Share this fundraiser with friends online using ChipIn!

Support Anarchist Bloggers!

Anarchoblogs depends on contributions from readers like you to stay running. We're doing a fundraising drive for the months of October and November.

Donations provide for the costs of running anarchoblogs.org and provide direct financial support to active Anarchoblogs contributors. See the donation page for more details.


A esquerda punitiva e a criminalização da homofobia

Em seu clássico “A esquerda punitiva”, Maria Lúcia Karam critica a esquerda brasileira que, abandonando suas mais antigas concepções sobre mudança social, uniram suas forças com aqueles que desejam a intensificação do direito criminal como forma primária de resolver conflitos na sociedade e garantir a paz social.

Karam observa que esquerda se esqueceu de que o aparato repressor do estado brasileiro se volta primariamente contra os mais marginalizados, servindo muitas vezes como forma de higienização social, e que a mera proposta de criminalização e repressão pela esquerda (como o combate à criminalidade financeira) não resolve esta contradição estrutural do sistema.

Um exemplo paradigmático disso é o problema da segurança criado pelo tráfico de drogas: ao invés de apoiar uma maior repressão ao tráfico de drogas para reduzir a sensação de insegurança, a esquerda brasileira devia refletir sobre o fato de que é a criminalização das drogas que cria o ciclo de violência relacionado à droga atualmente em nosso país, e, portanto, é necessário lutar por esta redução do papel do direito criminal justamente como forma de reduzir a violência.

A conclusão de Karam é que o papel da esquerda deveria ser o de crítica ao sistema criminal vigente, não ao reforço de sua lógica.

Precisamos voltar à crítica à esquerda punitiva agora, durante as eleições.

No debate da última segunda-feira (29/09), o candidato Levi Fidélix fez declarações ofensivas e homofóbicas em rede nacional, após ter sido perguntado pela candidata Luciano Genro sobre sua posição a respeito do casamento igualitário. Fidélix demonstrou a típica repulsa heteronormativa – travestida de defesa da “família tradicional” – à homossexualidade, mas foi ainda mais longe, ao afirmar que “aparelho excretor não reproduz” para justificar sua rejeição ao casamento igualitário e que os não heterossexuais devem ser excluídos do convívio social de alguma maneira, ficando “bem longe” do resto da sociedade para tratar de seus supostos distúrbios afetivos e psíquicos.

Ato contínuo, muitas pessoas que se identificam à esquerda brasileira manifestaram-se em favor da criminalização da homofobia e utilizaram o exemplo da fala de Fidélix como exemplo daquilo que o direito criminal deve combater. A homofobia deveria ser crime tal como o racismo, argumenta este setor da esquerda brasileira. Mas na defesa dessa posição, incorrem no erro da esquerda punitiva.

A criminalização de uma conduta não pode ser a alternativa primária para compor conflitos sociais, porque se trata da forma mais coercitiva de fazê-lo e que deveria ser invocada apenas para atentados aos direitos individuais.

O entendimento da criminalização como uma solução para todos os problemas humanos só tem expandindo a fiscalização do estado sobre a vida em detrimento da liberdade humana. Sob esse ponto de vista, não há comportamento individual que não possa ser incluído nas nossas fichas criminais.

Criminalizar opiniões consideradas inaceitáveis foi um método comum de todo regime autoritário que já houve na história humana. Nunca foi uma ferramenta de transformação social, mas sim uma ferramenta reacionária. Não será purificada porque vamos finalmente criminalizar as opiniões que de fato mereceriam punição. Continua a ser um método autoritário para calar o dissenso social.

Criminalizar opiniões é um reacionarismo porque, como bem ilustra Steven Pinker em Os Anjos Bons da Nossa Natureza, as grandes mudanças humanitárias na história moderna não advieram da “criminalização das opiniões conservadoras” (o que sequer era possível à época), mas de um processo histórico mais complexo que incluiu a conquista da descriminalização das opiniões, com a garantia da liberdade de expressão ao indivíduo. Para garantir a paz social, a grande descoberta liberal é a de que não precisamos concordar sobre tudo, mas concordar sobre quem tem o direito de decidir para si: o indivíduo.

