Month: April 2012

This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

Evidence, probably cause, reasonable suspicion, and due process are all things that were thrown out the door when the war on drugs began. The fact police departments are allowed to keep and seized evidence in drug related confiscations has meant there has been a great dead of drug confiscations (shocking, I know). A woman in Moorhead, Minnesota has just learned this lesson the hard way:

For the struggling waitress with five children, the $12,000 left at the table in a to-go box must have seemed too good to be true.

Moorhead police decided it was just that.

Now, the waitress is suing in Clay County District Court, claiming the cash was given to her and police shouldn’t have seized it as drug money.

“The thing that’s sad about it is here’s somebody who truly needs this gift … and now the government is getting in the way of it,” said the woman’s attorney, Craig Richie of Fargo.

Moorhead police Lt. Tory Jacobson said he couldn’t discuss the matter.

“We certainly have an ongoing investigation with it, with suspicion of narcotics or the involvement of narcotics investigators,” he said.

[…]

“Even though I desperately needed the money as my husband and I have 5 children, I feel I did the right thing by calling Moorhead Police,” she states in the lawsuit.

The lesson to take away from this story is never report cash gifts received to the state, they’ll just take it from you. What’s even worse is the fact this behavior is entirely legal thanks to United States Code 881(a)(6):

(a) Subject property

The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them:

[…]

(6) All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter.

Oh, it gets better. The above law has also been upheld in court:

Bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and drug trafficking. A plausible, but unlikely explanation by a claimant fails to show that the currency was not substantially connected to a narcotics offense. Judgment of the district court reversed.

Federal law basically gives a police officer sole discretion in deciding whether or not money in your possession is intended to be used to facilitate a violation of drug laws. When a random police officer mades this determination your right of ownership over that money is revoked by the state and they get to take it. The ruling in United States v. $124,000 in U.S. Currency states a plausible explanation on behalf of the police officer’s victim fails to show the money wasn’t substantially connected to a narcotics offense, so you’re truly guilty until proven innocent.

The war on drugs managed to destroy what little property rights remained in this country. One is no longer a self-owner as the state can dicate what you may or may not put into your body and any ownership of property outside of your body is also entirely ignored. While drug manufacturers and dealers made insane amounts of money because of the war on drugs the bigger criminal organization, the state, makes far more.

It’s About Time

It’s been six years since Hurricane Katrina struck American shores and some semblance of justice is finally coming out of the state initiated violence that took place immediately after the hurricane passed:

Five former New Orleans police officers who shot six unarmed civilians, two fatally, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have been jailed.

The prison terms range from six to 65 years for the shootings on the Danziger Bridge in September 2005.

Four of the officers were found guilty of firearms offences and the fifth was jailed for helping the cover-up.

The officers planted a gun and fabricated witnesses and false reports to make the shootings appear justified.

Robert Faulcon, 48, received the longest sentence of 65 years; Kenneth Bowen, 38, and Robert Gisevius, 39, received 40 years each; and Anthony Villavaso, 35, was sentenced to 38 years in prison.

It’s not surprising to see agents of the largest criminal syndicate in the United States not only murdering unarmed civilians, but also attempting to cover up their misdeed. The aftermath of Katrina showed us what the state really means when they say they’re “helping” people. First they diarm the populace and then they commit criminal acts against the disarmed populace. This court ruling is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the misdeeds performed by the states after Katrina and, unfortunately, is likely the only semblance of justice that will come from that disaster.

But Remember, Guns are Bad News for Women

Linoge over at Walls of the City likes to point out the absurdity of the common anti-gunner myth that guns are bad news for women. Chalk another one up to those bad news tools for women:

An armed 16 year old entered a FL convenience store, demanded money and began firing at the female clerk. The clerk is a concealed weapons permit holder and drew a gun carried on her person. The clerk fired at least one shot at the suspect, hitting him. The would be robber later died from his injuries. More info in the video below.

And there was also another recent story that demonstrates the dangers firearms hold for women:

“First he tried to grab it, but I jerked it away and fired,” she said. “So I really didn’t have time to aim.”

She said one of the men said, “Oh, hell no,” and they took off running up North Shamrock Street.

