Month: June 2011

Wisconsin Senate Passes Carry Bill

The Wisconsin Senate voted on plan B and passed it with a 25 to 8 vote:

The final vote was 25-8, with all 19 Republicans and six Democrats supporting it, and the other eight Democrats opposed.

The bill is expected to pass the Assembly and Governor Walker has already expressed support for carry legislation. Things are looking up this time around for Wisconsin which will join the 48 other states that allow some form on concealed carry (then Illinois will remain the only holdout). One “representative” against this bill actually made a great argument for expanding on the bill:

Some Democrats pointed to the exemptions as proof that allowing concealed carry does introduce a new set of dangers.

“If this bill helps make Wisconsin safer, then why are there any exceptions?” said Sen. Tim Cullen, D-Janesville. “Are some citizens of Wisconsin protected by this bill and others aren’t? If you go to the county fair are you not as safe as if you go to Summerfest?”

I completely agree with the statement, all exemptions should be removed from the bill and people in Wisconsin should be allowed to have a means of self-defense regardless of where they are. I hope this bill goes through and shortly afterward another bill goes through that removes the exemptions that are listed in the current legislation.

Government Using Fear to Justify Its Own Existence

The state of Minnesota has something of a deficit going on which has required a rework of our state budget. Because politicians can’t actually do the job their elected to do we currently have a stalemate between the Democrats who want to reduce our budget by $1 and the Republican who want to reduce our budget by $1. The problem is the two parties can’t agree on which $1 to cut and thus we’re facing a potential government shutdown. As our state government is a government it has already moved to bypass it’s own laws by using fear to justify its existence:

In a petition to Ramsey County District Court, Lori Swanson said that unless a court keeps core services running, sexual predators could be out on the streets, veterans turned out of nursing homes, unemployment checks left languishing, and there would be a “catch-and-release” criminal justice system if no judges were able to preside over hearings.

What the government wants you to see is the reason you need them to live. What you should be seeing is a weakness, a central entity that is critical to the livelihood of many people. A lack of redundancies is a bad thing as any network administrator will tell you. If you only have one central e-mail server and it goes down that means your organization can’t send or receive e-mails until the system is fixed. On the other hand if you have redundant e-mail systems and one goes down you will be just fine.

Having so many services administered by the government means there is a complete lack of redundancies. If the government goes down then peoples’ lives are negatively affected. This is why giving the government a monopoly on anything is a very bad idea (well that and because they use their monopoly on the initiation of force to provide everything they do). Imagine for a minute if the government didn’t have a monopoly on critical services.

Let’s use the police force for this this example. As it sits now the government wants you to believe there will be chaos in the streets if they shutdown because the police will not be funded and thus unable to perform their duties (this of course ignores the ability of individuals to defend themselves without the need of state assistance). Now let’s image police forces were privatized and communities or even individuals could hire the services of any private security company they so chose. If the company you’re currently contracted with goes bankrupt and thus can’t provide their services the solution is simple, you hire a different security company.

When I talk about the privatization of police forces people instantly jump up and yell about why that’s a terrible idea. I disagree but this post isn’t about that, it’s about having redundancies for critical services which the government doesn’t allow for. Either way any system controlled by government is a weak point because private entities are seldom allowed to provide similar systems (either by law or by the fact that government can undercut any private entity as government can run at a constant loss).

Claiming that society will basically collapse if the government shuts down is fear mongering. It’s no different than a fire department allowing a house to burn to the ground to make an example of somebody who wouldn’t play by their rules. In order to maintain their current power and to continue grabbing more the people in the government’s territory must be afraid, they must fear something and believe the government is the only entity that can protect them. The war on terror is a similar tactic used by the federal government to grab power through such atrocities to liberty as the PATRIOT Act.