A criminalização atual da homofobia e do racismo pode ser futuramente problemática: muitas pessoas acusam as feministas de “misândricas” e o movimento LGBT de “heterofóbico”. São acusações absurdas, mas não é difícil pensar na defesa da supressão desses discursos, já que seus opostos podem (machismo e homofobia) podem se tornar crimes. Não há nenhuma garantia de que estes discursos também não venham a ser criminalizados como opiniões preconceituosas em algum momento futuro, em prejuízo da discussão livre dos movimentos sociais e da emancipação das minorias.

Portanto, a melhor forma de combater o racismo, a homofobia e outras culturas preconceituosas não advém da sua criminalização. Como Mano Ferreira escreveu no texto “Por um princípio da não opressão”:

“A construção de um princípio liberal da não opressão, como toda a boa tradição do liberalismo, deve ter como norte o aumento da liberdade humana. Desse modo, creio que será através das redes de cooperação voluntária e do empoderamento social do oprimido que construiremos as bases mais legítimas e eficientes de combate à opressão. Nesse processo, é necessário um aprofundamento sobre os mecanismos da opressão e suas possibilidades de desmonte – missão na qual devemos reconhecer a importância de autores com outras perspectivas epistemológicas, compreendê-los e ressignificá-los.”

A ação direta e o boicote social podem ser instrumentos muito úteis neste sentido, como já destaquei que ativistas feministas podem usar para combater a cultura do estupro.

O paradigma da criminalização da opinião deve ser superado nas lutas por causas progressistas, uma vez que a emancipação das minorias está sendo e será obtida por meio de um processo histórico de consolidação, ampliação e esclarecimento das redes de cooperação social voluntária, no qual a criminalidade estatal e a opressão social vão sendo postas em cheque e rejeitadas em favor da liberdade humana.

flattr this!

Libertarian Socialism?

Some people have a hard time seeing how a libertarian could call himself or herself a socialist. I understand the confusion. But in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this was far less a mystery. In market anarchist Benjamin Tucker’s day, socialism was more an umbrella term than it is today. It essentially included anyone who thought the reigning political economy — which they called capitalism (and saw as a system of state privilege for the employer class) — denied workers the full product they would have been earning in some alternative system. The Tuckerite socialists’ alternative was full laissez faire — without patents, tariffs, government-backed money/banking, government land control, etc. The collectivist socialists had some nonmarket system in mind. The point is that socialism was more a negative statement — against capitalism — than a unified positive agenda on behalf of a specific alternative system.

Some might say that the common element for all these variants of socialism was a belief in the labor theory of value. But it may be more precise to say that the comment element was more general: namely, that workers were cheated by the reigning system. That need not commit one to the labor theory. (On the relationship between cost of production and price in Austrian economics, see my “Value, Cost, Marginal Utility, and Böhm-Bawerk.“) In fact, Austrian economics contains an implicit exploitation theory, which was made explicit by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. As I wrote in “Austrian Exploitation Theory“:

Böhm-Bawerk was merely applying the more general exploitation theory held by free-market thinkers at least back to Adam Smith: Monopolies and oligopolies (suppressed competition) harm consumers and workers through higher prices and lower wages. For Smith monopoly was essentially the result of government privilege. This largely has been the view of later Austrians, also.

This should be uncontroversial. In the corporate state, government privilege restricts competition among employers in a variety of ways and — just as important, if not more so — forecloses or raises the cost of self-employment and other alternatives to traditional wage labor. So worker bargaining power is reduced. The difference between what workers would have made in a freed market and what they actually make represents systemic exploitation.

I’m not saying that libertarians should call themselves socialists today. That would not communicate well. But this semantic history has its value.

flattr this!

We Are All Creative Beings.


        In this so called modern society, work and poverty stifle creativity. You step from school on to the conveyor belt of work, and you are carried along with sign posts along the way shouting about the importance of "getting on", "getting ahead", gaining possessions, trinkets, beads and baubles. It's all packaged for you, just work hard and pop into the shopping mall and pick up the latest, "thing". No need to think, the ads will tell what is the latest and the best. Watch grand events, spectacular shows, no need to participate, leave that to the experts.
      How much richer would your life be if you got involved, in things, learned to do, started to create and participate? Just be, instead of an applauding bystander.
This from Not Buying Anything:
Author Kurt Vonnegut said,
      "Practice any art, music, singing, dancing, acting, drawing, painting, sculpting, poetry, fiction, essays, reportage, no matter how well or badly, not to get money and fame, but to experience becoming, to find out what's inside you, to make your soul grow."