[…]

She said, “Every woman needs to get a concealed weapons permit and carry a gun, because it hadn’t been for that, I wouldn’t be here.”

So much for criminals taking her gun and using it against her. I’m glad enough stories like these finally being reported for the average person to see how full of it anti-gunners are.

The Damage is Done

Last week it was revealed that MSNBC edited the audio of the Zimmerman 911 call to make him appear racist. After being caught MSNBC has decided to let everybody know that they’re super sorry about the whole thing:

NBC has completed its investigation into the mishandling of the police dispatcher’s conversation with George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case. And the process ends with a finding of error, plus an apology. Here is the statement just issued by the network:

During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.

That apology addresses the “Today” show’s failure to abridge accurately the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher in this high-profile case.

You know why they’re sorry? Because they were caught trying to boost ratings by fabricating evidence of racial motivation on behalf of Zimmerman. They did get what they wanted, ratings, and it only came at the cost of Zimmerman’s character.

Unfortunately the damage is done. A majority of the people in the United States who are aware of this case have labeled Zimmerman a racist due to the evidence fabricated by MSNBC. As is usual for these cases the accusation of racism was reported numerous times but the apology and admittence of slander will be made one time, at 06:00, on a Saturday or during some other seldom viewed time slot. Racism is similar to pedophilia in the way one is forever guilty of it if they’re merely accused. I would also like to point out that this isn’t the first time a major media outlet has lied about a story, yet that point will be lost when the next major story breaks and everybody begins talking about it.

The Problem with Bullpups

I’m not going to lie, I have a love hate feeling towards bullpup rifles. On one hand they’re usually slower to reload, not friendly to left-handed shooters (as somebody who practices shooting with both hands this is annoying), and the triggers usually suck. On the other hand bullpups allow you to bring a full power rifle cartridge to bear without having to lug around an extremely long firearm. Needless to say I’m interested in the IWI TAVOR:

It looks like the perfect combination of ugly as sin and not really being all that ugly. Unfortunately this rifle is looking to have the same problem other bullpup rifles have:

The projected MSRP (for models without optics) will hopefully stay under $2k.

As The Firearm Blog stated this likely means the MSRP will be right around $1999.99. I wish a reputable manufacturer would release an affordable bullpup rifle because the price is always what gets me. It’s hard to justify spending $2,000 or more on a Steyr Aug when I can get an AR-15 for less than half the cost. The PS90 costs between $1,500 and $2,000 and it’s chambered in an expensive and almost impossible to reload anemic caliber.

I imagine some money could be made by a manufacturer who brings an affordable (let’s say under $1,000) and reliable bullpup rifle to the table.

More Surveillance State Coming to the United Kingdom

You know what the United Kingdom (UK) doesn’t have enough of? Orwellian surveillance. Realizing this sever deficiency the governing body of the UK has moved to increase surveillance:

The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon.

Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time.

The Home Office says the move is key to tackling crime and terrorism, but civil liberties groups have criticised it.

When you redefine crime and terrorism to mean any anti-state advocacy this move makes sense. In the UK one can go to prison for merely owning a firearm and protesting is seen as a terrorist activity, so I’m not surprised the government is moving to monitor all individuals instead of those who are suspected of wrongdoing. After all everybody is a potential terrorist because everybody, at some point, criticizes the government.

Capitalism, Property Rights, and the Environment

A common lie I hear parroted by environmentalists time and time again is that capitalism isn’t sustainable. It’s sad that this lie has perpetuated so far and wide because the truth is entirely difference, environmentalism is a side effect of capitalism and absolute property rights.

How can I claim this? Doesn’t capitalism encourage the consumption of resources as fast as possible? I’ve refuted this claim before:

If one has possession of a valuable resource it is in their best interest to manage the extraction and sale of that resource in a way that maximizes profits. Why would somebody extract all the iron ore on their property and sell it immediately? Iron ore, being a non-renewable resource, becomes more valuable over time as it becomes more scarce.

Likewise I explained how the temporary nature of property rights in today’s society lead to the consumption of resources as fast as possible:

Property rights in most countries aren’t absolute and one can never be sure when their property will be seized through eminent domain laws. If you’re only likely to hold a property for a temporary amount of time it then becomes your best interest to extract all the value from it immediately. When you’re not sure if regulations or ore extraction are going to remain stable or change in a manner that makes extraction more expensive it becomes your best interest to extract it all immediately.

