KAILE HULTNER: So now I’m here with Jason Lee Byas, he is the Vice President of the Students for a Stateless Society at OU, he is the President of the Young Americans for Liberty, and he is the campus coordinator for Students for Liberty, all at OU.
Alright, so Jason, what I wanted to talk to you about today is actually something I’ve – I’ve wanted to have you kind of as a guest on the show for a little while, because you’re part of a group of people who take sort of traditional libertarianism and add your own unique twist to it – left-libertarianism. And so I wanted to talk about left-libertarianism, also some other stuff that had to do with sort of today’s protest, the “Syria: Not Our War” rally at the State Capitol.
But I wanted to first start with left-libertarianism. Can you talk a little bit about what that is, and how it’s sort of used?
JASON LEE BYAS: Alright. Uh, well, one way to talk about left-libertarianism is, there was a book by Chris Sciabarra, I can’t remember if it was late-90s or early-2000s, but it preceded the current wave of left-libertarianism but was really influential to it. The title was “Total Freedom.” And that might be a good way of looking at left-libertarianism, because it’s kind of a holistic way of approaching commitment toward individualism and kind of a libertarian – the kind of libertarian impulse, by which I mean obviously, we are just as absolutist about opposition to aggression, and I would consider myself just as absolutist on things like property rights and free markets, but with that also comes opposition to things that, while they might not be literal aggression, are still very bad instances of social power exerted on other people.
KAILE HULTNER: So kind of like, homophobia and sexism.
JASON LEE BYAS: Yeah yeah yeah. Homophobia, sexism, racism, things like that. Also, probably most controversially within libertarianism more broadly, are things like workplace hierarchy. Now, to be fair, I have seen that more traditional libertarian organizations have recently been very favorable toward things like worker cooperatives, and I think part of that is that left-libertarianism is bleeding into mainstream libertarianism. But basically, obviously, one of the main reasons we oppose the State is because we oppose aggression, but that’s not the only reason, and the other reasons include things like opposition to adverse social power, and people being pushed around is the easiest way of putting it.
If you believe in that, then you should also believe in opposing things like racism and sexism, and not just racism and sexism, but the kind of hierarchical way that those things manifest themselves in our culture. Namely, white supremacy and patriarchy. Heteronormativity, when we’re talking about issues like homophobia. And, uh, what I would consider to be the best phrase is capitalism, but for those who are more interested in keeping the word “capitalism” to mean free markets, then you could call it “bossism,” or something like that. But those are things that I think libertarians have reason to oppose. Especially considering that most of those things only really submit themselves once you have some sort of institutionalized force upholding it.
KAILE HULTNER: When we were talking on the way over here, you mentioned liberaltarianism. Can you sort of talk about what the difference between left-libertarian and liberaltarianism is?
JASON LEE BYAS: Yeah. Well, liberaltarianism, uh, I don’t want to say any names here, because that’s not my point, but sometimes people mistake left-libertarianism for another phenomenon that you might call – I don’t know if it would be a pejorative, or some of them might not consider it one, but whatever – you might call “liberaltarianism,” which is kind of a milder form of libertarianism that also has kind of liberal inclinations, and sometimes they might, along with a minimal nightwatchman state, support something like a state social safety net, usually in the form of what’s called a negative income tax. They might support some other kinds of regulations and at worst, maybe even public education in the form of state schools.
That is not what left-libertarianism is, because left-libertarianism is not a milder form of libertarianism. Left-libertarianism is just as extreme – just as extremist, just as radical, just as not –
KAILE HULTNER: Kind of uncompromising.
JASON LEE BYAS: – yeah. Just as uncompromising, just as, uh, unrespectable to the average person as the most out-there right wing libertarian is at their best; but left-libertarianism takes with that kind of social opposition to the things I was talking about earlier. And then it also thinks that you can only really – it only logically makes sense, if you also oppose those things, to also oppose the state in full, and it also makes sense to oppose those things in full if you oppose the state in full.