        If you are like most people you harbour regrets about not following an artistic whim that interested you earlier in life, but was sacrificed for "more important" things. Now is the time to make it happen whether it is photography, knitting, or learning the Lindy Hop.
       When you have the time you can follow your passions. You can have fun. You can grow your soul through expressing your creativity. It will change you, and it will change the world.
Read the full article HERE:

Visit ann arky's home at www.radicalglasgow.me.uk


Informe del coordinador de medios hispanos, agosto y septiembre de 2014

Durante agosto y septiembre traduje al español “Por qué el Papa está menos equivocado que Keith Farrell” y “El rol de los bienes comunales en un mercado libre“, ambos de Kevin Carson, y “El anarquismo individualista y la jerarquía” de Cory Massimino. También publiqué un artículo propio en español, “Los fondos buitre vs. Argentina“, y reproduje la traducción al español de Javier Villate de “‘Economía verde’: demasiado verde para ser buena“, de Kevin Carson.

Por último, pero no menos importante, traduje por primera vez al inglés un artículo originalmente escrito en español: “La situación del trabajador en Argentina” de Horacio Langlois.

En C4SS dependemos exclusivamente de las contribuciones de nuestros lectores para mantener el trabajo por nuestra causa, por lo que tu contribución es sumamente valiosa para nosotros. Si crees que C4SS es un proyecto importante para promover una noción de genuina libertad económica y social, te invitamos a apoyarnos con una donación.

¡Salud y libertad!

Alan Furth

Spanish Media Coordinator Report, August-September 2014

During August and September I translated into Spanish “Why the Pope is Less Wrong Than Keith Farrell” and “The Role of Commons in a Free Market,” both by Kevin Carson, and “Individualist Anarchism and Hierarchy” by Cory Massimino. I published an original op-ed in Spanish, “Vulture Funds vs. Argentina,” and I reproduced Javier Villate’s translation of Kevin Carson’s “‘Green Economy?’ We’re Not Green Enough to Buy It.”

Last but not least, I translated into English an article originally written in Spanish for the first time: “The Situation of the Argentine Worker,” by Horacio Langlois.

At C4SS we depend exclusively on the contributions of our readers for supporting our cause, so your contribution is extremely valuable for us. If you believe that C4SS is an important endeavor for promoting genuine ideas about economic and social freedom, please consider making a donation today.

¡Salud y libertad!

Alan Furth

flattr this!

Austrian Exploitation Theory

Marx had no monopoly.

Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (1851-1914), the second-generation giant of Austrian economics, famously refuted the theory, most commonly associated with Marx, that the employer-employee relationship is intrinsically exploitative. Less well known is that Böhm-Bawerk had an exploitation theory of his own, which he expressed in his 1889 masterpiece, Positive Theory of Interest, volume two of his three-part Capital and Interest.

To recap his critique, which is found in History and Critique of Interest Theories (volume one of Capital and Interest, 1884): Marx (and pre-Marxian thinkers) believed workers are routinely exploited by being paid less than what their products fetch in the market. That’s because, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes, for Marx labor is priced “in terms of the amount of socially necessary labour power required to produce it,” that is, the products necessary just to keep the worker alive. (Marx derived this from the labor theory of value he inherited from Adam Smith and David Ricardo.) Yet a worker may produce more than that bare amount in a day. In that case the “surplus value” goes to the employer, or capitalist. Capitalists get away with this because they control the means of production. Workers, having been deprived of those means, have no choice but to offer themselves as laborers and take whatever they can get. The alternative is starvation. Thus they are ripe for exploitation.

“Distribution” Taken for Granted

In focusing on the exploitation question, Böhm-Bawerk took the legitimacy of the “distribution” of the means of production for granted, and of course he rejected the labor theory of value, or of price formation. (I can’t discuss here the legitimate objection that historically governments arranged for the few to control the means of the production at the expense of the many, forcing them onto the labor market. To the extent that is true, the wage system isexploitative, but the culprit is the State, not the market.)

Böhm-Bawerk responded to the exploitation theorists that the difference between what a worker is paid and the market price of his product can be explained without resort to exploitation theory. One component of the employer’s profit is interest on the money he advances workers as wages while the product is being readied for sale. Making and marketing products take time. Typically, Böhm-Bawerk said, workers cannot afford to wait until the product is sold before they are paid. They want a check every week. But how can they be paid before their products have been sold? Their employers pay them out of money accumulated previously. Thus wages are in effect a loan, which like all loans is repaid with interest. This is so because of time preference: We value present goods more highly than future goods, meaning present goods are discounted from their future value. Other things equal, X future dollars are worth less than X dollars today. Or to look at it from the other direction, if you want to use my X dollars today, requiring me to abstain from using them, I’ll want to be paid more than X dollars when the loan comes due. The interest payment is my reward for abstention.