We have a situation where resources are extracted and sold as fast as possible because claims over them may be taken away by the state at any moment. Absolute property rights encourage the opposite by rewarding those who conserve their resources for sale at a later date when the prices are higher.

Another benefit of absolute property rights is the fact property owners can sue polluters for damages. Today polluters are granted immunity from damages so long as they emit an amount of pollution below that sanctioned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), unless you’re wealthy enough to buy a permit to pollute more that is. Under a system to respects strict property rights any demonstrable damages to property must be corrected. If I dump one ton of sewage onto your property then I am responsible for paying the entirety of the cleanup and restoration costs as well as any costs incurred by you to get me to cleanup and restore the land (court fees for example).

Walter Block wrote a very interesting paper titled Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights [PDF] that goes over many aspects of free market environmentalism. One of the more interesting exerts comes from his coverage of the history of property rights:

Contrary to Pigou and Samuelson, manufacturers, foundries, railroads, etc., could not act in a vacuum, as if the costs they imposed on others were of no moment. There was a “way to force private polluters to bear the social cost of their operations”: sue them, make them pay for their past transgressions, and get a court order prohibiting them from such invasions in future.

Upholding property rights in this manner had several salutary effects. First of all, there was an incentive to use clean burning, but slightly more expensive anthracite coal rather than the cheaper but dirtier high sulfur content variety; less risk of lawsuits. Second, it paid to install scrubbers, and other techniques for reducing pollution output. Third there was an impetus to engage in research and development of new and better methods for the internalization of externalities: keeping one’s pollutants to oneself. Fourth, there was a movement toward the use better chimneys and other smoke prevention devices. Fifth, an incipient forensic pollution industry was in the process of being developed.16 Sixth, the locational decisions of manufacturing firms was intimately effected. The law implied that it would be more profitable to establish a plant in an area with very few people, or none at all; setting up shop in a residential area, for example, would subject the firm to debilitating lawsuits.17

But then in the 1840s and 1850s a new legal philosophy took hold. No longer were private property rights upheld. Now, there was an even more important consideration: the public good. And of what did the public good consist in this new dispensation? The growth and progress of the U.S. economy. Toward this end it was decided that the jurisprudence of the 1820s and 1830s was a needless indulgence. Accordingly, when an environmental plaintiff came to court under this new system, he was given short shrift. He was told, in effect, that of course his private property rights were being violated; but that this was entirely proper, since there is something even more important that selfish, individualistic property rights. And this was the “public good” of encouraging manufacturing.18

Until the 1840s property rights were held as more of an absolute and property owners could successfully sue polluters. That all changed after the 1840s when the idea of the “public good” began to outweigh the rights of property owners. In effect socialist ideology and interventionism, two ideals commonly held by so-called environmentalists, began superseding property rights and the free market. This granted polluters a license to emit as many undesirable and damaging pollutants as they could get away with under the guise of the “public good.”

Let’s switch gears and talk about the role free market capitalism plays in environmentalism. At its heart free market capitalism is a method of dividing scarce resources. If one person toils to extract and refine a resource they can trade it to somebody who desires it. For example an automobile manufacturer would be more than happy to buy steel from a steel manufacturer who had previously purchased raw iron ore from an ore miner.

Iron ore is a finite resources and as scarcity increases so does the price. When iron ore is abundant the prices is fairly low so more consumption occurs and as more consumption occurs the amount of ore is reduces and the price increases encouraging conservation. A good example to use is water.

Water is abundant in some areas and scarce in others. If you live in a desert water is going to be more valuable to you as it’s harder to come by whereas water has less value to those living in Minnesota. What this means is people living in deserts aren’t going to waste water keeping a lawn green (unless the government subsidizes the cost of water as they do in places like Southern California). Likewise farmers aren’t going to grown crops in deserts that require a great deal of water. The price mechanism of capitalism is also a mechanism that encourages the conservation of scarce resources.

