Month: November 2011

When Ignorance is Prevalent Hilarity Ensues

I’ve stated several times both on this blog and elsewhere that I have mixed feelings about the various occupation movements. On one hand I’m positively gleeful that people are finally waking up to the fact that they’re being fucked over and are finally speaking up about that fact. Then I look on the other hand and realize that a large number of people at these occupation, while understanding that they’re being fucked over, don’t actually understand who is fucking them over or how. The lack of understanding has lead to numerous public displays of total ignorance and conflicting messages.

Recently students in a Harvard introductory economics class staged a walkout and sent the professor a letter explaining their reason. The problem with the letter is that it’s dripping with irony:

As Harvard undergraduates, we enrolled in Economics 10 hoping to gain a broad and introductory foundation of economic theory that would assist us in our various intellectual pursuits and diverse disciplines, which range from Economics, to Government, to Environmental Sciences and Public Policy, and beyond. Instead, we found a course that espouses a specific—and limited—view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today.

[…]

There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory.

It is my guess, although one based off of reason, that most, if not all, of these students do not support giving equal time to both the idea that the Earth is flat (yes, some people still believe this) and the fact that the Earth is a sphere in science classes. Yet they demand equal time be given to ideas that have been proven wrong (Keynesian economics) and ideas that have been proven correct (free market economics) in economics class.

The letter also espouses a complete ignorance on the topic of economics which is better explained in this article (although I wish the author wouldn’t have injected so much “us vs. them” attitude). What I find most disturbing and is pointed out in the article is the sheer unwillingness of some of these people to even listen to a dissenting opinion:

But that doesn’t matter to radical leftists. Logic in economics is irrelevant to them. As Mises explained, to defend their irrational theories they “attack logic and reason and substitute mystical intuition for ratiocination.”[2] That’s why they protest viewpoints they don’t like instead of engaging with and critiquing them. And that’s why they shout down dissenters in their creepy chanting assemblies. Independent thought is a threat to them.

[…]

It’s apparently not enough that these students will never encounter a conservative or libertarian viewpoint in any of their other classes. No, they must be shielded from any professor whatsoever who might challenge one of their prejudices against the free market. Even if that professor once wrote, as Mankiw did, “If you were going to turn to only one economist to understand the problems facing the economy, there is little doubt that the economist would be John Maynard Keynes.” If he holds any pro-market views at all, apparently, he must be boycotted.

This is known as confirmation bias and everybody suffers it to an extent. When I last visited the Occupy Minneapolis crew I tried entering a discussion with another about the right of jury’s to use nullification. He disagreed adamantly and stated juries must base their judgement on the letter of the law. When I tried explaining this wasn’t the fact and used historical examples such as Wisconsin’s use of nullification to avoid upholding the Fugitive Slaves Act and various state’s using nullification to avoid enacting the REAL ID Act he stormed off and told everybody else listening to our conversation not to listen to me. He presented no historical or legal precedent supporting his side of the argument, he simply refused to listen to what I was saying because it disagreed with what he believed.

I leave you once again with the wisdom of Murray Rothbard:

Go ahead and debate economics all you want but before doing so rid yourself of your ignorance so you don’t look the fool when you open your mouth. Nothing is served by ignoring what your opposition says as you can not learn or understand your opponent unless you first listen to them.

Fear Doesn’t Motivate My Decision to Carry a Gun

It never fails, when I talk about carrying a firearm somebody always chimes in and says something along the lines of, “I can’t imagine living my life in constant fear like you do!” There is a misconception among many who don’t carry, which is the belief those of us who carry do so out of fear.

I carry a gun for the same reason I keep a jump pack in my truck, wear a seatbelt, carry a Swiss Army Knife, have a stockpile of food, have extra batteries for my equipment, and backup data on my system regularly: I like being prepared. Thankfully I live in an area where violent crime is low but, like an auto accident, a violent crime can happen anywhere so it’s good to have a means of self-defense available. My firearm is another tool in my toolbox that gives me a better chance of a satisfactory result in a specific scenario.

When I first obtained my carry permit I didn’t do so because I was living in a state of fear, I did it because I believe having a firearm would enhance my capabilities in specific situations. While I was never in the Boy Scouts I do live by the mantra of always being prepared. My daily footwear are waterproof boots because boots in general have far more utility than shoes and I absolutely hate wet feet. Granted as a person who works in an office all day it’s unlikely I’ll be in a situation where waterproof boots are useful but there is no detriment if I wear boots and there are advantages so that’s what I do. Having four-wheel drive on my truck isn’t a feature I need every day but when a really bad snowstorm hits it’s nice to know I can get to where I need to go.

For most of us carrying a firearm means nothing more than having the right tool for the right job on hand.

Private Police

When you bring up the idea of a private police force people generally cringe in disgust. For some reason our society has found healthy and ration self-interest, or making profits from your labor, to be a thing of disgust. Unlike those who cringe every time the idea of private police forces is brought up I actually want those tasked with protecting me to do so for selfish reasons like profit. Why? Because people do far better work when they know they will be rewarded for their effort.

