PART I. My final comment responding to another commenter in a thread on an Althouse post quoting Glenn Greenwald’s reaction to Althouse’s distortion of something Greenwald said about the Drug War:

John Kindley said…

Scott M said … “Does that mean you think universal health care is a left-wing or a right-wing cause?”It’s a right-wing cause. As Greenwald recently wrote (on July 7th): “Congressional Democrats began the health care debate by categorically vowing — in writing, by the dozens — never to support any health care bill that did not contain a public option (on the ground that it would be little more than a boon to — an entrenchment of — the private health insurance industry) … (and that debate followed the same template as the deficit battle: the White House publicly pretending to advocate for a public option while leading the way in private to ensure it never happened).”

PART II. Karl Hess on the Left / Right spectrum:

The overall characteristic of a right-wing regime, no matter the details of difference between this one and that one, is that it reflects the concentration of power in the fewest practical hands.

Power, concentrated in few hands, is the dominant historic characteristic of what most people, in most times, have considered the political and economic right wing.

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

PART III. Norm Pattis, reviewing a novel, The Oregon Experiment, about a “not-so-young college professor with a professional interest in anarchism [who] puts his theory into practice in Oregon”:

My heart belongs with anarchists everywhere. I can’t quite shake the sense that government is a hoax, especially now, when I see right and left posture about the debt ceiling. While these fools bob and weave and avoid any pragmatic sense of compromise, the rest of us sit helplessly by, watching, paying taxes and, at least for the believers among us, praying that the it all doesn’t come crashing down around our ears. Some part of me says bring the crash on. I’ve an active apocalyptic gene.

But I am also late-middle-aged, a man with mortgages, children now out of college, employees, a vast network of commitments in a social web that seems forever out of control, but just serviceable enough to provide an anchor. Like the politicians I abhor, I have become vested in a world that doesn’t work. I behold anarchy with something like a pleasing sense of horror: I want to see what happens when the walls come tumbling down; I just don’t want one of those walls to fall on me or my family.

PART IV. Albert Jay Nock’s essay “A Little Conserva-tive,” published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1936

PART V. Kevin Carson at the Center for a Stateless Society on “counter-economics”:

The late Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK3), in the New Libertarian Manifesto, coined the term “counter-economics” to describe the building of an economy outside the corporate-state nexus, and operating below its radar.   The counter-economy would evade both state regulations and state taxation, starve the state of the revenues it needed to operate, and eventually supplant the corporate-state economy.

Unfortunately, SEK3 took too narrow a view of the counter-economy:  rather than viewing illegality as a means to an end, he viewed it as an end in itself, and as the defining characteric of counter-economics.  That approach is unsatisfactory, since it means we define our efforts in terms of the state rather than in terms of our own self-derived goals.

Indeed, the state’s own statism is a means to an end, and defined largely in relation to our own self-determined goals:  to prevent us from supporting ourselves in comfort, independently of the corporate-state nexus and wage employment, and from receiving the full product of our labor.

If counter-economics is the means, we should also remember that the means is the end in progress.  Evading the state is not an end in itself; it is, rather, a means of accomplishing what we would want to accomplish for its own sake, even if the state never existed.  Counter-economics is the building of the kind of society and economy we want right now.  And if we define it that way, it dovetails nicely with many similar concepts prevalent on the libertarian, decentralist Left:  counter-institutions, dual power, and (that wonderful Wobbly slogan) “building the foundation of the new society within the shell of the old.”

CONTRAST Jeff Gamso’s July 4th post contrasting the relative “necessity” of dissolving political bands in 1776 and now with Norm Pattis’ July 4th post contrasting the trial in 1770 of the British soldiers charged with murder for their role in the Boston Massacre with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2011 in the case of Harry Connick, District Attorney v. John Thompson (throwing out a $14 million jury award for an innocent man who was imprisoned for 18 years, including 14 on death row, because prosecutors hid evidence that exonerated him).

Glenn Greenwald is of course absolutely right.

And his absolutely valid point kind of makes my little effort on this blog to undermine and diminish the government’s power over the American people, by reminding whoever stops by that faith in the government is irrational and un-American, appear positively tame in comparison, doesn’t it?

IOZ

Justin Raimondo

Not even American propaganda could whitewash the fact that the U.S. has imposed Hosni Mubarak’s regime on The Egyptian People for decades.  His government is not merely our ally but one of our closest client regimes.  We prop him up, pay for his tools of repression, and have kept him safe for 30 years from exactly this type of popular uprising — all in exchange for his (a) abducting, detaining and torturing whom we want, (b) acting favorably toward Israel, and (c) bringing stability to the Suez Canal.

And yet it’s remarkable how self-righteously our political and media class can proclaim sympathy with the heroic populace, and such scorn for their dictator, without really reconciling our national responsibility for Mubarak’s reign of terror.  Thanks to this Look Over There genre of reporting, we’re so accustomed to seeing ourselves as The Good Guys — even when the facts are right in front our noses that disprove that — that no effort is really required to reconcile this cognitive dissonance.  Even when it’s this flagrant, we can just leave it unexamined because our Core Goodness is the immovable, permanent fixture of our discourse; that’s the overarching premise that can never be challenged.

Read the whole thing.

Greenwald is one of those bloggers who often makes me wonder why I even bother.

The Patriot Act and its sickly progeny have been used for all sorts of decidedly unpatriotic things in the past few weeks. The Government is, for example, seeking account information about Twitter users. It flashed a subpoena at Twitter headquarters in San Francisco ten days before Christmas: Turn over records but don’t tell anyone we asked, the Government demanded. Only cowards and tyrants hide their tracks with threats. Twitter stood its ground, and the truth can be told: Uncle Sam is wetting himself because WikiLeaks has toid the truth about what he does when he thinks no one is looking.

Odds are that every other Internet company engaged in social media have received similar subpoenas. Odds are that these companies have rolled over the turned over their files without a fight. Information is both power and profit, you see. The government wants all the power; it seeks to license those who can profit from distributing the remains. Fighting this power is important, even at the expense of profit.

. . .

Glenn Greenwald: DOJ subpoenas Twitter records of several WikiLeaks volunteers [Greenwald is the go-to man on all things Wikileaks. As he noted in responding to accusations against him by Wired.com’s Senior Editor Kevin Poulsen:

Poulsen seems to think that it’s some sort of secret that I am an active supporter of both WikiLeaks and Manning.  Unlike Poulsen, I don’t conceal my relationships to subjects or my views of them.  That I am a fervent supporter of WikiLeaks and Manning is about the most disclosed fact about me.  I’ve twice encouraged readers to donate money to WikiLeaks, including all the way back in March when few people had heard of the group.  I’ve also encouraged readers to donate to Manning’s defense fund right out in the open on my blog.  I’ve made repeatedly clear — by writing it — that I consider both of their actions heroic.

Poulsen doesn’t provide any citation for his grand discovery that I spoke with Assange while writing my piece in June; that’s because he presumably knows that because I said it.  I often make clear that I communicate with Assange about WikiLeaks matters (from CNN’s introduction of me on Monday night:  “Glenn, I’d like to start with you. I know you have spoken to Julian Assange several times”).  I don’t know where Poulsen gets the idea that my conversations with him were “off-the-record”:  the reason I didn’t quote Assange in my piece on Wired is because he had nothing of relevance to say.  Indeed, the only statement of WikiLeaks that I used was its allegation that Poulsen himself acted as government informant — an accusation I stated in both articles had no evidence to support it.

Honest journalists disclose rather than hide their associations and views.  And that’s exactly what I’ve done from the start with both WikiLeaks and Manning.]