Exit

The Benedict Option for the underground

The last bit from David Keenan’s piece, “Subterranean Homesick Blues,” in the January issue of The Wire:

“We need a new art that is almost sociopathic in its evasion, in its willingness not to be liked; a non-consensual art that refuses to market itself, that negates that old art world and free music chestnut about creating a space where dialogue can take place. At this point we need to shut down dialogue, halt conversation, put down the iPhone. We need a ruthlessly stratified, exclusionary, hermetic, refusenik art, one that takes its form and its content from the precise, awkward, barely translatable contours of the persons making it as opposed to a happy-clappy magpie approach to SoundCloud mixes, YouTube clips and rips of obscure vinyl. These days we are all fans … and music made by fans ends up uninteresting. Or at least unchallenging, and somehow subservient to our fandom. We need critics, too, who aren’t afraid to be unpopular, to be actually critical, and to write for the good of the culture rather than for the validation of their would-be friendship circle.

The future of underground music exists in the margins, in the one-offs. It’s time for lone voices, barely decipherable ones, in fact. The underground has disappeared but somewhere out there solitary cells are forming. Next time around, the revolution will not be liked, retweeted, favourited or followed back. In 2014 the underground is dead. Long live the underground.”

They aren’t underground by any stretch, but I feel like it would be somehow negligent of me not to note that The Band Perry played in the new Congress this afternoon.

Exit and human nature: The case of Llano del Rio

Going out to Llano
Llano del Rio
Try to find utopia
In the stucco grids and the tumbleweeds

You got to love that pear blossom
It’ll kill you just like possum
Have you been to the rock foundations?
Where it’s mostly known just for the speed

“Llano del Rio,” by Frank Black and the Catholics

Eighty-eight miles down the road to Sin City lies the rubble of a project the goal of which was to abolish sin itself. And every weekend, thousands of casino-bound travelers pass it by with the same attention they might give to an overheated vehicle on the side of the long and desolate highway. A sand-covered enigma with a history known only to the select few who choose to seek it out, the Llano del Rio colony is a testament to the “old, weird America,” as it has been dubbed—the America of messiahs and schmoozers, of apocalyptic pamphlets and fiery stump orations colored at once by both a starry-eyed realism and a pragmatic utopianism. If time is taken to plumb its depths, it is also a fascinating point of study for all those interested in the concept of political exit, and a sobering reminder of the need for any such exit to be grounded in a philosophical anthropology that views man as a fallen creature, bounded by the restrictions of his nature and limited in his pursuits on earth.

*****

In 1913, Job Harriman was a tired and broken man. He was, in that year, the most popular socialist politician in California, to be sure, but a tired and broken man nonetheless. After a long and tumultuous political career that garnered him attention from around the world, Harriman possessed all the fame he would ever need; it was the victory—the inevitable victory prophesied by Marx—that was sorely lacking.

He made his first run for office in California’s 1898 gubernatorial race, as the Socialist Labor Party’s candidate for governor. Then in 1900, he entered the national stage by joining Eugene V. Deb’s presidential bid with the Social Democratic Party as his nominee for Vice President. Finally, in 1911, he ran for mayor of Los Angeles, in one of the most contentious and talked-about mayoral races in America up to that point, losing to incumbent candidate George Alexander by a smaller than usual margin.

And he would have won it, too, if the system hadn’t been rigged by the capitalists. You see, at the turn of the 20th century, the streets of Los Angeles were a bloody battleground in a war between the forces of capital and the forces of labor, with each side constantly trying to outdo the other in a series of covert and overt contests involving bribery, espionage, political machinations, and the occasional  stick of dynamite. Or at least that’s how Harriman saw things. As far as he was concerned, the business establishment had been out to destroy him from the very beginning. That is why he had been tricked into joining the defense team of the McNamara brothers, two of the union workers suspected to be involved in the 1910 bombing of the Los Angeles Times building, and men who seemed clearly innocent, until they mysteriously confessed one day in a whimpering statement that reeked of blackmail. Before this confession of guilt, Harriman was poised to win the election easily, with news outlets across the nation raving about the impending socialist future of Los Angeles. But after the startling admission, fear of radicalism swept over the city and his reputation was so badly damaged that his Progressive challenger was able to narrowly come away with the victory.

This loss was the final straw that pushed Harriman over the line. Electoral politics were a sham, a hoax intended to deceive the masses into accepting the pre-approved choices laid out for them by their industrial masters. In order to truly affect radical change and dismantle the empire of capitalism in America, he had to take matters into his own hands. He had to do the only logical thing left to do—he had to become a capitalist.

