2015 Young Americans for Liberty National Convention - too triggered by feminism

Friday, July 31st, 2015 marked the first ever day I attended a Young Americans for Liberty National Convention. Despite travel plans that delayed me by a couple of days and had me stranded in New York City for an entire night, I was able to make it to YALcon for the last two days. The year before, many of my Students For Liberty Campus Coordinator friends stayed in DC after the Campus Coordinator Retreat in order to attend the 2014 YALcon. I was excited to attend this year's to find out what all the fuss was about.

At the 2015 International Students For Liberty Conference, after months of courtship with YAL (I think calling it that is pretty fitting), one of my friends started up the Western Washington University YAL chapter. The club became officially recognized by the school during spring quarter, with me as the treasurer. During spring break (before we became recognized), I attended the YAL Utah State Convention in...Utah. More specifically, Salt Lake City. I had a good time, despite the Leadership Institute having a strong presence there - it being no secret that I have a huge grudge against them.

Despite the more conservative bent of YAL compared to organizations like SFL (which describes itself as being big-tent), I considered rising up the ranks in YAL in order to become a State Chair. I spend a lot of, if not too much, time on libertarianism and my political activism, and of what I have done, I have never actually been paid for my work...reimbursements and the meager ad revenue don't count. I would have liked to see some of my work compensated. However, despite my beliefs that libertarians should work within conservative groups (as well as with liberals and other libertarians), YAL lent itself to conservatives a little too much for my liking. There is also the misunderstanding from the public that libertarianism and conservatism are the same, which may also explain my contempt for fusionist organizations. (I found this neato article that explains a little bit how libertarianism and conservatism differ, from a conservative's perspective.) After attending the 2015 YALcon, I knew I would have to even further my limit my interactions with the organization.

It was my first morning at YALcon and by the time we had reached the second speaker, I seriously asked myself, "What have I gotten myself into?" This man was introduced by a YAL State Chair and Leadership Institute Regional Field Coordinator who said something along the lines of, "If he doesn't offend you, then he didn't do his job." During his first few minutes of speaking, he resorted to ageism, sexism, and other tenants of bigotry to attempt to make coherent points. Supposedly, according to himself and the introducer, listening to him provides valuable insights about life that you will never learn anywhere else. He provided a story about last year when a "young slim, blonde thing" got offended at something he said, and that it doesn't matter because she wasn't worth anything and had no importance.

I knew I had to get out of there. Being in the first row and center and within shot of the camera filming it, I wondered how to go about it. Finally, as if not giving a shit anymore, I gathered the things I would need and left. When I was walking out, I heard him say something about "offended twenty-somethings." Once I got out of the room, I realized I had forgotten my room key. I had planned to go to my room and charge my phone, which was dying, and I was delighting in using my phone because of how offended he gets when people are on their phones while he is speaking. I decided to try to see if my dorm room happened to be open by any chance. By some fluke, it was, so I charged my phone and did something a hundred more times more productive than being in his presence - I took a nap.

Now, I am not usually one who goes about trying to cause drama, creating gossip, and pitting people/organizations against each other (that's actually The Libertarian Republic's job), but sometimes I become so infuriated with an organization's dealings that I feel obligated to inform the public. I was at least glad that I wasn't the only attendee who was dismayed at YAL's decision to have him as a speaker, as I saw some social media outrage and noticed quite some more people than usual using his time to look at sponsoring organizations' tables, mingle, etc. If libertarians are wondering why it is difficult to appeal to more diverse demographics, this is it: by having bigoted conservative speakers appeal to fellow bigots and dismiss people's concerns under the guise that being offended is beneficial to furthering a cause, it undermines people's experiences and ensures that a movement will only eventually run out of steam. Get with the times, YAL - conservatism is dying out, thanks in part to its desperate tactics. I don't have any problems with conservatives in themselves as I was raised a conservative girl myself, but having to rely on shock factor and manipulation to try to capture the public's attention is pathetic at best. If this was the only incident to have happened with 2015 YALcon, I wouldn't have written about it. By venting about my frustrations, I got a heads-up from a couple of reliable sources concerning a juicy tidbit...

While Reason tabled there, they were also supposed to have a panel. It was approved, but a week before YALcon, it became unapproved. Why would that happen? It turns out the subject matter was too triggering for the organization. What was so risky a topic that YAL had to censor it? Feminism.

YAL be all like...

This was the description for the panel:

Libertarian Feminism in 2015: Carrying on the individualist feminist tradition

Join us for a discussion of libertarian feminism in the 21st century. We'll touch on the individualist feminist tradition and then explore issues of particular importance to libertarian feminists today; how libertarian feminism differs from modern, progressive feminism; and what the philosophy has to offer the larger libertarian movement.

According to YAL, they deemed this to be too "divisive" and controversial. They offered the panel the timeslot again only if they altered the description and event so that the word "feminism" was avoided, but Reason turned down that feeble attempt at compromise. If I was Reason, I would have said "sure" but then F-bombed the panel to create bad relations with YAL - it's not like YAL's professionalism created any stronger bonds.

If a feminist panel was too controversial for the convention, YAL could have provided trigger warnings in the program or had a safe space when attendees became too offended. Instead, they decided that ridding their convention of such a panel would best protect the "liberal campus survivors" from further trauma.

Before you can say, "But feminism and libertarianism don't go together," do some reading:

1972 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate and the Association of Libertarian Feminists founder Tonie Nathan was the first woman in the US to receive an electoral vote.

America's First Feminist Was a Radical Libertarian

What Does Libertarian Feminism Look Like?