Several towns, including one here in Minnesota, have started hiring private police to take on a majority of patrolling duties. Why would somebody consider doing that? Simple, private police are cheaper than the public ones:

Now, in an effort to save money, the city with a population of 2,600 is making a controversial move few others have done: Starting in January, it plans to employ a private security company to patrol its streets.
Foley is believed to be the first town in Minnesota to replace its police force with private guards, according to the Minnesota attorney general’s office.

Not only is the town likely to save money but there is another huge benefit:

Leoni said GSSC security officers go through extensive training comparable to police officers. They will carry firearms for their own protection and not to enforce laws, he said.

[…]

Swanson wrote that private security employees may carry a firearm but can use it only in self-defense. Private guards do not have the authority to make arrests other than citizens’ arrests, cannot pursue fleeing suspects, make DWI arrests or even traffic stops. There’s also the issue of whether self-incriminating statements or evidence taken from a suspect by a security officer could be used in court, she wrote.

The private security employees can carry firearms but can only use them under the same circumstances any other private individual can, in self-defense. One of the things that sickens me most about modern police forces is their apparent willingness to employ deadly force in situations where such violence isn’t justifiable and being granted immunity because they’re employees of the state. Private security employees have to obey the same laws as private individuals which is a huge step in the right direction in my book.

I’m looking forward to seeing the results of this experiment. My guess is the experiment will end with the town saving money and the rate of unnecessary police violence dropping. I also predict crime in general will be reduced as the private police must either do a job that satisfies their customers or face unemployment. The profit motivator is a great one as is directly connects a person’s performance to their reward so that better performance means more reward. Rational self-interest is healthy and one of the most powerful motivators that exists for any species.

Italy Makes Large Cash Transaction Illegal

For those of you who pay attention to world news you’ve already heard that Italy has implemented a series of austerity measures. One of these measures I find especially egregious:

Measures to fight tax evasion will be strengthened, including a limit of 2,500 euros on cash transactions

What am I supposed to do if I want to buy my friend’s $5,000 vehicle? Since cash is out do I have to wait for them to get setup to accept credit and debit card transactions? Perhaps we’ll have to insert a middle-man such as an auto dealer in order to complete the transaction now. Is the legality of the transaction based on the worth of the object(s) being sold or the method of trade being accepted. If it’s based on the worth of the object(s) this becomes a big deal since all large value transactions between individuals (selling your automobile for example) will basically be illegal as most individuals are not setup to accept credit and debit cards. On the other hand if this is based on the method of trade being accepted (euros in this case) than this isn’t too big of a deal since both parties could agree to transact using something of value like gold and silver.

This austerity measure also assumes Italy’s problems have stemmed from lost tax money due to minor transactions between individuals going unreported. I can tell you right now that’s not the problem. As this isn’t the problem I’m betting money this austerity measure is being put into place so the government can keep and eye on what people are purchasing and use that data in enacting future legislation.

People Killed by Socialism vs. People Killed by Capitalism

History shows us that socialism usually leads to body counts. Whenever I bring this up around those advocating socialism they’re usually quick to saying, “Yeah but how many people has capitalism killed?” While they believe this is a smart response in which their opponent can only answer with an absurdly high number the truth of the matter is capitalism hasn’t actually killed anybody.

An advocate of socialism is always quick to laugh at my answer and bring up all those die because they’re unable to afford medical care, housing, food, etc. The problem with their rebuttal lies in the fact inaction does not kill somebody. Capitalism is a form of voluntary trade where people in a free market are able to take the product of their labor and trade it to others for the product of their labor. If you don’t like the terms of a trade you can walk away and no harm will come to you. Unfortunately there will be those who can’t afford basic needs but they do have other options including charity and mutual aid societies. Still some people will inevitably die from exposure, disease, or hunger under capitalism as with any economic system.

Socialism is a different beast altogether as the product of your labor is not yours to keep. In order to provide for everybody a central state confiscates the product of peoples’ labor so it can be equally distributed. This is where the real difference between socialism and capitalism comes into play; under socialism if you refuse to turn over the product of your labor to the state they will use for to take it for “the greater good.” Thus socialism is not a voluntary economic system but one based on the act of theft. Another aspect of socialism that is necessary for this topic is the idea of a new “socialist man.” Proponents of socialism believe people must be educated in order for a socialism utopia to form and this education is often the source of violence in socialist countries. Those who refuse to cooperate and play but the state’s rules are usually shipped off to reeducation or labor camps (often both camps being the same thing in practice). On the other hand capitalism works with our current society without the need to education the populace.

Capitalism vs. socialism is really a debate between voluntary and forced society. Under capitalism all transactions are voluntary whereas transactions under socialism are performed through coercion. If you die because somebody failed to provide you with something we don’t claim the would-be provider killed you. A man with a carry permit who refused to intervene in a violent crime is not said to have murdered the victim. When a farmer fails to provide food to a starving man we don’t charge the farmer with murder. Thus the people socialists claim are killed by capitalism can not be said to have been killed by capitalism. Those people died because they were no provided with a need and that doesn’t fit the description of being killed.