No one is entirely sure of when Harriman first got the idea of forming what would come to be called “the most important non-religious utopian colony in Western American history,” but the uniqueness of his plan cannot be stressed enough. Sure, Europe might have its New Lanark or New England its Brook Farm, but these projects were, however revolutionary for their time, still tainted with many of the reactionary assumptions of the Old World. And that is why they had failed. The Western frontier, on the other hand, was the land of new beginnings and self-determination, the land of making things work and “changing history instead of merely interpreting it.”

To many of the utopian socialists of yore, the idea of starting up a community as a joint-stock company with the explicit goal of outcompeting capitalistic communities by offering the promise of a life free from competition would have seemed like a contradiction in terms. But in 1913, that is exactly what Job Harriman did, in a move that would have made any Silicon Valley-ite proud. In October of that year, after scanning various regions of California for a suitable location, he and several associates purchased 9,000 acres of land along Big Rock Creek in Southern California’s Antelope Valley, bringing Llano del Rio (“the plain by the river”) into reality. (more…)

2856237729_384750884b_z

Secession lagniappe

Happy 152nd anniversary of the Battle of Fredericksburg! Here’s a picture I took on the way to the reenactment two years ago:

Screen Shot 2014-12-13 at 1.32.32 PM

Sorry it’s been a while since the last one of these, been busy with other things.

Watch this great interview with Keli’i Akina of the free-market Grassroot Institute, which is surprisingly favorable to a restoration:

Student activists pulled down the U.S. flag at UH-Hilo and raised the Kingdom’s flag

Dampier on Puerto Rican exit

Michael Tomasky says dump the South. (Please oh please Br’er Fox, don’t throw us into the briar patch!) Chris Bray responds at TheDC.

Confederate flag comes down in Pensacola, along with all others the city has been under except the federal one.

Citadel’s Confederate flag places bowl game in peril

Related: the real winner of 2014 — the Klan.

Meanwhile, SPLC writer murdered by thugs

Congressional Black Caucus holds up Pamunkey tribal recognition because of a probably-inoperative part of their tribal law forbidding miscegenation with black people. (A big part of the story of why it’s taken so long is the Pamunkey initially negotiated its treaties with the Crown.)

Of nanobreweries and free staters

National anarchists are for Long Island secession

Defense bill takes away tribal lands

Political art upsets Iowa SJWs

(more…)

Adam Gurri on telescopic morality

From Front Porch Republic:

There is one version of the history of modern media that is a story primarily about a drug, developed to make its users feel anger with delightful intensity. Refinement of this drug has made some great leaps in a very short time — it used to be you had to wait until a certain time of day to get it. Then you had to deal with having it mixed in with a lot of filler material. Now you can go straight to the social media site of your choice, where you and your fellow junkies can trade images of victims overlayed with condemning quotes, or infographics which expose injustice in striking bar and pie charts. And now the shared experience of other people’s outrage has become part of the concoction, and it is immeasurably more potent as a result.

Like actual chemically-induced pleasures, in excess this anger is a sickness. It consumes your waking thoughts, and takes your vitality with you when it leaves. When the dose is administered, an extreme form of tunnel vision sets in. You get sucked into a monomaniacal focus on the object of some injustice, far away from you or anyone you know, and are temporarily unable to see anything that is actually a part of your life. You lose sight of vulgar morality, the stuff that really matters, and succumb to the siren song of telescopic morality. You rage at things you cannot control at the expense of time you could be investing improving the state of affairs around you, for your family, your community. The long term effect of mainlining telescopic morality is utter hollowness; ethical triviality.

3439120893_2d3a1dbfc1_b

Secession lagniappe

Starting to dig into the books that someone has very kindly bought me off my Amazon wish list. I’m a couple of chapters into Felix Morley’s only novel, Gumption Island, which is modeled — the map on the inside of the cover is almost identical to — Gibson Island in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, where he lived and wrote. It’s very charming for an allegorical book; I’ll probably post an excerpt here at some point. Also, I’m a few chapters into Eugene McCarraher’s Christian Critics, about which more will be said here, but I first wanted to take note of something he mentions right in the beginning, that Ralph Adams Cram, the architect, was an early proponent of the Benedict Option — as in, 1909:

The manifold evils that canker the civilization of our own time are explicitly those that monasticism is best fitted to cure, and as a matter of fact, has cured again and again in the past Within this era are no powers of regeneration: atheism, secularism, materialism, intellectual pride and defiance of law are ill tools for building anew the ramparts of the City of God. The impulse must come from without, from God, not from the world; even as it came in such varying degrees and different ways through Benedictines, Cluniacs and Jesuits. When the abandoned insolence of man, mad in his pride of life, has dashed itself to the stars and, falling again, crumbles away in [35/36] impotent deliquescence, then perhaps will come the new prophet, son of S. Benedict (though perhaps in a new habit and with an amended rule), who as in 500 and 1000 and 1500, will release the souls of men from their captivity, and strive again to make all things new in Christ.