As Böhm-Bawerk wrote, “We have traced all kinds and methods of acquiring interest to one identical source — the increasing value of future goods as they ripen into present goods.”

If Böhm-Bawerk is right, and wages are in effect a loan to be “repaid” when the product sells, then we shouldn’t be surprised if the revenue from the sale is greater than wages paid (and other input costs). No exploitation need have occurred. (“Profit” has other components as well, including pure entrepreneurial profit from arbitrage, that is, from actualizing the hitherto overlooked potential value of undervalued resources.)

Pure Theory

Böhm-Bawerk was writing pure theory, as if he were saying, “In a free market here is what would happen.” He was not implying that the theory would describe a particular time and place where the market was less than free “[T]he essence of an institution is one thing, and the circumstances which may accidentally accompany it in its practical working out are another,” he wrote.

In fact, Böhm-Bawerk noted, exploitation can occur when competition among employers is suppressed, raising the employer’s rate of interest to a level higher than it would have been under free competition and thus lowering wages. That, he said, was usury.

He writes, “It is undeniable that, in this exchange of present commodities against future, the circumstances are of such a nature as to threaten the poor with exploitation of monopolists.”

Böhm-Bawerk was merely applying the more general exploitation theory held by free-market thinkers at least back to Adam Smith: Monopolies and oligopolies (suppressed competition) harm consumers and workers through higher prices and lower wages. For Smith monopoly was essentially the result of government privilege. This largely has been the view of later Austrians, also. (Mises allowed for the theoretical possibility of a resource monopoly without government privilege.) However, Böhm-Bawerk did not explicitly attribute monopolistic exploitation to the State in this discussion.

Competition Suspended

“[E]very now and then,” he wrote,“ something will suspend the capitalists’ competition, and then those unfortunates, whom fate has thrown on a local market ruled by monopoly, are delivered over to the discretion of the adversary…. [H]ence the low wages forcibly exploited from the workers — sometimes the workers of individual factories, sometimes of individual branches of production, sometimes — though happily not often, and only under peculiarly unfavourable circumstances — of whole nations” (emphasis added).

Böhm-Bawerk doesn’t say what that “something” might be. Maybe he means private collusion; maybe he means government protection from competition. He gives only this clue: “[L]ike every other human institution, interest is exposed to the danger of exaggeration, degeneration, abuse; and, perhaps, to a greater extent than most institutions.” (Alas, thanks to government-corporate collusion, what he thought was rare has actually been the rule in so-called “capitalist” countries.)

He cautions that “what we might stigmatise as ‘usury’ does not consist in the obtaining of a gain out of the loan, or out of the buying of labour, but in the immoderate extent of that gain…. Some gain or profit on capital there would be if there were no compulsion on the poor, and no monopolising of property…. It is only the height of this gain where, in particular cases, it reaches an excess, that is open to criticism, and, of course, the very unequal conditions of wealth in our modern communities bring us unpleasantly near the danger of exploitation and of usurious rates of interest.”

The Essence of Interest

Böhm-Bawerk takes pains to emphasize that he is not condemning interest per se: “But what is the conclusion from all this? Surely that, owing to accessory circumstances, interest may be associated with a usurious exploitation and with bad social conditions; not that, in its innermost essence, it is rotten.”

Yet he asks, “[W]hat if these abuses are so inseparably connected with interest that they cannot be eradicated, or cannot be quite eradicated?” His response:

Even then it is by no means certain that the institution should be abolished…. Arrangements absolutely free from drawback are never allotted to us in human affairs….

Instead of the absolute good, which is beyond reach, we must choose what, on the whole, is the relative best, where the balance, between attainable advantage and the drawbacks that must be taken into the bargain, is the most favourable possible for us.

In the end he doesn’t believe abuse is inseparably connected to interest: “There is no inherent blot in the essential nature of interest. Those, then, who demand its abolition may base their demand on certain considerations of expediency, but not, as the Socialists do at present, on the assertion that this kind of income is essentially unjustifiable.”

