greater pool of resources led to increased innovation, says Shogren.

Shogren tested his theory with simulations of population growth. He even gave the Neanderthals, who were larger than Homo sapiens, a head start by assuming they were better hunters and individually brought home more meat - which may or may be true.

But because humans were allowed to trade, in two of three similar simulations, they overcame this initial handicap and ousted the Neanderthals within 7000 years. In the third simulation, the two ended up co-existing.

“It’s an intriguing and novel idea,” says Delson. “But it requires stronger support.” He points out that the Gravettians in particular only emerged 28,000 years ago, while the last of the Neanderthals died about 29,000 years ago.

So the Gravettians could not have had very much influence in the extinction of the Neanderthals, he argues. “He also assumes that all they ate was meat, which of course is not true,” he adds.

The study will be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, co-authored by Erwin Bulte of Tilburg University in the Netherlands and Richard Horan at Michigan State University in East Lansing, US.

Thanks to Sean Corrigan for mentioning this report in the Mises Blog.

Just Ken

CLASSical Liberalism


Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 23:59


Jason Kuznicki
At my own blog, I've posted a Review of Bruce Caldwell's Hayek's Challenge. I found it an amazing book, one that fully lived up to the warm recommendations it received.

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 11:43


Chris Matthew Sciabarra

So much in the news on this April Fool's Day, 2005. For example, the"final verdict" on prewar"intelligence" has been issued. It is, of course, nothing of the sort. The"final verdict" won't be issued for years and years. But this particular verdict does make it appear that there were plenty of fools running America's"intelligence" community. American"homeland security" is gravely dependent on the quality of its intelligence. That should make all of us feel very safe.

And then, on the heels of the departure of NBC's Tom Brokaw and CBS's Dan Rather, another Long-Time Talking Head will be Leaving the Airwaves—this coming December: Ted Koppel, long-time host of ABC News'"Nightline." I've actually been a fan of"Nightline" for many years, if only because it does offer an opportunity for a more comprehensive look at the news of the day, with more in-depth interviews and coverage than that offered on the nightly news broadcasts.

I'm also a religious viewer of the Sunday morning news broadcasts, but I have found them infuriating for the last few years. I spend most Sunday mornings doing a most un-Godly thing: Cursing at the TV Screen. Not only because of what is being said, but because it's the same people saying the same things. Ted Koppel puts his finger on it. As the NY Times reports this morning:

Mr. Koppel said he had been concerned about what he saw as the uniformity of all the Sunday public affairs programs—particularly when a viewer can flip from one channel to the other and see people like the secretary of defense or secretary of state interviewed on each."That seems to be the general understanding in Washington these days," Mr. Koppel said."The administration sets the tone and theme and presents the same guests to all the programs at the same time. I don't think anyone is served by that."

Quite honestly, let me put it another way: ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

There.

That felt better.

[begin rant] Why don't they just call the Sunday morning news programs: The Condi Rice Show? Or The Don Rumsfeld Show? Or The John McCain Show? Or (up until recently) The Colin Powell Show? EVERY DAMN WEEK, the same people, over and over and over again. On every channel. Sometimes simultaneously. Taped broadcasts putting to rest the maxim that one can't be in two or three different places at the same time. Who needs a Pentagon Channel? [/end rant]

April Fool's Day? The Washington establishment makes fools of all of us, every day of the year.

Cross-posted to Notablog.


Friday, April 1, 2005 - 10:21


Sheldon Richman
Big news! Henry Hazlitt's classic, Economics in One Lesson, is now online, compliments of the Foundation for Economic Education. This is truly one of the great books on economics for lay readers. See the pdf file here.

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 16:44


Gene Healy
I was just saying to myself, you know, it's about time that somebody worked the insights of Irving Kristol about making peace with the welfare state into a flexible framework of pragmatic libertarianism. And presto, along comes the New Libertarian: a Journal of Neolibertarian Thought. Frankly, I like a journal whose inaugural essay begins"Frankly..." because then you know you're going to get some frank talk, like this, from editor Dale Franks:"Neos understand that a transformation towards what I like to call a Society of Liberty, will probably take a fair amount of time." I like to call it a"society of liberty" too. But it is better with the capitals.

As one of the editorials notes,"Doctrinaire hackles were raised recently" by Dale Franks' iconoclasm. And those are exactly the right hackles to raise. They'll probably even get some doctrinaire heckles, but I say that pomposity in defense of liberty is no vice, linguistic clarity in the pursuit of pragmatism no virtue.

Who is this"New Libertarian"? Contributor Max "Boil 'Em" Borders explains that, among other things, she"lives in a socio-political reality," and"is prepared to define her own rectitude." And how!

Do check it out.


Friday, April 1, 2005 - 16:52


Steven Horwitz
With a large hat tip to the excellent Cafe Hayek, this Coyote Blog piece on the effects of minimum wage hikes is fascinating and informative.

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 17:03