Anyways, it doesn't matter if you don't believe the two go together or you don't identify as a feminist (you don't have to!), the fact that YAL couldn't even bear to have a libertarian feminist panel, claiming that it would be too divisive while having (at least) one atrocious conservative speaker is not only hypocritical, but espouses the mindset that certain educational information is harmful and needs to be erased.

At this point, the national organization seems to be of little difference from the oft-confused conservative, "illegal immigrant catching" Young Americans for Freedom. There's only a tad more cherry-picked political correctness differentiating YAL from YAF. Now we know what the "con" in YALcon stands for.

Gossip doesn't write itself.

 

Become a Patron!  

How Capital City Pride discriminated against Libertarians

Generally, I am not a fan of hyperbole, especially when used as a clickbait title to an online article. Even more-so when conservative media utilizes it to build a logically unsound argument about how liberals are destroying America. While I am skeptical of most media organizations, I tend to be even more skeptical about the stories the conservative media shares. From my observations (and own experience), the conservatives realize that they are losing ground with the US population, having to resort to covering deeply exaggerated stories or what should be a mundane topic meant to send their audience into an emotional downward spiral, hence creating loyal followers.

          

In the past few days, I noticed that my friend, James Holcomb, was upset about an incident that happened during the 25^th Annual Capital City Pride in Olympia, Washington. The first post I saw from him was a photo of a sign saying, “BANNED FROM PRIDE FOR BEING A GAY LIBERTARIAN.” 

“Thank you to all the supporters who stopped to talk to me on the street after getting banned from going into pride. Capital City Pride willing violated our booth contract because some individuals not associated with us decided to open carry (which is legal). We were discriminated against because we support the 2^nd amendment and it was assumed by the event coordinators that we were together with the open carry folks, which is not true. So now the LPWA and myself personally are banned from pride “for life”. Liberty requires tolerance.

After being unable to get any of the local media to cover his experiences at Pride, TheBlaze interviewed him. If an online magazine says “liberal” in a way that is meant to be derogatory, I do my best to avoid them. Many times has The Blaze said “liberal” in a derogatory manner. Hence, I do my best to avoid them. That doesn’t mean I completely shut them out, as there are a few articles here and there that legitimately catch my interest. Despite my general distaste for TheBlaze, the coverage of James’ Capital City Pride experience is well illustrated.

As detailed on TheBlaze and by talking with James, we know that the Libertarian Party of Washington State booked and paid for a table weeks before Capital City Pride. Despite wanting to have a speaker, they were not given permission. The LPWA has been able to table at Pride for four years in a row, with no issues. James asked the chairwoman, Anna Schlecht, if members could open carry because there had been a problem at Seattle Pride – not with the LPWA, but with a demo regarding a person named Sparkles. (Interestingly enough, there is no problem with open carry at Whatcom County Pride.) He wanted to be able to tell the rule to the volunteers, just in case – “knowing the nature of libertarians.” Upon asking, James and the LPWA were asked to never return.

Neither James nor the LPWA were involved with the open carry protestors. James stood at a corner alone for five hours, protesting with his sign by himself. He attracted attention – he was called “racist” several times, but he also had productive conversations with some strangers. According to him, some who were against the open carry group came to tell him off as well, but once they heard his story, felt bad for him.

In a bit of a tangent, I am bothered by how very few other people seem to be irked by the bi-shaming experienced by the member of the open carry group. Bi/pansexuals have enough to deal with, excluding the harassment from fellow queers and “allies.”

During James’ experience and since then, my Facebook newsfeed has been filled with anger towards what happened with him and the LPWA, as well as dismay of how the people at Pride are not tolerant of the 2^nd Amendment and open carry, and why they should be. I believe that that is a completely different story. Personally, I have no problem with people (responsibly) open carrying, but I can understand how an event organizer may be uncomfortable with allowing that when attendees may become irritated or feel unsafe. Let’s face it – those kinds of crowds are mostly liberals and leftists, who believe in no or limited firearm freedom. A lot of libertarians probably agree with the protestors from the open carry group (but hopefully not their tactics and rowdiness), but I am clarifying now that this is not what I am writing about. And again, the LPWA and open carry group are unaffiliated.

No one should be able to argue that Capital City Pride had the right to not allow open carriers at their event. As a private institution, it was within their rights to turn away open carriers. You can argue if it was the right thing to do, followed by many-a-debate about whether or not the 2^nd Amendment is obsolete. Even if there was not a mix-up between the LPWA and open carry organization, could Pride not allow an organization with certain views to table? Certainly. However, if this particular view was not in display (whether through pamphlets and other educational materials or by someone open carrying) and has no bigoted background, one should question the motivation of enforcing such rules.

When I asked James why he worded the sign the way he did, he responded with, “I’m not the right kind of gay.” The gay who is pro-open carry. The gay who is Libertarian.

The fact that the LPWA was even allowed to table at Capital City Pride shows for a fact that Pride did not openly discriminate towards Libertarians. James is not entirely sure if they would have been allowed to table if the mix-up had not happened. According to him, Schechter does not like the LPWA and would not allow them to have a speaker at the event (this was weeks before the open carry fiasco). In other words, they were keen on finding an excuse to give the LPWA the boot. It still comes to question why the LPWA was allowed to table in the first place if they perceived that they are hated so much. (Revenue?) Not every aspect of this story will ever truly be clear to us.