If you believe society will collapse if the government shuts down you need to open your eyes and realize why that’s such a bad thing. It’s not because the government is glorious and the only thing that separates society from chaos, it’s because they’ve removed any redundancies to the services they provide and thus are a central point of failure. This is one reason for the advocacy of small government, every system you remove government interference from is a system can will be provided by private individuals and thus competition and redundancy will be allowed to flourish. Don’t fear a government shut down, fear government control which causes a shut down to affect so many lives.

The Difference Between Initiation of Force and Self-Defense

I paid some lip service to the non-aggression principle that makes up the foundation of libertarian philosophy when I was explaining the reason that taxation is a form of theft. Oftentimes when explaining the non-aggression principle people will get it mixed up with the concept of pacifism. The non-aggression principle is not pacifism and I think it’s important to to clarify the difference and explain who a libertarian can also be in favor of self-defense.

The non-aggression principle of libertarian philosophy states that all aggression is illegitimate. What is meant by aggression is not violence but the initiation of violence. For example if I had done nothing to you and you then decided to run at me with a knife you would be initiating violence. In this case you would be the aggressor. On the other hand if I had pulled a knife on with apparent malicious intent you and then you pulled out a knife I would be the aggressor because I initiated the violence.

This difference between the non-aggression principle and pacifism becomes apparent with what is advocated in such a situation. If you pull a knife on me I have several options available to me; first I can simply let you stab me, second I could defend myself, and third I could attempt to flee. A pacifist is somebody who is against all forms of violence and thus the only options they would consider legitimate would be the first and third. This is because pacifism doesn’t believe in the use of violence regardless of the situation and view any use as illegitimate. On the other hand somebody adhering to the non-aggression principle would consider all three options legitimate because somebody has initiated violence against you and you have a right to defend yourself by the fact that you own yourself.

People seem to get mixed up as I’ve hard conversations where people have called me a hypocrite because I claim to adhere to the non-aggression principle while also carrying a firearm. Those of us who legally carry a firearm do so for the purposes of self-defense. That is to say we carry it in case somebody initiated violence against us. I know of nobody who has a carry permit with the intent of initiating violence against others. Instead everybody I’ve conversed with who holds a carry permit is unwilling to use their firearm unless they are first attacked. That is to say people who carry firearms adhere to the non-aggression principle, they are no pacifists. The difference between the two is great and needs to be understood before claiming somebody calling themselves non-violent and carries a firearm is a hypocrite. What is meant in the context of non-violence is not pacifism but adherence to the non-aggression principle.

SWAT Team Cleared in Murder of Former Marine

Remember the SWAT team in Arizona that stormed into Jose Guerena’s home and put 70 rounds into his home? Remember how I said the SWAT team was likely to receive nothing more than a paid vacation followed by clearance to return to duty? Well I hate being right in these cases:

The SWAT team that gunned down a former Marine in his Tucson, Ariz., home was cleared today of any wrongdoing in the incident.

Jose Guerena, 26, was killed in a hail of bullets from the SWAT team, which broke down the door to his home on May 5 while trying to serve a search warrant as part of a home invasion probe.

Guerena did not fire a single shot in the incident, but Pima County Chief Criminal Deputy Attorney David Berkman said in the report issued today that the five SWAT team members were justified in using deadly force because the former Marine pointed his weapon at them.

You have to admire how the fact that Mr. Guerena was pointing a weapon at the SWAT team because they came busting into his home is completely ignored. Mr. Guerena never fired a shot, likely because he was either identifying his assailants or because he had identified them but was unable to lower his weapon before being riddled with bullets. Oh, and get this:

“A close examination of the rifle revealed it appeared to have been damaged by being fired upon from such an angle that it must have been pointed toward officers,” Berkman wrote. “The officers were mistaken in believing Mr. Guerena fired at them. However, when Mr. Guerena raised the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle in their direction, they needed to take immediate action to stop the deadly threat against them.”