There have been a number of smart dissents on the Benedict Option recently, from Jonathan Rauch and Samuel Goldman that are worth reading.

Speaking of cultural disengagement, here’s First Things’ new marriage pledge:

To continue with church practices that intertwine government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.

Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings.

ACNA’s new archbishop has advised against signing it. He cites Doug Wilson’s commentary. Ephraim Radner responds to some objections here. Schmitz, Reno have more.

Canadian Anglicans discover the medicine wheel. USCCB endorses beatification of Fr. Paul Wattson

*****

Almost funny Alaskan secession satire

Montana’s Confederate history

Food prices and Hawaiian independence

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs broke an open-meetings law. This is getting interesting.

Sherman as counterinsurgent

The new solid south

Texas secessionists say Obama’s immigration executive order should prompt a secession vote

(more…)

Private cities and public places

Have you heard the old libertarian joke?  It goes like this.  Should heroin sales to minors be legal on public sidewalks?  The libertarian responds, why are there public sidewalks?  The libertarian answer captures a certain truth.  Conflict arises when spheres of action, the set of actions deemed by others as reasonable, are ill defined.  Private property denotes clear spheres of action, thereby minimizing conflict.  By resorting to private property instead of public property, questions of appropriateness of certain courses of action are taken out of the public sphere.  In essence, the joke says the sales of heroin (I will ignore the aspect of children) should be a private matter.

However, while I believe the public sphere is currently too big, I do not believe the optimal size of the public sphere is zero.  The following essay is my attempt to square my advocacy for private or proprietary cities, cities where a single entity owns the land on which the city is constructed and leases it to renters, with my belief in a public sphere.

First, one can distinguish between what might be termed an economic (or crude) defense of proprietary cities vs a holistic (or liberal) defense.  An economic defense would solely consider whether people vote with their feet.  If people choose to move to the proprietary city, it is better than their alternative options.  A holistic defense considers more than just people voting with their feet.  It questions whether proprietary cities can offer adequate protections for civil rights.  Will there be a healthy civil society, freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process for those accused of crimes.  In short, will a proprietary city be an extension of the modern liberal order, or a subversion of it.

As an economist I am very sympathetic to the economic arguments.  In fact, all other things being equal, more crude proprietary cities are better than fewer.  However, all other things are not equal.  Crude and liberal proprietary cities are, to some extent, substitutes.  This is especially true for the first proprietary cities, whose success (or failure) will likely determine the future evolution of proprietary cities.

Dubai, though not a proprietary city itself, offers a glimpse of what crude proprietary cities could become.  A society segmented by class, South East Asians providing the manual labor, admittedly at higher wages than they could get at home, but without many basic freedoms, and Europeans.  There is little mixture between the classes, and no hope for the South East Asians to enter the upper class.

On a more theoretical level, we can consider the limits of proprietary cities.  Private spheres allow for action that is unacceptable in public spheres.  If you visit my house, I am perfectly within my rights to restrict your actions.  I may ask you not to voice certain opinions or to enter without my permission.

This line, however, becomes blurry as private spaces enter commercial arrangements.  The argument for banning discrimination based on race is that business is fundamentally different from residence.  The sphere of action businesses can take is more restricted than the private sphere one can take in one’s home.

As nominally private enterprises scale, the distinctions further blur.  In a company town, should the company be legally allowed to restrict speech critical of the company?  Aside from legality, morally, should it?

When considering proprietary cities, we can compare Dubai and Hong Kong.  Do we want a city where manual laborers are second class citizens, unable to participate in the public sphere, or a city where the poor have comparable opportunities to the wealthy?  Hong Kong is obviously not an ideal liberal city, but it is far ahead of Dubai.

I have argued that proprietary cities be given institutional autonomy as well.  With such autonomy it seems reasonable for the host country to ask for certain procedural safeguards for civil liberties.  A bill of rights, if you will, protecting the residents rights to speech, religion, association, protest, fair trials, and more.

While I strongly support political decentralization, there are differing visions on how a decentralized world would appear.  It could be fragmented into different groups, with little trust and interaction between the groups, with no group representing liberal ideals.  On the other hand, decentralization could allow us to escape modern tyranny, experiment with better governance, and kept intact basic values which continue to hold us together.  With regard to proprietary cities, the latter must be fought for.