Capital City Pride discriminated against open carriers, which means they discriminated against Libertarians. They discriminated against conservatives. They discriminated against any other group that believes in open carry. But how is discriminating against a conservative open carry advocate different from a Libertarian open carry advocate? Historically, the Libertarian Party was the first major party to announce support for gay marriage, and include it in their platform. John Hospers, who was the first presidential candidate for the Libertarian party (1972), was the first openly gay man to run for president. (He and the vice-presidential candidate, Tonie Nathan, received an electoral vote, making Nathan the first female candidate in United States history to receive one.) Pride made the choice to do away with an ally that has been supporting gay marriage for longer than the two major political parties, as well as the gay man who is a member of the Libertarian Party, who believes in 2^nd Amendment rights. They kicked out an organization that is on their side and paid money weeks beforehand for their table because of their unwillingness to have open carriers at the event, ignoring the fact that they had probably made a mix-up with the LPWA and open carry group. The event organizers, whether you agree with their decisions or not, handled the dismissal immaturely and unprofessionally. If they realized a mix-up had been made, they were probably too hateful, stubborn, or feeble-minded to make amends.

Capital City Pride discriminated against Libertarians in a way that other private entities discriminate subtly (and sometimes under-the-law). If a business does not want to hire an older person, they will look for someone “not planning to retire.” And so on. James and the LPWA were not the “right kind of gay” – the kind that shares the same views on a variety of issues – and done away with. It is something libertarians, especially progressive libertarians, have to regularly deal with.

Whether or not you agree with the wording of James’ sign and that Capital City Pride discriminated against Libertarians, you have to admit that seeing his sign was quite the conversation starter…and that the event organizers for Capital City Pride are major assholes.

I have never claimed that my Facebook profile was a "safe space"

In the libertarian sphere, online debates can easily get out-of-hand. The hostile conservitarians, MRAs, racists, and others step out from the deep, grimy recesses of libertarianism to make their presence known when you really just don't want them to. However, perhaps of a misguided notion that libertarian individuals and organizations should automatically allow free speech on their property, including through online accounts, homophobic comments and ugly language of a similar nature are not too hard to find in threads and are, for the most part, tolerated.

On the Students For Liberty Blog, Cory Massimino wrote on why libertarians should be open to the idea of "safe spaces." As Cory explains, a safe space is an area "designed for marginalized people to feel free from the kinds of intolerant social norms, bigoted harassment, and general persecution that dominate mainstream culture." Personally, I feel that this is yet another topic that has been needed to be discussed within the libertarian movement. While I have no problems with the idea of a safe space, there is an aspect of those who advocate for such a thing that I do have a problem with.

More and more often, I have friends chiding me for not creating a safe space on my Facebook profile. I almost don't blame them. Because my profile is public, bigoted friends of friends (or even my friends) often comment on my posts with homophobic, misogynist, transphobic, racist, etc. content. Does it bother me that these people are saying these things? Of course. Am I offended? Very much so. Do I worry that my marginalized friends will become upset by reading those kinds of things? Yes. So why haven't I taken initiative to set up a safe space?

This is something I have definitely thought of. Not only could every sane person reading the thread be less exposed to the hate that is sometimes uttered by these horrid individuals, but I, and a few others, would have fewer headaches from having to look at the terrible comments and debating with these people. However, these feelings of relief are only short-term. Where else do these bigoted individuals go? They find equally hateful communities on Reddit and even Facebook where there is no one to challenge their views. Exposing themselves to these echo chambers, these people have no chance to grow, and if a naive wanderer was to stumble upon them, that wanderer may start to believe what these groups have to say.

I very much believe in the idea of free speech - not only should people be allowed to say what they want, but if there is "bad" speech, combat it with even more speech. (This is similar to what anti-MRA Facebook page MUH Men's Rights Activism does, although they do have standards on the kind of language used on the page.) By talking about and attempting to refute the "bad" speech, you may be giving more awareness to the "bad" speech itself, but trying to hide the fact that this "bad" speech exists only gives people an illusion that all is good and dandy when it isn't necessarily so. You may try to pretend all you want to, but just because you create a safe space, and want everyone around you to create one too, will not make racism, homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny go away.

MUH Men's Rights Activism taking an anti-feminist meme to engage followers in a discussion about the misogyny of AVFM.

You could rightly argue that engaging these people in debates won't make racism, etc. go away either, or at least not to extent where it's worth tolerating bigotry on your Facebook profile. I understand the risks I take when I resist making my profile a safe space. You can try to debate with me all you want about this, but I doubt I will change my mind, and remember, I never claimed my page was such a thing. Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I truly believe that with rationality and logic and a shitload of patience, we can help a good number of people see the light. Most of the times when a bigot makes his/her presence known on my profile, there is always at least one person to stand up to him/her, making it known that their views are not acceptable, and by debating sensibly, that these non-bigoted views are worthier in the passive observer's eyes.

The main reason why I think I ought to make my profile a safe space is not necessarily what is mentioned above, but that because I am human, I am inconsistent. While I rarely ever block people or unfriend them, I am not completely able to brush some of these people aside, as Avens O'Brien does so well, and end up doing blocking or unfriending a few. The problem with this is that because of this inconsistency, it may seem I care more about some issues than others. I do not have a clear line in the sand for when I should unfriend or block someone. Sometimes I probably do so because I was in a bad mood and that person was not only saying hateful things, but doing so to an extent that it annoyed me more than usual.