There are unanswered questions about Böhm-Bawerk’s position, but we do know that the thinker who refuted Marx’s exploitation theory had one of his own.

flattr this!

The Stupidity of the Elites

Sergio Malbergier writes (“E a estupidez, estupido!,” Folha de S. Paulo, September 11) about what marks, according to him, the current Brazilian presidential campaign: The utter ignorance of the voters. Malbergier believes that candidates and their marketers are so convinced of the electorate’s stupidity (Malbergier does not seem willing to differentiate between stupidity and ignorance) that they will always and without fail bet on hollow proposals that ignore elementary economic principles.

Malbergier is right, of course. Candidates, not only in the Brazilian campaign but in any other at any place on the planet, are fully convinced that the people are but a mass of brain-dead idiots ready to be molded and manipulated according to the politicians’ caprices. But Malgerbier goes further than only how politicians see the situation; to him the people are indeed stupid. The unpopularity of proposals centered around “austerity” measures are proof of that.

There is a certain inferiority complex in that diagnosis, since in Europe the population showed strong opposition to welfare spending cuts. Leaving aside questions of the relevance of austerity programs (after all, corporate subsidies are overwhelmingly larger than welfare projects), I intend to focus on the more basic question: Are the people stupid?

Some economists like to use the concept of rational ignorance to describe the behavior of the voters. It is simply not worth it for the average individual to worry about political questions over which he will not have any palpable influence. According to this theory, the people are bad at voting because the incentives to pursue knowledge about relevant social issues are insufficient. Costs are too big in comparison to possible benefits in elections that involve hundreds of thousands or millions of other individuals.

Of course, that doesn’t happen by chance: Representative democracy is designed to mitigate the power of opinions that come from below. The system is set up in a way that perpetuates the influence of the political elite and minimizes significant changes. Representative democracy guarantees at most that there should be some degree of rotation between the power elites that control the state with no violence; before western democracy took over, changes in the elite in control of the state required too much bloodshed. This does not mean that the people exert no influence over the government, but it does entail that this influence is much smaller than is conventionally assumed. The very definition of what is subject to public discussion or what the social issues are is guided by the elite’s opinion.

However valid, rational ignorance seems to be limited. The population, as a whole has uninformed opinions about political and economic themes not because they are stupid or don’t see the benefits in getting informed, but because these questions never present themselves clearly to the public.

The intelligentsia believes that the people are incapable of thinking for themselves and that any social changes will be resisted by that ignorant public. Candidates count on the reactive conservatism of a large sector of the populace to get elected. None of the candidates that lead the presidential polls intend to push any relevant change in frequently debated issues. For instance, changes to abortion, gay marriage and drug legislations are themes that are simply not present in their “proposals.” But that happens only because these questions are never subjected to public debates.

Evidently, the people are going to be against drug legalization; that is the status quo. Public opinion polls that are supposed to reflect the average opinion on a given matter only reflect the status quo. Current institutions exist because they are supported by the population. If the people generally did not agree with them, it would be hard for them to resist for long. Stating that the people are against drug legalization says absolutely nothing: Drug liberation has not been subject of public debate. Only if it was would the people be forced to develop a more or less coherent set of beliefs on the matter.

It is convenient for the intellectual and political elite to assume that the people are stupid or invariably ignorant, because then those elites get carte blanche to act on behalf of everyone.

But to have the people stop being ignorant about issues that affect their lives, it is not enough to bemoan it. Their opinion has to be heard.

Intellectuals and politicians will probably not buy this argument. Maybe they are the stupid ones.

flattr this!

punctured

meanwhile matt bai is everywhere with his book about 'when american politics went tabloid': the gary hart sex scandal during the 1988 presidential campaign. so one thing's obvious in the radio interviews etc: hart is bai's hero and he thinks that's where everything went terribly wrong. i can see the argument that who one may be fucking is not really the most relevant piece of info with regard to political leaders. but what i like about this era of examining leaders' private lives is that it continually punctures the mystique in which power enshrouds itself. it shows people wearing suits or uniforms who emerged from yale law school to run our nation are at least as gross and stupid as anyone else. it reveals over and over and over why people want power and what they do with it when they get it. when you get to the point where there just is no mystique, no possible cult, of state power, when all glamour has been scrubbed clean, then everyone is a de facto anarchist,.