It’s kind of funny that the path of individual liberty is also the path to environmentalism. Really it’s ironic because the most staunch environmentalists usually strongly oppose capitalism and absolute property rights. They want more socialistic controls but fail to know their history, because as pointed out by the Walter Block paper linked above, socialism has a pretty poor track record of environmental friendliness:

If this criticism of the market were true, one would expect that, even if the Soviets couldn’t successfully run an economy, they could at least be trusted as far as the environment is concerned. In actual point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Exhibit “A” is perhaps the disappearance of the Aral and Caspian Seas, due to massive and unchecked pollution, over cutting of trees, and consequent desertification. Then there is Chernobyl, which caused hundreds, if not thousands of deaths.13 For ferry boats in the Volga River, it is forbidden to smoke cigarettes. This is not for intrusive paternalistic health reasons as in the west, but because this river is so polluted with oil and other flammable materials that there is a great fear that if a cigarette is tossed overboard, it will set the entire body of water on fire. Further, under Communism, there was little or no waste treatment of sewage in Poland, the gold roof in Cracow’s Sigismund Chapel dissolved due to acid rain, there was a dark brown haze over much of East Germany, and the sulfur dioxide concentrations in Czechoslovakia were eight times levels common in the U.S. (DiLorenzo, 1990).

I find it quite sad that environmentalists have been so duped. They stand up and decry the destruction of the environment yet support the very ideologies that allow the destruction to occur in the first place. These people generally oppose the only real solution to environmental protection, free markets and absolute property rights.

Politics, the Art of Force

Anybody who has been reading this blog for more then a day has probably come to the conclusion that I hate politics. Politics, to me, is nothing more than a sick amusement. When politicians explain their next plan to fuck us over I just sit back, laugh, and try to let people know what the ruling party of this country are doing. We may not be able to avoid getting screwed but it’s still nice to know how we’re going to get screwed.

While politics is nothing more than a sick for of amusement for me it’s worth analyzing what politics really is. Politics is nothing more than a socially acceptable way to force people into doing what you want them to. Going up to somebody, putting a gun to their head, and demanding they dance like a trained monkey is generally frowned upon; but if you run for office, get elected, and pass a bill that legally requires people to dance like trained monkeys that’s perfectly acceptable. Every legislative initiative ultimately boils down to this: one side wants to force the other side to comply with a list of demands.

Nowhere is this more apparently than political conventions. I’ve already written two rants about the basic political organizing unit (BPOU) convention I attended last week but I feel a point needs to be driven home. At that convention I was surrounded by the most disgusting, vile, and monstrous people in existence. These people claimed to be there for the good of the country but ultimately they were there to force the country to obey one or more demands. Some people were there hoping to raise support for the upcoming vote to ban gay marriage in Minnesota. Others wanted to push for war with Iran. Many attendees wanted to push for laws that would make abortion in all forms illegal. There were even individuals who wanted to advocate for laws that would ban all gambling in Minnesota.

What every one of those individuals have in common is a desire to use the state’s gun to force people to comply with their ideals. Then you have the politicians, the people who are no longer content with forcing people through indirect means and have opted for more direct means. Political conventions really shed light on the political process, politicians show up and tell the crowd how what they will force people to do and the crowd bases their vote on those promises of force. If you want to stop gay marriage you vote for the politicians promising to prohibit gay marriage. Those who want to force people into sobriety can vote for the politician who promises to force sobriety through stronger punishments for drug use. Convention are where the monster meet. Those unwilling to directly force other into obedience can elect those who are willing to directly force others into obedience. It almost causes me to vomit thinking about it.

Politics is disgusting. It requires a devious mind in order to counter other people who oppose your desires. Underhanded trickery and schemes are de facto strategies at political conventions because power hungry monsters known only force but also wish to avoid being forced into a course of action. Eventually everybody who plays the political game gets burned by an opponent who is more devious and cunning. Decisions are never based on mutually agreeable terms because those who end up being affected have no say in the matter.

Libertarians suck at politics because we have no interest in controlling the actions of others. I have no interest in running your life so I’m ineffective when it comes to politics. Political deals can’t be brokered when you have nothing to offer. In order to make a political exchange one must have something to offer in the realm of force. For example, if one wanted a candidate to ban drug usage they may accept a law banning gay marriage as well. A politician who wants to ban gay marriage may be willing to support bans on drug usage if it means the advocates will provide votes. Basically one trades their form a tyranny for another’s form of tyranny.