If I blocked someone for posting racist comments, but not for someone who used homophobic slurs, does that mean I am tolerant of homophobia? I wouldn't like to think so. This day in age, it is really mainstream in the United States to be outright racist, versus there is a larger part of the population that is homophobic, and therefore needs work on. There have been a few people who were bigoted but I kept on my profile for a while because I knew I had to learn more about their individual circumstances. After probably the fifth incident of this one man making hateful comments, I had to unfriend him. I try to judge from situation to situation, even telling people that certain comments are not welcome. I generally ask people to refrain from specific kinds of hate speech, but of course, people who are inclined to do so don't listen. They are the ones who need help.

I feel that making comments against a group is "better" than attacking individuals. I will unfriend and/or block with less hesitation when a person is directly harassing me or others on my Facebook. Why I say that making comments against a group is "better" is because what happens is that the person thinks of these people as the "other" and has yet to humanize them. When they are able to see the hardships a transgender individual has to go through, they have a chance to empathize and gain perspective. Sometimes some of these people may not be aware that using words like "retarded" are hurtful. It's worth a shot to try to educate instead of relying on the ban hammer. Not only that, but realizing that you can't teach an entire subject in one lesson.

If people cannot deal with the bigotry that make itself known in the threads of my page, they have the options to unfollow or unfriend me, block the troublemakers, or just not look. This is not the Holy Grail of all options, but it is something. If you know you will be offended by what people are saying in a thread, why click on the option to see more comments? For those of you who identify within a marginalized identity or more, I know that this is not really the most fair thing of me to say and that you probably have to deal with bigots more than you would like to, but know that my profile is never guaranteed to be safe, and I apologize for that.

The funny thing is that most of the people who chastise me for not having a safe space don't even see themselves as these marginalized identities. It doesn't mean that they are wrong for pointing out lack of safe spaces, but they need to keep in mind who they are talking to. I identify as being several marginalized categories, but if you are a male, why are you mad at me when there is a man making sexist comments? I am glad you care about women's issues, however, despite how empathetic you may be, you are unlikely to know how it feels going through some of the things I and other women have had to go through. Sometimes it seems like people are trying to tell me and other marginalized groups how to think, and they have no right to do so. It could be that some of these groups or individuals have a hard time to speak up for themselves and that is understandable, but don't act like you speak for them, unless you've received permission to do so.

Maybe I'm part of the problem. I am one of the many people who won't provide a safe space. However, I believe if education about this topic is brought up to more people, many more will be glad to offer their physical property and social media pages as safe places. For the sake of professionalism and sensitivity to marginalized identities, prominent libertarian organizations should consider making their websites and social media accounts safe spaces. A move like this could make libertarianism appeal to a larger audience. Libertarians, think about how beneficial safe spaces can be. If you are a libertarian and believe in safe spaces, realize that individuals and organizations have the right to decide whether or not they should be able to provide one.

Free libertarian ebooks

I love to read.

This was the mortal equivalent of Heaven to me at the 2014 ISFLC.

I also believe in the voluntary exchange of information, especially if it's free. I have compiled this list of free ebooks to help people (like you!) be more easily able to access the knowledge of the universe - aka libertarian. You are very capable of Googling all of this (pretty much like what I did), but I know that most of you were probably too lazy to do so, so you're welcome.

This will be constantly updated, and I know that there are doubles. Feel free to comment with links to more free books.

While a lot of these books, organizations, and authors I don't doubt are reasonable, there are a few I even questioned putting on here. Just remember to intake information with a grain of salt. If the author is a bad person, it does not necessarily make his/her work illegitimate, and vice-versa.

Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

Economic Sophisms by Frederic Bastiat

The Law by Frederic Bastiat

The Mainspring of Human Progress by Henry Grady Weaver

Marxism Unmasked by Ludwig von Mises

Leviathan at War - Freeman Essay Collection

Cato Institute

A Life of One's Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State by David Kelley

A New Deal for Social Security by Peter J. Ferrara and Michael D. Tanner

A Search for Enemies: America's Alliances After the Cold War by Ted Galen Carpenter

After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century by Timothy Lynch

America Entangled: The Persian Gulf Crisis and Its Consequences edited by Ted Galen Carpenter

An American Vision: Policies of the '90s by Edward H. Crane and David Boaz

 Antitrust Policy: The Case for Repeal by Dominick T. Armentano

Apocalypse Not: Economics, Science and Environmentalism by Ben Bolch and Harold Lyons

Assessing the Reagan Years edited by David Boaz

Balanced Budgets, Fiscal Responsibility, and the Constitution by Richard E. Wagner and Robert D. Tollison

Best of Byline 1986 by the Cato Institute

Beyond Liberal and Conservative: Reassessing the Political Spectrum by William S. Maddox and Stuart A. Lilie

Beyond NATO: Staying Out of Europe's Wars by Ted Galen Carpenter

Beyond the Status Quo: Policy Proposals for America edited by Edward H. Crane and David Boaz

China in the New Millenium: Market Reforms and Social Development by James A. Dorn

Clearing the Air: The Real Story of the War on Air Pollution by Indur M. Goklany

Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry About Global Warming by Thomas Gale Moore

Collective Defense or Strategic Independence: Alternative Strategies for the Future edited by Ted Galen Carpenter

Common Cents, Common Dreams: A Layman's Guide to Social Security Privatization by Peter J. Ferrara and Michael D. Tanner

Competing Visions: The Political Conflict Over America's Economic Future by Richard B. McKenzie

Competition and Finance: A Reinterpretation of Financial and Monetary Economics by Kevin Dowd

Defining Defense: The 1985 Military Budget by Earl C. Ravenal

Delusions of Grandeur: The United Nations and Global Intervention edited by Ted Galen Carpenter

Designing Defense for a New World Order: The Military Budget in 1992 and Beyond by Earl C. Ravenal