Whereas one might say that liberaltarianism is a more moderate kind of libertarianism and a more moderate kind of leftism, left-libertarianism – I would see it as a much more radical kind of libertarianism than normal libertarianism, and a much more radical kind of leftism than normal kinds of leftism.
I think some liberaltarians kind of bleed into left-libertarianism at their best, and at their worst sometimes it’s almost kind of cosmopolitan conservatism, and that’s the danger I see of left-libertarianism being kind of mixed in with that.
KAILE HULTNER: So, in addition to being sort of the, you know, the Vice President of Students for a Stateless Society, you’re also an occasional writer at the Center for a Stateless Society, which is sort of the parent group and parent, sort of… think tank of left-libertarianism in general; and among your colleagues – and actually among my colleagues as well – you know, we share Kevin Carson and Roderick Long, and Gary Chartier, and all of these names of people who have also been sort of categorized with the mainstream libertarian movement in some way or another.
The work that is done at the Center for a Stateless Society, and of course you can correct me if I’m wrong, it seems like it’s definitely trying to push libertarianism – well I mean obviously it’s trying to push libertarianism in a left direction, but you know, I’ve seen sort of defenses of, like, mutual aid societies, and basically, does the Center for a Stateless Society and does left-libertarianism in general try to answer the questions that the layperson seems to constantly have? Like, you know, tonight at the rally, there were a lot of people who were asking, you know, “well, I like libertarianism up and to the point where it hits the social Darwinism aspect.”
JASON LEE BYAS: Of course.
KAILE HULTNER: So the question that comes out of that is, is left-libertarianism a way of answering that question of what would replace, sort of, the less-negative aspects of the State in terms of social safety nets and things?
JASON LEE BYAS: Yes. I would say that to some degree, sometimes some fellow left-libertarians overemphasize how different left-libertarianism is fundamentally from normal libertarianism. Because it’s not like normal libertarians don’t also talk about those things; some of the best work on – the best work, without a doubt, on mutual aid societies comes from David Baito, who I – he’s a great libertarian, I don’t know if – I definitely – I don’t think he would call himself a left-libertarian, but he’s definitely interested in things like mutual aid societies, and that’s something that libertarians in general will talk about.
But the difference in left-libertarianism, I would say, is almost more one of emphasis, and of making those things connected. It’s not – for us, the issue is more that, uh, it’s not just that this is a way that we can deal with these problems of poverty and things like that, but that poverty – we are so certain that a free society is going to be one that will better deal with problems of poverty and things like that, that that is one of the reasons that we are libertarians. We also connect it in a way that it doesn’t make much sense to support a freer society without supporting a society that’s also freer of poverty, and freer of things like adverse work relationships.
And a lot of right-libertarians, I think, one way to put it, is that they don’t – they’re not – often they don’t understand the radical implications of the views they already have, and that’s something that I think that libertarians at the Center for a Stateless Society try to bring out.
Now, also I think that that connects itself with kind of a view of the State that a lot of radical leftists have had when they’re attacking the State, which is that, the State is in the hands of capitalists in the sense of the owners of capital, and it is in the hands of capitalists in the way that – I think it was Marx or Engels called it the Joint-Stock Company of the ruling class, and I would say that left-libertarians accept that, and therefore say that that’s a reason that the State can’t be trusted. And so, in the same way, it’s accepting a lot of leftist critiques of the status quo, and taking them to their actual conclusions.
KAILE HULTNER: And actually, that was a really great segue. Here’s a clip of Jason speaking at the Syria: Not Our War rally on the State Capitol steps on July 12, where he is talking about intervention in Syria and why that’s a bad thing.
—
(CLIP): [applause] [crowd chant] Jason: Really quickly, I wanted to give a plug for those websites that I do write for: LibertyMinded.org, and the Center for a Stateless Society at C4SS.org. Now: many of those calling for intervention in Syria are calling for it as a “humanitarian” intervention. Let’s concede for a moment that military interventions can be just, if they’re truly humanitarian, and see whether or not involvement in Syria would qualify.
