For the last decade or so, the only print publication that my household has consistently maintained a subscription to has been Wired. It's hands-down my favorite monthly magazine, something I look forward to finding in the US Snail box by the door.
BUT!
There will be no more Wired renewals from this household so long as Wired continues to shill for the state versus Bradley Manning.
A complete reversal, a public apology and a substantial financial contribution to the Bradley Manning Support Network might get that subscription back in play.
The sooner the better, because my weekend to-do list includes going through the latest issue (which seerendipitously has a great article on the "collar bomb" robbery that I recently discussed with my son) and notifying every advertiser I can find an email address for that I plan to negatively preference, within reason/convenience, companies that do business with Wired.
The piece below is one I occasionally like to refer back to in argument, but it seems to have disappeared from the web due to crashes, remodels and closures of various other sites over the years. Probably not the best writing job I've ever done (I will probably eventually revise, or even rewrite, it), but a couple of arguments/applications are reasonably novel so far as I can tell, so I'm putting it where I (and others) can find it easily -- KN@PPSTER
INTRODUCTION: ORDER OF BATTLE
If we place the ongoing "purist"-"pragmatist" conflict within the libertarian movement under a metaphorical microscope, it immediately becomes apparent that what we're looking at is not one conflict, but rather a bundle of conflicts composed of numerous intertwined disputes with overlapping intra-movement constituencies for particular outcomes. While the movement can be reasonably viewed as split between overall "purist" and "pragmatist" camps, the vast "No Man's Land" between them is a constantly swirling milieu in which it's not always perfectly clear who is shooting at whom -- or why. Various constituencies raise their flags over specific coordinates and give battle, hoping to temporarily claim some patch of territory for their concern of the moment or, perhaps, to extend the lines of some larger alliance to encompass more of the disputed field.
The hill upon which I intend to raise my flag -- the banner of the "purist" faction, broadly defined -- in this paper encompasses the notion of "incrementalism." Whoever controls that hill in turn overlooks, and may exploit, a key route across the plain of "realpolitik."
May, I say, or might: The incrementalist high ground has been occupied, for some time and without substantial opposition, by "pragmatist" forces which have declined to actually sally forth versus the state, preferring instead to simply occupy it, hold a few grandiose parades on its slopes, and deny its use to "purists" who might actually use it as a base from which to strike real blows for liberty.
However, it's come to my attention of late that the hill is only weakly occupied:
- Its garrison's composition greatly resembles that of a Confederate "home guard" militia regiment during the Late Unpleasantness, as described by an inspecting general: "3 field officers, 4 staff officers, 10 captains, 30 lieutenants, and 1 private with a misery in his bowels." To put it bluntly, for all their guff about holding the heights over the plain of realpolitik, the "pragmatists" have thus far proven themselves signally unsuccessful, to an even greater degree than the "purists" they disdain, at achieving political victories.
- The "pragmatist" garrison -- which had at its disposal the heavy artillery of genuine incrementalism had it cared to use it -- chose to mothball that formidable weapon and instead field a lighter piece, of shorter range and minimal power -- one more suited to twirling, slapping and shouldering at ceremonies held for the purpose of congratulating themselves on their superior political acumen than for actual use in battle. The popgun I refer to is, of course, "compromise."
The hill is, in other words, ripe for a bayonet charge. It is occupied by troops who are not interested in fighting, and who, if forced to, have at their disposal a weapon guaranteed to fizzle half the time and explode in its firer's face the other half. It is the "purists" -- unabashed and uncompromising libertarians who may differ on how far to go but who know which way they're going -- who have a rightful claim to, and know how best to exploit the advantages of, an incremental approach.
Forward, march.
, 
, 
, 
, etc.
Posts