Destroying Democracy: How Government Funds Partisan Politics by James T. Bennett and Thomas J. Dilorenzo

Dollars, Deficits, and Trade edited by James A. Dorn and William A. Niskanen

Economic Reform in China: Problems and Prospect edited by James A. Dorn and Wang Xi

Educational Freedom in Eastern Europe by Charles R. Glenn

Energy: Ending the Never-Ending Crisis by Paul Ballonoff

Exiting the Balkan Thicket by Gary T. Dempsey

Failure & Progress: The Bright Side of the Dismal Science by Richard B. Mckenzie

Flag-Burning, Discrimination, and the Right to Do Wrong: Two Debates by Roger Pilon

Forfeiting Our Property Rights: Is Your Property Safe From Seizure by Rep. Henry J. Hyde

Free the Mail: Ending the Postal Monopoly edited by Peter. J. Ferrara

Freedom to Trade: Refuting the New Protectionism by Edward L. Hudgins

Generosity: Virtue in Society by Tibor R. Machan

Global Fortune: The Stumble and Rise of World Capitalism by Ian Vasquez

Grassroots Tyranny: The Limits of Federalism by Clint Bolick

Haunted Housing: How Toxic Scare Stories are Spooking the Public Out of House and Home by Cassanddra Chrones Moore

Immigration: The Demographic and Economic Facts by Julian L. Simon

Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares & Scams by Steve J. Milloy

Left, Right, Babyboom: America's New Politics edited by David Boaz

Liberating Schools: Education in the Inner City by David Boaz

Making America Poorer: The Cost of Labor Laws by Morgan O. Reynolds

Market Liberalism: A Paradigm to the 21st Century by Morgan O. Reynolds

Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy by Paul Craig Roberts and Karen Lafollette

National Economic Planning: What is Left? by Don Lavoie

NATO at 40: Confronting a Changing World edited by Edward H. Crane and David Boaz

NATO Enlargement: Illusions and Reality edited by Ted Galen Carpenter

NATO's Empty Victory: A Postmortem on the Balkan War edited by Ted Galen Carpenter and Barbara Conry

Patient Power: Solving America's Health Care Crisis by John C. Goodman and Gerald L. Musgrave

Patient Power: Solving America's Health Care Crisis (Abridged) by John C. Goodman and Gerald L. Musgrave

Perpetuating Poverty: The World Bank, the IMF, and the Developing World edited by Doug Bandow and Ian Vasquez

Plant Closings: Public or Private Choices edited by Richard B. Mckenzie

Pocket Constitution (Arabic/Bilingual Version) by Roger Pilon

Pocket Constitution (Spanish/Bilingual Version) by Roger Pilon

Porkbarrel: The Unexpurgated Grace Commission  Story of Congressional Profligacy by Randall Fitzgerald and Gerald Lipson

Quagmire: America in the Middle East by Leon D. Hadar

Regulators' Revenge: The Future of Telecommunications Deregulation by Tom W. Bell and Solveig Singleton

Renaissance: The Rebirth of Liberty in the Heart of Europe by Vaclav Klaus

Rent Control: The Perennial Folly (Cato Public Policy Research Monograph No. 2) by Charles W. Baird

Scalia vs. Epstein: Two Views on Judicial Activism by Antonin Scalia and Richard Epstein

School Choice: Why You Need It & How You Get It by David Harmer

Science Without Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research by Stephen J. Milloy

Silencing Science by Stephen J. Milloy and Michael Gough

Social Security: Averting the Crisis by Peter J. Ferrara

Social Security: Prospects for Real Reform by Peter J. Ferrara

Social Security: The Inherent Contradiction by Peter J. Ferrara

Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels

Telecommunications in Crisis: The First Amendment, Technology, and Deregulation by Edwin Diamond, Norman Sandler, and Milton Mueller

Telecompetition: The Free Market Road to the Information Highway by Lawrence D. Gasman

The Affirmative Action Fraud: Can We Restore the American Civil Rights Vision? by Clint Bolick

The Captive Press: Foreign Policy Crises and the First Amendment by Ted Galen Carpenter

The Case for Gold by Rep. Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman

The Crisis in Drug Prohibition by David Boaz

The End of Welfare: Fighting Poverty in Civil Society by Michael D. Tanner

The Financial Sevices Revolution: Policy Directions for the Future edited by Catherine England and Thomas Huertas

The Future of Money in the Information Age edited by James A. Dorn

The Government Factor: Undermining Journalistic Ethics in the Information Age by Richard D. Kaplar and Patrick D. Maines

The High Cost of Farm Welfare by Clifton Luttrell

The Last Monopoly: Privatizing the Postal Service for the Information Age by Edward L. Hudgins

The New Right v. The Constitution by Stephen Macedo

The Peasant Betrayed: Agriculture and Land Reform in the Third World by John B. Powelson and Richard Stock

The Politics and Laws of Term Limits by Edward H. Crane and Roger Pilon

The Revolution in Development Economics by James A. Dorn, Steve H. Hanke, and Alan Walters

The Rule of Experts: Occupational Licensing in America by S. David Young

The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton by Roger Pilon

The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr.