As a reason for intervention, we are reminded that Assad’s regime is tyrannical, dangerous and cruel to those he rules over. That is no doubt true; it cannot be overstated and must not be understated just how awful Assad really is. But would that make US involvement truly humanitarian?
No.
Remember the intervention in Libya? Colonel Gaddafi’s government was also ruthless, but so too were the rebels – the ones the United States government supported, and who terrorized black citizens after judging them to be mercenaries solely on account of their skin color. The Syrian rebels aren’t any better, especially given their ties to al Qaida.
So let’s pretend for a moment that the government to follow Assad would be a roughly democratic one, modeled after ours. I mean, without the domestic surveillance, Guantanamo Bay, mass incarceration and all that. [laughter] Would the intervention be humanitarian then? No! As with all modern wars fought with modern weaponry, attacks do not only kill those who are actually engaged in the conflict, and it is absolutely certain that innocent people will die. Collateral damage in that context is murder, and the blood of dead children – who will never grow old enough to experience whatever political changes happen – and of dead parents, who inspire orphaned children to hate the United States government, and want vengeance… That blood lies squarely on the hands of those politicians who sentenced them to die with a stroke of a pen and a few vague cliches about democracy.
And as horrifying as dead civilians are, are dead Syrian soldiers any worse? They too have dreams and loved ones, and death tolls aside, what about the psychological terror, damaging all of those involved – American soldiers included – sometimes irreparably? Is that humanitarian?
No.
Intervention defenders might say, “Of course, I don’t agree with all that. I’m just supporting some sort of an intervention to stop the humanitarian crisis.” But that is impossible, because that slaughter, that terrorism, that cycle of violence, that bloodlust is what a military intervention is. It should be clear at this point why American involvement in Syria would not be a humanitarian intervention: because war is never humane, and there is no such thing as a humanitarian military intervention.
Those who tell us that we need to intervene to stop a humanitarian crisis in Syria are right, but not for the reasons they think. We – and I don’t mean the government, I mean you, me, and everyone that you know – have an obligation to stop the humanitarian crisis that is war itself; and we must not allow our government’s part in that crisis to spread more than it already has to Syria.
—
KAILE HULTNER: So, you mentioned in the speech that war is murder, essentially. Which, I don’t feel like a lot of our listeners would disagree with, but just for the nature of good discussion, let’s talk about the libertarian stance – or, specifically, I guess, your stance on war and why it is bad.
JASON LEE BYAS: Right. I think something that’s important to say there is, that a lot of people in radical politics and things like that are already going to be accepting generally that war is bad. But even then, there are times where I think that a lot of people kind of want to romanticize certain aspects of history. I think for example the amount of – within libertarian circles, the amount of romanticization of like, the American Revolution, and in a lot of more radical leftist circles, it’s not likely that you’re going to have someone openly oppose the Civil War, even though they would likely oppose it in any other situation because of the association with slavery.
KAILE HULTNER: Right. And there’s been a lot of debate about that recently, because a libertarian historian wrote a book that was widely panned, and it sort of sparked a debate about it.
JASON LEE BYAS: Well, I think the recent stuff is because of Jack Hunter, who was kind of a paleoconservative, aide to Rand Paul, who used to be more… who used to be much less, uh – I’m trying to think of a way to put this. He used to not do as good of a job as he could – used to not be as clear as he could on not – Actually, not even that. He dripped out from the correct position of opposing the North’s imperialism and dripped from there into (being an apologist) for the Confederacy, which is not something that’s acceptable.