The political ineffectiveness of libertarians isn’t due to apathy or laziness, it’s due to the fact that we have no tyranny to offer and therefore we have no effective means of making political deals. It always confuses me when people criticize libertarians based on our ineffectiveness at politics. People don’t seem to understand that our ineffectiveness derives from our beliefs in personal liberty, we have no interest in running the lives of others. Our ineffectiveness actually demonstrates our ideology better than any book, speech, or movie could. In the world of coercion we simply shrug our shoulders, tell everybody to run their own lives, and dabble in politics only as a means of self-defense (in general we are only interested in limited how screwed we’re going to get).

The people who worry me are those who are good a politics. Being good an manipulating others into supporting force is not something to be looked upon favorably. When somebody says the Republican Party is better than the Libertarian Party because the Republican Party actually gets people elected they’re actually saying the Republican Party is better at negotiating with force. Republican candidates can offer up ways they desire to force others, libertarians can not. A Republican candidate can say he’ll support another’s desire to enforce sobriety but wants the ability to stop people from gambling if elected. Such an ability should never be considered a merit. Politics is the art of force and being good at it should be seen as monstrous.

Human Achievement Hour

March 30th is a day when we’re supposed to turn off all of our lights, forgo the use of electronic devices, and otherwise act like we’re in the fucking stone age for one hour. This idiotic idea has been going on for a few years and it’s called Earth Hour. During Earth Hour I always make it a point to turn on all of my lights, computers, and run my truck because I like celebrating the fact we’re not living in the stone age. Well this year I wasn’t alone because Earth Hour has been renamed Human Achievement Hour:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute plans to recognize “Human Achievement Hour” between 8:30pm and 9:30pm on March 28, 2009 to coincide with Earth Hour, a period of time during which governments, individuals, and corporations have agreed to dim or shut off lights in an effort to draw attention to climate change. Anyone not foregoing the use of electricity in that hour is, by default, celebrating the achievements of human beings.

We salute the people who keep the lights on and produce the energy that helps make human achievement possible.

Green and private conservation are fine. We have no problem with an individual (or group) that wants to sit naked in the dark without heat, clothing, or light. Additionally, we would have no problem with the group holding a pro-green technology rally. That is their choice. But when this group stages a “global election” with the express purpose of influencing “government policies to take action against global warming,” we have every right as individuals to express our vote for the opposite

Sadly Human Achievement Hour has already passed for the year but if I know my readers, and I believe I do, most of you likely had every light, computer, and red dot sight turned on. The achievements of the human race should not be looked down upon, they should be embraced and celebrated. How many lives have been saved by medical technologies made possible through the invention of electricity? How many man hours have been saved by these wonderful devices we call computers? How much more connected are we as a race with the invention of the Internet? All of these things, things many environmentalists decry as evil, are the products of human minds.

Whenever an enviro-Nazi (I would call them environmentalists but most of them don’t respect private property) tells you electricity is killing the planet remind them that they wouldn’t likely be alive without it since electricity makes many medical marvels possible. When they tell you automobiles are evil remind them that American cities are dependent on them, we couldn’t live in our cities as they’re currently designed without the invention of automobiles. Don’t let people get away with decrying the achievements of great minds, point out their idiocy so all can point and laugh at those who advocate we return to the stone age.

More Impossible Impossibly Happening

Somehow even though, according to Paul Helmke, gun ownership is apparently down the number of National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) checks is way the Hell up:

The March 2012 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,189,152 is an increase of 20.0 percent over the NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 990,840 in March 2011.

For comparison, the unadjusted March 2012 NICS figure of 1,715,125 reflects a 19.3 percent increase from the unadjusted NICS figure of 1,437,709 in March 2011.

This marks the 22nd straight month that NSSF-adjusted NICS figures have increased when compared to the same period the previous year.

22 months of increases over previous years. Somehow the anti-gunners are trying to claim that gun ownership is down, yet it’s pretty obvious the number of sales is through the roof. I’m not even sure how the anti-gunners came to their zany conclusion but I’m pretty sure it involved a mixture of depressants and stimulants at the same time.