Through Green-Colored Glasses: Environmentalism Reconsidered by Wilfred Beckerman

Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World by Doug Bandow

Underground Government: the Off Budget Public Sector by James T. Bennett and Thomas J. Dilorenzo

Water Markets: Priming the Invisible Pump by Terry L. Anderson and Pamela Snyder

What Has Government Done to Our Healthcare? by Terree B. Wasley

Why Schools Fail by Bruce Goldberg

Zoning, Rent Control and Affordable Housing by William Tucker

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)

FIRE's Guide to Free Speech on Campus

FIRE's Guide to Due Process and Fair Procedure on Campus by Harvey Silvergate and Josh Gewolb

FIRE's Guide to Student Fees, Funding, and Legal Equality on Campus by Jordan Lorence

FIRE's Guide to Religious Liberty on Campus by David French

FIRE's Guide to First-Year Orientation and Thought Reform on Campus by Jordan Lorence and Harvey Silvergate

Young Americans for Liberty (YAL)

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand

Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

The Law by Frederic Bastiat

Anthem by Ayn Rand

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

Libertarian Book Club

Healing Our World by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart

Local Problems, Libertarian Solutions by William D. Burt

Anthem by Ayn Rand

Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard

The Law by Frederic Bastiat

Common Sense by Thomas Paine

1984 by George Orwell

Libertarian Essays by Daniel B. Klein

Intellectual Life, Civil Libertarian Issues, and the Student Movement at the University of California by Carl E. ive Schorske

The Revolutionary Movement in Spain by Helmut Rudiger

Students For Liberty (SFL) Handbooks

Leading Liberty: A Comprehensive Guide to Liberating Your Campus

Example Executive Board Handbook

College Students: The Future & The Present

Students For Liberty (SFL) Book Publications

The Economics of Freedom: What Your Professors Won't Tell You

The Morality of Capitalism: What Your Professors Won't Tell You edited by Tom G. Palmer

After the Welfare State edited by Tom G. Palmer

Why Liberty by Tom G. Palmer

Peace, Love, & Liberty edited by Tom G. Palmer

Mises Institute

America's Great Depression by Murray N. Rothbard

Education: Free and Compulsory by Murray N. Rothbard

Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls: How Not to Fight Inflation by Robert L. Sheuttinger and Eamonn F. Butler

Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition by Ludwig von Mises

Toward a Libertarian Society by Walter Block

On Equality and Inequality (Hebrew Translation) bu Ludwig von Mises

Economics and Public Welfare by Benjamin Anderson

Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science by Lionel Robbins

Castles in the Air by Leonard E. Read

The Great Depression by Lionel Robbins

Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises

The Gold Standard: Perspectives in the Austrian School by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Anatomy of the State by Murray N. Rothbard

Deflation and Liberty by Jorg Guido Hulsmann

Study Guide to Human Action: A Treatise on Economics by Robert P. Murphy

Libertarian Critique of Intellectual Property by Butler Shaffer

What Must Be Done by Hans Hermann Hope

Our Enemy, the State by Albert Jay Nock

Fascism versus Capitalism by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution by Ludwig von Mises

Lessons for the Young Economist by Robert P. Murphy

Economic Principles by Frank A. Fetter

Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom by John V. Denson

Essentials of Economic Theory by John Bates Clark

An Outline of International Price Theory by Chi-Yuen Wu

Outlook for Freedom by Leonard E. Read

Where Lies this Fault? by Leonard E. Read

Instead of Violence by Leonard E. Read

On Doing the Right Thing by Albert Jay Nock

Two Essay by Ludwig von Mises (Middle of the Road Leads to Socialsm; Liberty and Property) by...do I really need to say it?

Prices and Production by Friedrich A. Hayek

Complete Libertarian Forum (1969-1984) by Murray N. Rothbard

Individualism and Economic Order by Friedrich A. Hayek

Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow by Ludwig von Mises

The Economics of Liberty by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard

Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A. by Rose Martin

Theory of Money and Fiduciary Media by Jorg Guido Hulsmann

Pursue the Cause of Liberty: A Farewell to Congress by Ron Paul

Give Me Liberty by Rose Wilder Lane

Accent on the Right by Leonard E. Read

Awake for Freedom's Sake by Leonard E. Read

Comes the Dawn by Leonard E. Read

Deeper than You Think by Leonard E. Read

Having My Way by Leonard E. Read

Let Freedom Reign by Leonard E. Read

How Do We Know? by Leonard E. Read

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard

2014 Seattle Hempfest speech

After attending Seattle Hempfest for the first time in 2013, I decided that I wanted to apply to become a speaker for 2014. At first, I thought I was only speaking on Friday, but when I checked the final schedule, it turned out I was speaking all three days.

Hence why this only has Friday's time/place 

(For those of you who are curious: Friday [08/15] at 2:50 on Ralph Seeley, Saturday [08/16] at 11:50 on Share Parker Main, and Sunday [08/17] at 1:35 on Peter McWilliams.)

I knew that I wanted to cover marijuana and hemp legalization from a slightly different perspective. The speakers who talk about activism (the few who actually do...) usually talk about tangible benefits from legalization and repercussions of prohibition. There is definitely nothing wrong with those arguments (I would hope not, since I wrote not only one, but two articles on this blog exploring some of them [although from a broader "War on Drugs" perspective]). However, I wanted to cover it from a more moral perspective.

As for the actual speech, I had not spoken in front of an audience for a while and knew I would be rusty. On Friday, I decided to read off my paper. I did not like doing that because I did not have the time to rehearse it much and by looking at the paper, it cut off a good portion of my connection with the audience. Saturday felt much better when I spoke of points I remembered from my written speech. On Sunday, I had to get from Bremerton to Seattle, then rush from the south entrance to the McWilliams Stage, barely making it on time (technically, I did not make it on time, but thankfully between band sets when the speakers go on). With no time to rehearse (and overthink) and being onstage twice that weekend, I felt the connectivity even more-so.