The victims of socialism however are usually those who dissented against the state or tried to maintain the product of their labor by concealing it from the state’s agents. Many Ukrainian farmers were labeled enemies of the state and hauled away because they attempted to conceal grain for their sustenance. Those farmers were murdered by the state because they refused to turn over what was rightfully theirs; in other words the state played the part of the mugger in a robbery. When somebody kills another while performing an act of theft we call it murder. Therefore by definition socialism is said to kill people as the redistribution of resources necessitates theft which necessitates violence.

The people advocates of socialism claim are killed by capitalism die due to the lack of action whereas those killed by socialism are killed by purposeful action.

Overheard at the Range

I spent Saturday and Sunday fulfilling my Oakdale Gun Club membership requirements in the form of 18 hours of range service. On Sunday I may have overheard one of the most cringe-inducing conversations in my history as a shooter. The conversation was regarding one shooter’s AR-15:

Questions Guy: “Is that an AK-60?”

Me: I just sighed but honestly there is no foul in not knowing what a particular gun is.

AR-15 Owner: “No, it’s an M-14.”

Me: Ohjesuschristonapogostick.

It’s an entirely different thing when you down know what your own gun is. Before anybody asks, no the AR-15 owner did not sound like he was simply giving the other guy shit.

Obama is Tackling the Hard Deficit Problems

While government debt has been spiraling out of control Obama has finally taken a stand and signed an executive order that will surly help bring the debt back under control:

US President Barack Obama has ordered government departments to cut back on the number of branded mugs, t-shirts and key rings they give away.

Such items, known as swag, are paid for by taxpayers, and are used by the government to promote its work.

The president has also ordered government departments to issue staff with fewer electronic devices, such as smartphones and tablet computers.

With such decisive action we don’t even need to take a look at the money we dump into war, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, worthless government departments, etc. I’m sure we can expect more actions like this that may very well save us a few billion dollars in our multi-trillion dollar deficit. Wow, when I say it like that it makes the actions of our President look pointless and futile.

My Favorite Thing About Neocons

My favorite thing about neocons is their naive belief that various government agencies can be reeled in or reformed. While this belief is annoying it is also kind of cute. It’s like looking at a child who hasn’t had a chance to fully experience the world and thus still holds the belief that good can be found in everything.

Sadly most neocons haven’t learned from reality and thus still hold theses naive beliefs. Take one neocon’s remark about the Transportation Sexual Assaulters Security Administration (TSA), she posts a horrific story of sexual abuse performed by a TSA agent and then points out the fact that the TSA isn’t about security:

Is there anyone out there who still believes that all this has anything to do with safety? It does not. These procedures are simply “security theater,” and when a traveler like Tabitha ops out of the potentially carcinogenic scanners, he or she has inconvenienced the TSA workers, who then retaliate by making the pat-down as invasive and unpleasant as possible.

I’m with the author up to this point. Unfortunately in the commends she makes a statement that demonstrate her ignorance regarding government agencies:

Stricty speaking, I’d like the TSA leashed, rather than completely abolished.

Of course this is the same woman who said she wanted to see at least one Republican candidate address the problem of the TSA and when another commenter pointed out Ron Paul she simply dismissed him as a racist and 9/11 truther (neither of which are true). This being the case I don’t expect much logic coming from her as she’s living in a world of cognitive dissonance by believing government agencies can be reformed and that the Republican are somehow different than the Democrats.

Government agencies can’t be reformed. Once the government obtains power over a market they never willingly relinquish it. The TSA is a great example of this as they moved in on the airport security market and are now expanding out to drug enforcement in Tennessee.

Hell the TSA are becoming more corrupt by the day. Yesterday as one of my friends was going through the airport she said a TSA agent pushed her into the radiation scanner before she had any chance to opt-out. I wasn’t even surprised in the slightest to hear that as the TSA are power hungry authoritarian assholes who have no problem pulling such stunts to exercise their authoritah.

As a completely unrelated side note the site I linked has the web address www.conservativecommune.com. How can you have a [neo]conservative commune? There is only one thing neoconservatives hate more than individual freedom and that’s communists.

There is Something Seriously Wrong with Our Legal System

Let me just take a second to say our “justice” system is all sorts of messed up. When a person gets punished harsher for possessing child pornography than for actually molesting a child things need to get changed:

A jury convicted Vilca on 454 counts of possessing child pornography, one for each image found on his computer. Under Florida law, each count is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Sentencing guidelines indicated a minimum term of 152 years, although Collier Circuit Judge Fred Hardt had discretion to impose a lighter sentence if he concluded it was justified by factors such as constitutional infirmity or Vilca’s mental health. “Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child,” The New York Times notes, “he might well have received a lighter sentence.”

Emphasis mine. Cases like this aren’t isolated incidents. Our “justice” system is full of disproportional punishments as noted by people who have sat in prison longer for possessing small amounts of marijuana than many others have of murdering fellow human beings. People love to say the punishment should fit the crime and I agree, unfortunately that’s now what happens in this country.