Now, I don’t think it’s as, um – I don’t think that – I’m willing to forgive someone for that, just in the same way as I’m willing to forgive leftist radicals who are apologists for people like Mao, and things like that, when they kind of grow up and realize, just because someone opposed American imperialism, that doesn’t make them a hero. And now, there’s been a big response to that, because a lot of – even though Jack Hunter doesn’t consider himself libertarian, he considers himself a conservative, and he is – there has been, in the past, from certain segments of the libertarian movement, kind of a downplaying of how bad the Confederacy was, and that is bad. And it was a slave empire, and there cannot be any equivocation there. But, a lot of the responses have gone kind of wrong in the opposite direction, which is to say that I’ve heard and seen people say, “Well, given that the South had slaves, anyone would have been just to invade them for any reason, and no matter what happened, the Civil War was just, because the South had slaves.” And that’s just stupid!
What does slavery have to do with Sherman’s March, and killing innocent poor Southerners, who didn’t own slaves? They weren’t slaveholders, they were just people who lived in the South. And what does slavery have to do with conscripting all those Northern soldiers? And what does slavery have to do with waging a war that Lincoln did not have to wage?
These are things that – it was not a defensive war, even though the South started it, started the war, it was not a war that Lincoln had to pursue. And uh, those are things that no libertarian should ever – just as no libertarian should downplay just how awful slavery was, and just how evil the Confederacy was, no libertarian should ever downplay how awful the Civil War was.
Now, it seems like a lot of people who are downplaying how bad the war was, kind of have this image of the North just going after the slaveholders, and if that’s what it was, that would be fine; I liked Django Unchained just as much as anybody, but the Civil War was not Django Unchained; the Civil War was killing a bunch of poor people who never owned a slave.
KAILE HULTNER: Right. There are stories about how rich men in the North would literally buy soldiers to fight on their behalf. But anyway, that kind of stuff happened, and obviously just the death counts alone on both sides were atrocious. Hundreds of thousands to millions of people died in one of the bloodiest wars we’ve had.
JASON LEE BYAS: And in the same way, and this kind of – we kind of got a little bit off topic, because I was just – I had some discussions earlier today, because I haven’t seen as much of the Confederacy apologism, which is something that does annoy me, and it should, but the kind of swing in the opposite direction when it goes to far is annoying. But it does kind of present a good segue into the rally today, because in the same way, you should never downplay just how awful someone like Assad is. Or someone like Gaddafi was. Someone like Assad, someone like Gaddafi, someone like Saddam Hussein, are awful.
But that doesn’t mean that just because they have these authoritarian states, that it’s justifiable to go in and murder innocent people who have nothing to do with that government. And even the people who are literally part of the government in the sense that they’re soldiers, it’s not a good idea – just because the State that they eventually answer to is bad, that doesn’t mean that they themselves are guilty for the crimes that they’re being forced to commit and things like that. You have to remember that those people are people, and they have loved ones, they have dreams and aspirations and things like that, and crushing that is just as bad as crushing anyone who lives here.
A lot of people talk about war in very abstract, kind of almost game theoretic terms about international politics, and, “well, this is gonna do this with Russia, and well” –
KAILE HULTNER: A lot of people mention a proxy war with Iran and Russia.
JASON LEE BYAS: Right, right, right. The real issue to me is that there are innocent people who necessarily are going to die, and people who – even if they are part of the Syrian military – are not a part of, are not the movers and shakers of the Syrian government. People who do not deserve to die just because Assad is bad. It’s not as if the people that we are supporting are the – when I say we, of course, I’m referring to the US government – that the US government is supporting – the Syrian rebels are not necessarily any much better than Assad’s government.
They’re also terrorizing people, they’re also persecuting Coptic Christians, and other Muslims, things like that. It’s not a battle of good vs. evil, just like the wars that people romanticize were not battles of good vs. evil. They’re battles that – it’s evil vs. evil, and the only way to deal with that is to not deal with it, to stop fighting, and to protect yourself and your family if anyone is actually coming at you, but not to join a military that’s going to kill a bunch of other people who have nothing to do with the issue that you think you’re fighting about.