Emphasis mine. They were mistaken that Mr. Guerena fired at them? How do you make that kind of fucking mistake? An AR-15 is a fairly loud weapon especially when fired indoors and although I realize those SWAT team helmets likely muffle some sound I don’t think they can muffle gun fire as you can hear human voiced through the damned things. And the outrage doesn’t stop there ladies and gentlemen:

He said “many guns” were found in the house, including the AR-15 that Guerena was holding, another rifle and a handgun. Body armor and a U.S. Border Patrol hat also were found, he said.

“He was well-armed, well armored,” Krygier said.

But when asked if Guerena was wearing body armor at the time of his death, he said, “No. … He basically had a pair of boxer briefs on and that was it.”

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I understand you SWAT team members made a huge fucking mistake and are trying to improve your image any way you can but trying to sully the image of Mr. Guerena but making him sound like a man up to something is disgusting. Owning firearms and body armor is irrelevant to the case beyond the point that it makes Mr. Guerena look crazy in the eyes of many people.

Either way I’m not at all surprised by this result. The police can get away with murder, literally, because the same legal system that employs them also determines the validity of their actions. When you get to determine the validity of your own actions you can get away with anything as this story proves.

The ATF Has Been Busy

It looks like the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have been busy in their operation to supply guns to Mexican drug cartels. Apparently the ATF have allowed over 1,700 guns to fall into the hands of known criminals:

At least 195 of the weapons have been traced to Mexico, found mainly at crime scenes, but ATF agents quoted in the report said more than 1,700 firearms were trafficked “to known criminals or cartel elements south of the border and elsewhere” under the operation.

“I cannot see anyone who has one iota of concern for human life being OK with this,” Agent John Dodson told committee interviewers.

I’m guessing they’ve allowed far more than 1,700 to cross into drug cartel hands but I’m also a cynical ass when it comes to government. The entire gun walker operation is interesting to me because of its implications. The ATF have been asking for increased enforcement powers because gun from the United States apparently have been crossing the border. The source of those guns is the interesting thing though as it seems to be the ATF itself. It would not be unprecedented for a government agency to manufacture a crisis and then use it to obtain more power for itself (like the FBI providing fake bombs to people and then egging them on to blow something up with said bomb).

Not only has the ATF lied to its employers (that would be us as we pay their wages) but they’ve also actively broke United States law which would get any regular Joe tossed into federal prison and labeled a felon for life. Regardless of how this fiasco turns out I’m guessing the ATF will receive nothing more than a stern talking to followed by a congratulations by some fuckhead “representative” for their work “fighting crime.”

iOS 5 Supports S/MIME Encrypted Email

Here is an interesting iOS 5 feature that Apple doesn’t seem to be advertising very much (since most people probably don’t care), the ability to use S/MIME to sign and/or encrypt e-mails sent from you iOS device. This is actually a pretty killer feature for me as I like to sign e-mails I send (of course I used a self-signed certificate so it shows up as invalid unless I send my public key to recipients).

Comments, Concerns, or Questions

OK you ungrateful bastards I’ve finally added an e-mail address that you can send stuff to. If you want to e-mail me about something go ahead and send your comments, concerns, or questions to blog [at] christopherburg [dot] com. If you can’t figure out how the e-mail address needs to be formatted chances are I don’t want you to e-mail me.

Government is the Worst Girlfriend You’ve Ever Had

I think I’ve come across one of the best analogies for describing government ever written. Government is basically the worst girlfriend you’ve ever had:

Imagine, if you will: You’re a single guy who (a few years back) was in a terrible marriage with this overbearing foreign broad. She treated you like shit and tried to run every fucking aspect of your life. You were miserable. So one day, after trying everything to make it work, you finally decided enough’s enough, and served her with papers… She did not take it well. The divorce was messy, but in the end you basically got everything. You knew immediately you didn’t want another serious relationship, you’re too independent for that. You just needed something light… You needed a fuck-buddy.

