The Federalists: Libertarian Punk/Rock

The FederalistsThank you MySpace for giving libertarian bands a place to spread their musical propaganda — The Federalists:

We’re a political band. We stand for the concept of individual liberty. We stand for the United States being the land of the free. We stand for the Constitution. We stand against the federal government which has criminally expanded beyond the bounds set for it by the U.S. Constitution.

[...] If you dig the message, then spread the word…if not, I hope we can make you bop around a bit.

They eagerly invite you to download their entire album in mp3 format for free and play it loudly out of your car while driving through suburbs and hospital zones. Because that’s punk, natch.

I also love their swatting down of anarchists:

We also urge so called “anarchists” to snap the fuck out of their utopian pipe dreams and wake up to political reality. Anarchy is a fantasy, oppression is real. The first step to freedom is to bring America back to it’s libertarian foundation. We need to enforce the Bill of Rights against our own government.

posted May 5th, 2006 by vforvandyke
  • Michael H. Wilson

    “We need to enforce the Bill of Rights against our own government.”

    Yup wish this was the LP’s mantra. Just got me this here T-shirt say’s “Support the Bill of Rights”.
    Looks real purty.
    M.H.W.

  • Timothy West

    yeh. I like it. Teh PUNKEST.

  • http://www.frankworley.com Frank Worley

    Hey I had a site at MySpace and am a libertarian songwriter. Dam I could have used an endorsement like that.

    Anyway, my next CD (later this year) will have alot more political songs than my first. I hope I can still get that endorsement.

    But I am a capitalist, so it won’t be free.

    Frank

  • Rick Rajter

    Also check out pokerface
    http://www.pokerface.com/

    Pro-American, anti-statist

  • vforvandyke

    We don’t know these things unless you tell us. That’s why there’s an email line for tips :)

  • http://360.yahoo.com/pintofstout PintofStout

    To the Federalists I’d say: Every Journey begins with a single step, yet the destination doesn’t change as we take more steps. I would like them to snap the fuck out of it realize where they are proposing this journey to end. I’d wager it would still involve a state (albeit, a smaller one) imposed upon the unwilling, such as myself.

    That said, hopefully they get heard. It is nice to have some propeganda going our way on this journey.

  • Ian C

    PintofStout — unfortunately any anarchistic state in actuality would inevitably lead to oppression.

    The cause of freedom and the cause of absolutist anarchism are not and can never coincide.

    I posit as a perfect example the individual whose religious beliefs honestly require him to kill human infants. One a week. If he doesn’t, he goes to hell.

    Where does that stand in the world of absolute non-statism? Sooner or later a group of individuals will *HAVE* to kill him. For things such as this a certain amount of initiated force is *NECESSARY* to the co-existance of human beings.

    The trick, as always, is to minimize said force as much as is humanly possible.

    For the record, that’s not even the *viewpoint* of our current government.

  • Timothy West

    Pinto – you don have to be unwilling. There are lots of places on this earth that closely resemble a anarchist reality.

    Darfur at the moment is a good bet. No big government there.

    Somalia has ben good to go for years. No central government, and no state government either. Just warlords with lotsa guns.

  • Daniel

    Ian C, that’s a silly argument. Attempting to kidnap somebody’s baby (for any reason, murder included) is an initiation of force. Killing somebody who has broken into your house (for any reason, kidnapping included) is not.

    Maybe you’re right that initiated force is necessary. I doubt it, but… maybe. This isn’t any sort of proof.

  • Ian C

    Daniel — re-read my statement, somewhat more carefully.

    Sooner or later, with the individual involved, someone would *have* to initiate force against him. After all — according directly to the NIFP, you can only act in defensive measures. You *cannot* preempt under any circumstances whatsoever. Ever. Said baby-killer would be able to get away scott-free every single time he did so successfully. After all; *PUNISHMENT IS AN INITIATION OF FORCE AGAINST THE GUILTY*.

    The ZAP is utterly inane. The NIFP is somewhat more useful. But to follow them as ideologies in a blind manner is destined not only to failure, but just as many and equally great injustices as are seen in today’s administration.

    For any group of individuals to interact *REQUIRES* the initiation of force. Unless, for some reason, 99% of the population is irrevocably eliminated spontaneously, this is now and will always remain the case: We exist in societies. Societies require injustice to operate.

    (cont’d)

  • Ian C

    In previous conversations the threat or implication of threat has been considered the initiation of force, even here on the HoT, and in general this is accepted.

    Under that auspice, any police force that exists, or laws which state anything resembling, “thou shalt not kill” can be *interpreted* as an initiation of force against the populace in general.

    Society will always need, further, direction; organization. This is necessary to prevent massive starvation at the hands of the specialization that social organization creates. (Read: doctors, construction workers, etc… and farmers). ALL social organizations inevitably become corrupt. This is ‘human nature’. No matter the safe-guards, this will occur.

    There are a number of ways to deal with this problem. I prefer what I believe to be simpler — internalized mitigation. That is to say — do everything you can to make power for power’s sake disdainful and vulgar in the eyes of the common populace.

    (cont’d)

  • Ian C

    To end this all, I will leave the following thought:

    Back in my days of schooling, I once wrote a thesis paper that proved in the anthropological sense that the scenario posited in the book, “1984″ could never happen… because humans are too corrupt and evil *FOR* it to happen.

    I worry more that we have already fallen into Aldous Huxley’s worst literary nightmare.

    Corrolary/slightly off-topic: Any man who calls himself a libertarian MUST promote honesty, honor, and the concept of “My Word is My Bond.”

    It’s connected.

    (End rant)

  • vforvandyke

    *cough* character limit *cough*

    /there for a reason

  • error

    Stephen, I’m not too sure about the character limit. It’s clear some people aren’t capable of expressing their thoughts succinctly. And sometimes, things simply need a larger explanation.

    I’ve run into the character limit once or twice myself, and I take particular pleasure in completely ignoring it.

    And anyway, Ian’s point needs to be refuted, even if it took him 3,000 characters to make it.

    The refutation is simple: Responding to force is NOT the initiation of force. Done.

  • DAP

    I agree michael. I read all through Ian’s stuff and still am convinced that their never is an appropiate time to initiate force.

  • Ian C

    SVD — yeah, I know. I acknowledged I was ranting. *s*

    Michael — how do you define responding to force, then, in that situation?

    The only people against whom the force was initiated are the ones incapable of responding *TO* that force. At what point is it permissible to *initiate* a response action when you personally are not involved in the thing responded to?
    After all — there have been some who have made the argument that no one has the right to make decisions for others (including their own children) and labelled that under the NIFP.(Enslaving one’s children is initiating force against them…)
    So again; while it’s useful as a guideline, not so much as an absolutism. I’ll use another example: Water rights. Farmer three miles up the river blocks off the river entirely on his own land, simply to spite the farmer three miles down.
    #2 dies of starvation.
    Does #1 get punished? He himself didn’t do anything but build something on his own property, after all.

    (cont’d)

  • Ian C

    (cont’d … but only this once. Honest)

    Flip that situation around a little. Say #2 blows up the dam, destroying #1′s property. Is *HE* punished by anyone? Does #1 have the right to destroy #2′s property in reciprocation?

    After all — both scenarios are simple responses to force. And those don’t involve third parties (which my baby-killer scenario *DID*).

    I agree with the idyl of the NIFP. It’s just that it breaks down in any attempts to apply it practically — JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PHILOSOPHY OR REGULATION THAT CAN EXIST.

    I could add more, but for space considerations… I’ll hold my tongue.

    (end)

  • Pingback: Hammer of Truth