KAILE HULTNER: Right. Sort of like, fighting in the French Resistance rather than fighting in any of the militaries in World War II.
JASON LEE BYAS: Right. And I forgot to mention, that’s another one of the wars that a lot of leftists are bad on is World War II. They think of the Holocaust, but they don’t think of murdering innocent Germans in Dresden. Although I guess people are finally starting to come around on Hiroshima.
KAILE HULTNER: Howard Zinn was really good about talking about his own experiences, you know, napalming parts of France. He hated that part. He thought he was fighting a good war, until that happened, and that kind of opened his eyes. And you’re right also on the Hiroshima thing, a lot of people, sort of unbelievably, have defended that, have defended Truman’s actions in terms of like, okaying the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to “end a war” that was already ending.
JASON LEE BYAS: “Well it ended the war. Otherwise we would’ve had a land war and that would’ve been worse.” You only would’ve had to do that if you had to have an unconditional surrender. Because the Japanese were already wanting to give out conditional surrenders. And then you even only had to do that if you had to have the Japanese’s surrender, which does not – you did not have to fight the war after they were expelled from – attacking America, you didn’t have to have the war. And even before that, now, obviously, nothing justifies the attack on Pearl Harbor, but the kind of sanctions that the United States government placed on Japan up until then had often been seen as things that were acts of war. What the United States government did, it’s very clear that Roosevelt wanted a war with Japan, and was wanting to get it however he could.
KAILE HULTNER: And he got his excuse in 1941. So going back to talking about your conception of why war is bad, and sort of the left-libertarian conception of why war is bad more broadly, sort of talk about that.
JASON LEE BYAS: Okay, well, the left-libertarian conception of war is roughly the same as most radical libertarians’ conception of war, and most radical leftists’ conception of war. I don’t think you’ll have a left-libertarian disagreeing with anything that someone even as hard-right-libertarian as a Lew Rockwell’s going to say about war, because he’s not going to mince words on that. And I don’t think you’re going to have much disagreement between a left-libertarian and someone who’s an outright Leninist on war, because they’re often going to be – at least when they’re talking about America, they’ll be good on that. But yeah, I guess the left-libertarian insight would be a combination of the two, which is that it doesn’t matter why the war’s being fought, it’s still unjust, but even then, it is worth talking about things like the kind of role of state capitalism and the way that war is influenced by those who push the levers of the State, which is the ruling class. And that’s – in order to really combat war – first of all, to really combat any particular war, you have to combat war itself, and to combat war itself, you have to combat the State, and to combat the State, you have to combat the forces that drive the State, namely, the large business interests at the heart of the ruling class.
KAILE HULTNER: Right, like the military-industrial complex, multinational corporations, things like that. Now, that’s interesting too, because, um, it seems that a lot of people’s sort of objections to libertarianism as well, is that they take sort of – and again, I’m sort of using other people’s conception of libertarianism, not what I know – sort of an Objectivist stance on things; and you’ve probably heard all of the objections in that vein. And it’s very interesting that some Objectivists are actually very pro-war. And you’ve also talked about, sort of in your personal writing, about how, you know, if Rand had any sort of consistency she would’ve been anti-war, anti-things like that, and yet, you know, the people who sort of represent her are very much pro-war to the point of like, blowing neocons out of the water.
JASON LEE BYAS: In no uncertain terms, as more favorable toward Rand herself at least in her earlier days than I a lot of other left-libertarians, in no uncertain terms, I think that Ayn Rand Institute types, the really Orthodox Objectivists, are the libertarian equivalent of Stalinism. And I’m really glad that they are also the kinds of people – the kinds of Objectivists who make a point to not call themselves libertarians. Because they’re not. Because they support mass murder. Now, the kind of defense they usually offer is one where, uh, “Well, as long as a nation has justified interests, meaning like, to defend themselves and defend their own interests, then any action taken towards that end is going to be just, and the blame for that action is going to be on the aggressor or the person that was going to aggress.”