This is more-or-less what my speech(es) consisted of:

"Hello everyone, and Happy Hempfest! My name is Katrina Haffner, here on behalf of Students For Liberty and Students for Sensible Drug Policy to educate you all on not only why but how to get. I have to admit that when I first found out I was accepted as a speaker, my first thought was, “How do I deliver a speech to a bunch of high people?” Last year was my first time coming to an event like this, and while I immensely enjoyed it, I could not help but notice that there is a general sense of apathy towards activism by the attendees. Spring of 2013, I had stepped up to become the president of Western Washington University’s chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. While I was familiar with drug policy, I would not say I was well-versed in it, and it was definitely an issue I cared about, but I really did need to brush up on my understanding of it. Last summer, I decided to come to Hempfest to learn more about marijuana policy and to network. When I told some of my friends this, they laughed and told me, “Katrina, there is literally nothing to do there but smoke weed.” Just to note, I’m not much of a smoker, so that’s why they laughed. I was disappointed because I somewhat believed them since they’d actually been there, but I decided to go anyways.

"Oh boyyyy, were they wrong. I mean, sure, when I finally came here, I started wondering if there was such a thing as a secondhand high. However, there turned out to be quite a few activism and learning opportunities. I concluded the problem is not that these opportunities are not presented and available, but that not many people cared to become more involved with the legalization movement.

"Just because I-502 passed does not mean that all is well now, no – not even in Washington. We have that crazy active-THC blood level limit portion of the law and other practices that negatively affect medical patients. Unlike Colorado, adults cannot grow their own plants. Unlike Colorado, Washington still cannot cultivate and process industrial hemp. One of the only good reasons I can find for I-502’s enactment into law is that there have been so many arrests that have been prevented. When has smoking pot or using hemp products hurt anyone? Even if you were to use the argument that it hurts those who use it, keep in mind…it is our own choice to do what we want with our lives and with our bodies.

"Some of you have probably heard that the United States has only 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s prisoners. Did you know that over half a million people were arrested in 2012 for marijuana possession alone in the US? Home of the free? [Beat] Not only has our government violated our individual agency, but it has drastically changed some people’s lives…and not for the better. Despite the similarity of usage by people of all colors, Native Americans, blacks, and Hispanics are more likely to be searched for possession, arrested, and serve jail time. All for a nonviolent activity. Speaking of violence, many notable economists have contributed the prohibition of certain substances to the growth of violent black markets. Have you ever reported your drug dealer to the Better Business Bureau? What we see going on in Mexico is very similar to alcohol prohibition in the ‘20s. These people neither have the government nor the public keeping an eye on them, letting them get away with atrocious things.

"Now, I’m a Campus Coordinator for Students For Liberty. Liberty is very important to me. I want restrictions on hemp and marijuana to be lifted locally, nationally, and internationally. Do you all know what the good news is? By I-502 and Amendment 64 being enacted into law, we not only have the country, but the entire world, revisiting this issue. Why, it was only earlier this year that Uruguay became the first country in the world to legalize recreational marijuana. You are already doing your part by being here. Having this many people show up to a festival of this kind sends a message to the world. However, this is not all you could be doing. There are many political organizations who have booths or at the very least, activists, here. Talk to them! Talk to me, and I will help you go in the right direction. I understand that not everybody has the drive or time to become an activist, but there are still some small things pretty much anyone can do.

"It’s surprising how much of an impact a mere Facebook post has. I have had quite a few people tell me that their views on a certain topic had drastically changed because of an article I had once posted, and if I remember correctly, no one had liked or commented on it. I thought I was just one of those people who liked to bathe in their own intelligence, shouting to a brick wall. Keyboard activists sometimes get slack for not doing more, but social media is a great way to educate your friends and family. Do me a favor this weekend and go a step above what you normally do concerning marijuana and hemp activism. Have you never posted anything related to this topic on Facebook or Twitter? I would think most of you have smartphones – do it now! Is all what your activism comprised of is posting on social media? Go and talk to NORML or visit the Hemposium. Just to think that two years ago, I thought Hempfest was a tradeshow of industrial hemp wonders. Now, I am speaking on a stage – in Seattle – at Hempfest – about how to become more involved. You don’t need to be a stoner or a policy-enthusiast to want marijuana and hemp legalization. I’m a nonsmoking anthropology and theater major – how could anyone beat the oddity that? It does not matter how old you are, your nationality, your religion, and so on – because marijuana and hemp do not discriminate. Thank you."

Red Lotus = anarchists of "Korra"

Whoaaaa, Book 3, Episode 9 of Korra - "The Stakeout" ...shit went down.

I thought it would be ones of those episodes where nothing really happened, and I guess that was what the first half of the episode was kind of like. After that, just wow.

If my brilliant writing skills in this particular post have not awed you by now, let me touch upon the anarchist themes that have emerged within the show. DO NOT FEAR - there will be very few spoilers. Actually, if you have not watched this episode by now, shame on you!

While in the Spirit World, Zaheer and Korra have a Q&A session...

Zaheer discloses to Korra that the Red Lotus, which he and his friends are a part of, is a secret society "dedicated to restoring freedom to the world"  and it was "what the White Lotus was meant to be."

For those who do not know, the Order of the White Lotus was formed as a secret society to receive and share knowledge, transcending national and political boundaries. Their members trained Aang, Zuko, Katara, and Sokka, and helped to stop the Fire Nation from conquering the world.

Zaheer explains that after the Hundred Year War, members of the White Lotus came out of hiding and publicly served the avatar as "glorified bodyguards" who served corrupt nations. The Red Lotus, led by Xai Bau, broke off from the White Lotus.

