A Libertarian View of the Olympics

by Dan Clore

Nation-states force taxpayers to pay for a meaningless spectacle in which governments "promote peace" by trying to prove their superiority over each other, pitting their chosen champions against each other at totally arbitrary activities.

Practically nothing about the Olympics will strike a libertarian as positive.

The nation-states involved force taxpayers to fund this silly spectacle. Now, many individuals may well enjoy watching the Olympics as a welcome respite from more important things like, say, keeping informed about politics and the world, working at productive activities, engaging in activism of whatever kind, or finally -- living their own lives. But why can't they pay for it themselves? Why should anyone else have to pay for it for them?

Most of the "sports" in the Olympics are totally arbitrary activities. It is beyond reason to determine why anyone should care which of the national champions involved perform better at them. A few of them do have æsthetic value, such as ice-skating, but even these have many arbitrary rules imposed on them.

The athletes who compete in these "sports" must sacrifice their right to privacy and subject themselves to invasive drug tests that not only test for dangerous performance-enhancing substances such as caffeine, but for recreational drugs like marijuana. The former could possibly be justified on grounds of fairness (as many athletes might not wish to endanger their health in order to perform better), but the latter is completely senseless.

At least these athletes have voluntarily chosen to sacrifice their rights. As Naomi Klein has documented (I'll try to insert links later), the totalitarian government of China has violated the rights of countless numbers of its citizens in order to better put on this ridiculous spectacle. They have displaced countless Chinese citizens from their homes and ratcheted up security-state measures.

As if to heighten the absurdity of the spectacle, the Chinese government imposed computer-generated graphics over the opening ceremony and had a pretty girl lip-synch a song sung by another girl. Guy Debord would be proud.

Finally, the ostensible purpose of this ludicrous spectacle is to "promote peace" internationally. Just how having nation-states pit their champions against each other in the attempt to prove their superiority might meet this goal is an open question.

What if all of these governments got together and, instead of competing at some completely arbitrary activity, tried to do something productive that required cooperation rather than competition? What if the citizens of the world got together, bypassing their governments, and did this themselves?

The Olympics suck.

Why Police Fucking Suck

When I talk to the people who I've been friends with since before I was a revolutionary punk rock type guy, things always get uncomfortable when anything that is remotely political (which is just about everything) comes up. How can I explain the political beliefs that I hold to be true without spending five days recounting my experiences and thoughts that have led me to believe what I do. I don't have five days, and usually the people listening don't have five days. Which means that up 'till now, I've blurted out things that have made little sense, or have been downright stupid. I mean, it is true that police suck ass, but saying it like that doesn't change many people mind.. And if I leave a conversation feeling further away from the person that I just talked to then what's the point?

So I thought of a way to explain, in under five minutes, why I think that police fucking suck. I putting it here so that you can use it if you find yourself talking to people that love police and law and order.

When I say that "police suck", or "I don't think there should be any police", people always say something like "what are you saying, we should just have total anarchy? What are you going to do about the rapists and the killers. I think that we need people around to protect us from those who wish to do us harm."

So my simple answer goes something like this, "Police don't protect us from those that wish to do us harm. The job of cops is to enforce the law of the land. The laws of the land in this country were written by slaveowners and the descendants of slaveowners. The laws in this country are mainly set up to protect property, because they were written by the people who have the most property. So a police's job is actually to protect property more than to protect the people. I can prove this idea with this example; if a person is starving and has no money, and he or she goes into grocery store that has an abundance of food, and he or she steals some of the food, it is a police's job to arrest him or her. If he or she tries to flee, it is a police's right to beat or shoot him or her. Plus with bribery and police misconduct to people that we always heard on news and read on newspapers has nothing to do with protecting people. They actually harm to the people. There are many examples like this, instances where police act as the foot soldiers for the rich. Another things about cops is that they very rarely actually protect people. More often they try to catch people who have already done something that against the law. If a person really wants to end violence, then a good place to start is by confronting violence. Vote against more violent cops. Vote against more violent weapons. Turn off the TV and don't pay to see movies that are full of it.

But most of all, try to even out the balance of power and wealth so that everyone has equal access to things that they need to survive, that way people won't need to take food, money, property, power or life from other people. And of course I can bring up that having police allows some fucked up, bad individuals more chances to do harm to other people as much as it allows good people a chance to protect other people.

1st Issue On Progress

Hi guys,

Radical Review is a not-for-profit fanzine created as a media to promote anarchism, underground & D.I.Y culture and anything related to the society. The first issue will be out soon. If you guys interested to put some flyers, ads, columns, cartoons, arts or anything related, please do not hesitate to email us or post any flyers or ads to our Myspace comment box. Seriously, we will not accept any major label or related ads, or ads for comps that include major label bands. Any material contain racist, sexist or fascist will not accepted. We at Radical Review reserve the right to refuse ads for any reason at any time.

The first issue is still on progress. Well, the first issue will feature interview with KL based reggae/punk The Garrison and another band still not confirm. Also feature is CDs Review; F.I.D/Insect Warfare split 7", Straight Answer (The Complete Discography 1996 - 2007), Negation (10.0 Ritchter Scale), The Garrison EP and more. While on Books Review - Vegan With A Vengeance by Isa Chandra Moskowitz, Choosing Death by Albert Mudrian and more.