And basically, they would say that yes, collateral damage is murder, but it’s murder at the hands of the government that the US Government is fighting. I think that it’s worth mentioning that there’s a role of governments in the collateral damage inflicted on their own people sometimes, but not as much as they suppose, and this very bizarre way of looking at things, where they’re involving people who are innocents and have nothing to do with the government, as if they are the movers and shakers within the government. And if you really take that to its logical conclusion, and you have an understanding of American imperialism in the Middle East, which of course, they don’t, you could honestly get to justifications of 9/11. You could say that, in that view, before Rand moved to the United States, if she had been murdered by someone attacking the Soviet Union, then that would’ve been fine, because, I mean, the Soviet Union’s the one that really killed her and things like that.
Well, fine, yeah, the Soviet Union’s probably partially to blame because they were an antagonistic force – would’ve been, in this hypothetical scenario, because they probably would’ve been an antagonistic force – just as the United States government is partially to blame for 9/11, not in a conspiracy theorist’s way, but in the way of being an antagonizing force – but you don’t abstract away from the people who actually ended up pulling the triggers and actually end up killing people. It’s a very anti-individualistic way of looking at things. It reifies the collectives of nations and things like that in a way that I don’t think you get out of the Galt speech, and it’s frankly disgusting. I can’t take someone seriously when they talk about individualism or liberty when they defend Hiroshima.
KAILE HULTNER: Alright. We’re talking with Jason Lee Byas, he is the Vice President of the Students for a Stateless Society at OU. When we come back, we’ll be talking about why it’s important to have an anti-war movement in Oklahoma.
—
(Music Break)
—
KAILE HULTNER: Welcome back to Smash Walls Radio, this is Jason Lee Byas talking with us. Before the break I said that we were going to be talking about the anti-war movement and why it’s good that there is one in Oklahoma. So, let’s just sort of start at the protest. It was announced by Paul Wesselhöft, a Republican from Moore, I believe, and it was sort of announced as this non-partisan gathering-of-the-troops, to use sort of a weird euphemism, and sort of rallying around this idea that we shouldn’t be intervening in Syria. Now, we’ve talked, of course, about why it is bad to, well, do that, but I want to talk a little bit about the anti-war movement in Oklahoma. Now obviously the meeting today was fairly small, but there did seem to be a lot more people showing up who were a lot – it was a lot more diverse as far as the crowd goes, so tell me about how you felt about today’s protest in comparison to other anti-war rallies you’ve been to, and go from there.
JASON LEE BYAS: Well, I felt like it was a very positive showing, because there was definitely a diverse group of people. Even though there was a lot to disagree about with a lot of the people there, it was very centered with what we agreed on. And even when people made a reference to their own personal beliefs, it was usually in the context of saying why people who share their own beliefs should oppose the Syrian Civil War. When conservatives were speaking, they talked about conservative traditions of opposing war; they didn’t try to tell you why you should be a conservative, they told you why, if you are a conservative, you should oppose war. People who were liberals did the same.
I think that it was also good, because there was a very, um, for the most part it was very forceful in its opposition. The things that everyone agreed on, we agreed on very strongly, and I think the fact that it is – that it was as diverse as it was will make it more accessible for people to understand that, if nothing else, we should agree that war is evil, and that especially a war like the Syrian Civil War. Even if you do accept wars like the Civil War or World War II, things like that as being justified, the Syrian Civil War does not hold up to the standards of what would make those wars justified.
I thought it was great, I’d like to see more of it, and I’m also glad about the diversity, because before this, some kind of “liberal elite” type of journalists seemed to be promoting the event – not promoting the event, talking about the event as if it were like a Tea Party rally opposing the war, and using it as a springboard for talking about why this “new Republican isolationism” is bad, etc. First of all, I think it shows something about the mainstream establishment liberals that they think that the short burst of non-intervention to come from some more recent conservatives is one of the bad things about them. But it’s clear to anyone who actually attended the rally that this was not a conservative rally. There were conservatives there, but only because it was kind of a rally for everyone who opposed war.