Tagged with: ,

ours is a cynical time…

the secret service fence-jumper scandal is the only thing they want to talk about on cnn and msnbc. war in the middle east has dwindled to irrelevance. amazingly, this is in a situation in which nothing really bad actually happened. whatever. chill and re-think your security.

meanwhile, morning joe among others is bemoaning the fact that one 'pillar' after another - all the institutions that the american people apparently trusted - the secret service, the nsa, the irs, congress, etc - has lost all credibility. thank god we still trust the military, seemed to be the consensus. so why would trusting the government be a desirable state, and when were the american people ever doltish or submissive enough to trust the irs or congress? i don't even think that is is physically, morally, or intellectually possible.

i hope they are being sarcastic about the military. trust the military? have you lost your fucking mind or been asleep for the last half century? also, what the hell, the military is precisely what gave us american hero omar gonzalez.

people who trust those who seize and hold power over them, or trust the institutions in which they are embedded, by which they are surveilled etc, are likely to be raped and executed, and, honestly, it's fundamentally their own doing: evidently what they want and deserve. right now people are just visibly yearning to submit, and are so upset and alienated that watching the news makes that harder. but a situation in which it is glaringly obvious that only a masochistic cretin would trust the authorities is better than a situation wherein everyone or indeed anyone trusts the authorities. that can only be based on secrecy and lies, because the fucking authorities are no better than you or me, to put it mildly.

Cop Block’s Pete Eyre Interviewed on Non-Partisan Liberty For All Radio

PeteNevadaCopBlockShirt 300x168 Cop Blocks Pete Eyre Interviewed on Non Partisan Liberty For All Radio

Pete Eyre Wearing a Really Cool Shirt

Last month on August 7th (2014), Pete Eyre did an interview on “Non-Partisan Liberty For All,” a Las Vegas based internet radio show that broadcasts on Blog Talk Radio. Among other things, Pete discussed with hosts Dave Bourne and Janel Florez (of MO/KS Cop Block and Women of Cop Block) his personal history and how he got involved in Anarchism and specifically Voluntaryism.

Also, Pete touched on some of the various projects he’s been involved in over the years, including Bureau Crash, the Motorhome Diaries with Ademo Freeman and Jason Talley (which is how I first met Pete back in 2009), Liberty On Tour (once again with Ademo), the Free State Project in New Hampshire, and of course Cop Block.

Pete is on for the first two of the three hours and talks fairly in-depth about his personal philosophies of government and how and why the government’s monopoly on law enforcement services and the judicial system results in a lack of accountability for the employees of that system, especially those that are given fancy costumes and a badge, then allowed to threaten others with weapons. There’s also some discussion of the approaches Pete takes to bring attention to and counteract the abuses spawned that corrupt system.

Motor Home Diaries Group Photo 300x225 Cop Blocks Pete Eyre Interviewed on Non Partisan Liberty For All Radio

Blast From the Past – A Group Photo from the Motor Home Diaries’ Las Vegas Visit in 2009.

As I often do, I also called in during the last hour of the show to discuss some of my own experiences with Pete and how helpful of a friend he has been over the years, even before I was involved officially with Cop Block. Also, I added some details about an incident Pete had mentioned earlier, in which Ademo was illegally arrested by the LVMPD during their visit to Las Vegas after doing a promo on Food Not Bombs Las Vegas for the  Motorhome Diaries for not showing his ID, which isn’t actually legally required (you are required to identify yourself if detained, but not to provide an ID card unless you are driving).

That was actually one of the earliest and most successful “call-floods,” which originally started after Joshua Lilly called and informed me that he had arrived to visit with them and instead saw Ademo being arrested and culminated in Ademo being released without charges after so many people called from around the country that the phones at the Regional Injustice Center were overloaded and knocked off line.

If you didn’t hear this interview when it was originally broadcast or last week when Dave replayed it, you can listen to the archived version which is embedded below:

Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Non Partisan Liberty For all on BlogTalkRadio

Thanks for reading. Cop Block’s Pete Eyre Interviewed on Non-Partisan Liberty For All Radio is a post from Nevada Cop Block

inappropriation

somehow the united states went from 'congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press' to “There are a lot of names and descriptions that were used over time that are inappropriate today,” FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said. “And I think the name this is attributed to the Washington football club is one of those.” in other words, we used to value a bold brawling discourse; now our speech is run by little schoolmarms: 'inappropriate!' honestly, that something is inappropriate, other things being equal, recommends it. i suppose 'appropriateness' is the constitutional standard on prior censorship of expression in our jurisprudence?