As with many relationships that start off as friends with benefits government will start off as a convenience that eventually turns into a tyrannical bitch:

Bit by bit she started controlling every little piece of your life. She nagged you to get rid of the car you loved and buy something more “practical.” When you remodeled your bathroom she told you what kind of toilet, shower head, and water heater to buy (To make sure you still felt like a man, she let you make the final choice from a list of products that she liked… that manipulative bitch.) She did the same with the appliances in your kitchen, and quietly replaced all your light bulbs with the kind she preferred. Even though you resented it, you had better things to do than worry about interior decorating, so to avoid a fight, you gave in and did what she wanted.

Go read the entire thing, I think you’ll enjoy it.

Three Senators Lying In The Hopes of Enacting Gun Control Legislation

As the anti-gunners lack facts to back their arguments it’s no surprise that they resort to outright lying in order to push their agenda of taking away our right to self-defense. One of the lies that have been propagated in the last year is that the majority of firearms obtained by Mexican drug cartels comes from the United States. Although this bullshit has been proven false the anti-gunners still parrot it because they have nothing else to work with.

Combine the fact that only a small portion of firearms recovered in Mexico actually trace back to the United States with the fact that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have been caught smuggling guns into Mexico for the drug cartels and we have the truth story; many guns recovered in Mexico that trace back to the United States were likely allowed to cross the border by government officials. This hasn’t stopped the usual suspects from going ahead and claiming once again that we need to ban semi-automatic rifles that look scary to anti-gunners in order to help the Mexican government:

“This report confirms what many of us already know to be true. … It is still too easy for Mexican drug lords to get their hands on deadly military-grade weapons within our borders,” said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. “We need to redouble our efforts to keep violent firearms out of the hands of these traffickers.”

The senators, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, are calling for reinstatement of an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and better enforcement of a ban on the import of military style weapons.

I have a better idea that may help reduce the number of guns that cross the border from the United States into Mexico; stop letting the ATF smuggling guns into that country. Furthermore you guys could work on ending the drug war here in the United States which would effectively behead the Mexican drug cartels as the price of these drugs would plummet. This is what Portugal did and it worked out pretty well for them.

The Government’s Attack on Bitcoin Has Begun

One thing many people fail to realize is that government’s like to control what is legal currency as it gives them unprecedented power. This tradition has gone back to the days of kings issuing coins with their images on them and disallowing commerce in their realm unless it was done with the use of coinage bearing their faces. It’s not at all surprising that the United States government eliminated the gold standard, a standard most often chosen in a free market, and created the Federal Reserve to issue all legal tender. Not only did the United States government switch to a fiat currency which they basically control they also made the possession of gold coins illegal and then confiscate coins in private hands.

Every time a new currency starts to make any headway the government steps in and shuts it down. These shut downs are always preceded by justifications for eliminating the potential alternative currency and now the government has unveiled their excuse for attacking Bitcoin, which not surprisingly involves the drug war:

Two U.S. senators have written an open letter to the United States attorney general, asking federal authorities to crack down on “Silk Road,” the Internet black market drug trade, and the digital currency that funds it, Bitcoins.

After reading the report on Silk Road, written by Gawker’s Adrian Chen, Democratic Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Joe Manchin of West Virginia wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Reuters reports. The letter states:

“The only method of payment for these illegal purchases is an untraceable peer-to-peer currency known as Bitcoins. After purchasing Bitcoins through an exchange, a user can create an account on Silk Road and start purchasing illegal drugs from individuals around the world and have them delivered to their homes within days. We urge you to take immediate action and shut down the Silk Road network.”

The truth behind this attack though is the bankers aren’t happy with the idea of an alternative currency that they can’t control. Unlike previous currencies though Bitcoins aren’t controlled in any manner by a central system making the elimination of the currency difficult. That being said there is nothing stopping the government from making possession of Bitcoins illegal and then establishing a method of searching for Bitcoin related Internet traffic. It will be interesting to see how this continues to play out, especially if Bitcoins become more popular in commerce.