KAILE HULTNER: Do you feel like the event today was a really good sort of opportunity to build a better movement? Not like a larger movement, because that doesn’t necessarily mean better, I mean, we had millions of people protesting the Iraq war in the 2000s, and obviously that war went on for almost a decade, but when I say a better movement, I mean a movement more based on what we agree on rather than like, a bunch of separated, isolated groups all just being like, “Oh, we’re anti-war, so we’re going to show up at this rally” and then, oh, well the libertarians, and the anarchists, and the mainstream liberals fight at the protest.
JASON LEE BYAS: I think there’s always an opportunity to make a better movement of anything. The question is, can you seize on that? And I think that the way to handle that is for people to address those within their own ideological, philosophical kind of grounds. I thought it was good that the conservatives were the ones who talked about John McCain, Marco Rubio, things like that, and the liberals were the ones who talked about Obama. Of course, as someone who doesn’t have a dog in either of those fights, I didn’t – I kind of stepped away from talking about individual people. But like I was talking about earlier, I do think that it’s important to call out libertarians, or self-described libertarians, or self-described individualists, who might support war, even in like a historical context, because if you don’t have a proper understanding of history, and understanding that the evil of war is not just a tangential thing but is actually inherent to war itself, then you’re not going to be as good when actual cases come up. I think that libertarians should not be afraid to call out libertarians who are flimsy on war, and that liberals should be the ones to call out liberals, etc.
KAILE HULTNER: Okay, two final questions. The first is, is the libertarian movement growing in Oklahoma, and the final question is, is there anything that you’d like to plug or whatever?
JASON LEE BYAS: Man I sure hope so. It seems to, but that might be – my view of that might be distorted by the sorts of people I run around with. But it does seem to be that, when I talk to people on OU’s campus for instance, they’re more likely to be supportive of libertarianism and libertarian ideas than they might’ve been in the past. I think part of that is watching the failure of Bush and then watching the failure of Obama, and seeing that those failures are so similar, and that it must be something that they share, and you can’t just revert to being a conservative or being a liberal to solve are in one. And also I think that, with the Internet, it’s a lot easier for more radical ideas to spread, and I think that’s a good sign.
As for other things I might want to plug, I would definitely like to plug both C4SS, which you already mentioned.
KAILE HULTNER: C4SS.org.
JASON LEE BYAS: Yeah, C4SS.org, the Center for a Stateless Society, give them all of your money. Then also, I’d like to plug Liberty Minded, which is a libertarian podcast that Kaile occasionally joins us on.
KAILE HULTNER: They’re also sort of like a media – they’re gaming for a media center.
JASON LEE BYAS: Yeah. We also revamped the website recently, and it looks great. But also, C4SS revamped their website a couple months ago, and it looks great. So yeah, those are the two main things I want to plug. If you live in the Central Oklahoma area, you should get in contact with me if you’re interested in helping with, or joining, or getting to know people from S4SS.
KAILE HULTNER: That’s actually – I wanted to mention that too. We meet at the Grey Owl on Sundays at 4, and that’s every Sunday. Alright, well! This has been another episode of Smash Walls Radio. We’ll leave the show with some singing that I’ve recorded from the rally. What was the song that y’all sung for the Oklahoman guy?
JASON LEE BYAS: Bring Em Home?
KAILE HULTNER: The Students for a Stateless Society singing “Bring Em Home,” a sort of revamped version of a Pete Seeger song, at the State Capitol.
JASON LEE BYAS: And that is very not –
KAILE HULTNER: Didn’t practice.
JASON LEE BYAS: Yeah, of course.
KAILE HULTNER: It’s a little sketch, but it’s good outro music. My name’s Kaile Hultner, and I will see you next time.