He mentions that "bringing the spirits back should only be the beginning" and goes on further with the notion that "the idea of having nations and governments is as foolish as keeping the human and spirit realms separate."

This Zaheer backs up by trying to appeal to Korra by saying, "You have had to deal with a moronic president and a tyrannical queen. don't you think the world would be better off if leaders like them were eliminated?"

Korra declares that she may not agree with those leaders' choices, but that does not believe that getting rid of the world leaders will do any good, and that it is no reason in itself to do so.

Zaheer continues with his examples of corrupt leaders citing how the Fire Nation attacked Air Nation because of their selfish ruler.

Then he says probably the most anarchist quote ever from both Avatar: The Last Airbender and Korra.

How could I resist?

Korra points out that that would not bring about balance, but throw the world into chaos. Zaheer replies with, "The natural order is disorder."

"New growth cannot exist without first the destruction of the old." He reveals that this quote was uttered by none other than Guru Laghima, an airbender. This actually remind me of "Winter Solstice (1): The Spirit World" - Book 1, Episode 7 - of A:TLA, when Aang learns that without the burning down of the old forest, the new seeds could not sprout.

Do you think Zaheer is taking this quote out-of-context? or was there actually an anarchist airbender?

"WE NEED A VIOLENT REVOLUTION TO UPHOLD OUR IDEALS OF LIBERTY AND EQUALITY!! Except not actually violent. I don't really want to kill anybody, and hopefully none of you want to either. By talking things out, meditating, and maybe an occasional rally, we could really get shit done!"

Kind of sounds like me...

Throughout history, we have seen factions of groups form after disagreements over authority, practices, etc. By the way Zaheer describes things (just by listening to his side of the story), I do not blame his resentment towards the White Lotus. It is the White Lotus' mission to preserve ancient knowledge, but if they changed it solely to serving the avatar, their reasons for forming in the first place are lost. In Book 3, Episode 8 - "Winter Solstice (2): Avatar Roku" - we learn that the Sages once served the avatar, but within the period of the War, they pledged their allegiance to the Fire Lord. When the organization forgets the purpose for its existence, it can easily fall down a slippery slope. While we can hope that there is no evil avatar, would it not be naive to believe that it can never happen? Would members of the White Lotus be able to realize it despite their blind loyalty?

I do not get how the Red Lotus' dreams of reuniting the Spirit World and real word and the overthrowing of corrupt governments came to be. Was this already an argument within the White Lotus? When saying that the avatar served corrupt nations, he seemed to be hinting that some members within the White Lotus had already noticed that before the split. How did the whole Spirit World idea become to be?

What I love about A:TLA and Korra is that their storylines and characters are not always so black-and-white as most cartoons can be. Zuko didn't turn out so bad, amiright? During Book 2, Korra realized that Unalaq was right to an extent when saying that spirits and mortals have no reason to be separated from each other. Now that the two realms are not completely isolated from the other, the Red Lotus is keen on displaying their middle fingers to the state...which involves kidnapping Korra.

In Book 3, Episodes 3 and 4 - "The Earth Queen" and "In Harm's Way" - I joked that the Earth Queen is reason enough to justify an International Criminal Court. Korra felt that the Queen had no right to treat her citizens in that manner, but Bumi pointed out that she does have the right. Bumi is correct, of course, since the Earth Queen is, well, the queen of Ba Sing Se. However, one does have to question why one person is even given the authority to rule over thousands of civilians. As we can see, tyranny is easily achievable with such a form of government, but how about with a democracy of sorts?

Like Republic City? Zaheer does not fail to mention the president of that land, calling him "moronic," which is better than being called "tyrannical." Even when elected (or so we can presume), the leader(s) of a people cannot seem to rule intelligently. We should keep in mind what Plato (or even what a Wikipedia article) has to say on the shortcomings of democracy.

Could there be a compromise made? Like, "Let's just get rid of the bad leaders!" The problem is how do you get around doing that? Especially through the Red Lotus' eyes? Should leaders be elected? Appointed? Be chosen through their bloodline? Just because there was once a great king or queen does not mean it will always be so. Can we trust the public to elect good-hearted and smart leaders, especially through the test of time? There may be a generation of politically-aware citizens, but then the next generation may only see the superficial results of self-serving politicians. It seems Zaheer is fixated on the notion that leaders cannot be trusted, lest they become self-serving, such as how the Fire Nation eradicated the Air Nation because of narrow-minded rulers.

I do agree with the quote, "True freedom can only be achieved when oppressive governments are torn down," but not within the context this was used. If I saw this quote but had not watched the episode, I would have thought that maybe Zaheer was a minarchist. While I could see a plot twist where the Red Lotus members realize their awful ways of achieving freedom and decide to become minarchists, it would not answer the question: Are all governments oppressive? or can all forms of government lead to corruption?

The Red Lotus, or at least Zaheer, believe that freedom is a preferable alternative to "balance," but how far into chaos would they expect the world to succumb to?

Do you think that taking down (oppressive) governments would bring balance or throw the world into chaos?

Do you believe that the natural order is disorder?

If you are a libertarian or anarchist who are fans of Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra, you should join this Facebook group.

EDIT: There is now this Facebook page - Red Lotus Reformed: Seeking Harmony.

MORE EDIT: I have written on Book 3, Episode 10 - "Long Live the Earth Queen" - includes criticism of Murray Rothbard.

EDIT: Had to add in this wonderful piece of art from my fellow Red Lotus Reformed admin, VoluntaryistVarrick.