Smashing Windows isn’t Justifiable Regardless of Property Rights

One of the core differences between libertarian philosophies and socialist philosophies has to deal with property rights. Namely libertarianism recognizes private property while socialism does not. This difference leads to a massive schism between the two philosophies that extends beyond simple disagreement. When socialist anarchists protest there are often shards of broken glass in their wake, which has lead many to believe anarchists just like breaking shit. The truth is more complicated and has to do with a complete lack of recognizing property rights and holding the belief that all forms of hierarchy are violent. First I want to address the reason socialist anarchists find the smashing of windows acceptable and then I want to present an argument against smashing windows outside of recognizing property rights.

If you’re ever looking for comments from socialist anarchists you can always rely on /r/anarchism on Reddit. I think this comment by 2paradoxes sums up the philosophy concisely:

But in principal, a window does not have some intrinsic right to not be smashed. If I bought a window and smashed it in my backyard, you would not accuse me of window abuse. So window smashing is not wrong in and of itself (this should come as a shock to no one)

As anarchists, property is not our thing (I’m assuming that’s your opinion, it’s the prevailing one around here). So it doesn’t make sense to say that breaking a window is property damage so it’s wrong.

Yet I do agree that window smashing can be wrong. I would say it is only wrong to the extent that it causes harm. Harm to a person. People have rights, windows don’t have rights. Break a window on a house and someone freezes, you have committed murder. Break a window in the front of a bank, they have to close down for a day and I lose zero sleep over it. banks actively harm people, and if you need to break some glass to stop it more power to you.

Since windows themselves lack rights and they don’t believe in property rights the smashing of windows is justified. The only time some socialist anarchists believe breaking a windows is wrong is when it physically harms another person. Personally I find such justification extremely convoluted. I’m sure you’re familiar with the phrase, “This is why we can’t have nice things.” If nobody recognizes property rights in any form (either collective or private) you really can’t have nice things because they will be destroyed.

Property rights, ultimately, are an attempt at creating a peaceful system to divide scarce resources. Reality is harsh and dictates that two people cannot use the same thing at the same time. Furthermore many things are one-time use such as food and water. Private property divides resources amongst individuals while communal property rights divide resources based on the whims of a community (they may be divided based on votes for example). A problem arrises when a proponent of communal property doesn’t recognize private property. In a case where an individual lays claim of ownership over a windows somebody who doesn’t recognize private property will smash it and claim their action was justified because of their lack of recognizing private property. This brings us to another fact, all forms of property rights are ultimately backed with the threat of violence.

Property rights only serve their purpose if they are recognized. When the system breaks down then the only option to continue protesting property is through force. Followers of the non-aggression principle state a violation of one’s property right is an initiation of violence and thus defending property is an act of self-defense. Under private property rights I have a right to use force to prevent you from burning down my home. Communal property is not different. Let’s say we have a cooperative where each worker owns an equal share of the business and somebody decides they are going to burn the business to the ground. What are the workers to do? They can either watch their business go up in flames or they can use force to prevent the individual from burning their business down. Opponents of private property are always quick to claim that private property can only be maintained through violence but the same is true of communal property rights.

If property rights are not recognized or backed up with the threat of violence then there is no point in having anything. Who is going to build a store if they know it’s going to be burned to the ground by a random thug? Let’s say somebody does build a store, what happens when the random thug shows up and the owner is unable to justly defend the store? Based on the statement I linked to above the thug would not be committing an act of violence so long as the store owner wasn’t physically harmed. Economically this leads to complete breakdown.

Economics when boiled down is nothing more than the study of human interaction, namely as it relates to cooperation. Whether you live in a capitalist society or a socialism society cooperation occurs. In a capitalist society that cooperation is based self-interest where both parties enter a transaction because they feel they will come out ahead. If you want bread but have eggs and your neighbor wants eggs but has bread you can trade eggs for bread so each person has what they want. Socialism is based on alturism. If your neighbor wants eggs and you have eggs you give him the eggs. No matter how you look at it these transactions breakdown entirely if you have no recognition of property rights.

Let’s assume you want to bake bread. You’ll gather the raw ingredients and equipment needed for the baking process then you’ll put the ingredients together and bake them. If you’re exceedingly good at baking bread you may decide to give some of your bread to others either in exchange for other goods or out of pure altruism… unless your ownership of the ingredients of equipment are not recognized. Would you tell people you have the raw ingredients and equipment needed to bake bread if it means they would simply be taken from you? Let’s expand on this idea, would you bother building a home or store if it was just going to be destroyed? In both cases the majority are likely to answer in the negative. At this point we end up having a complete breakdown in society. There is no longer any reason to come together with other people since any interaction with another is likely to lead to your stuff being taken or destroyed. Humans came together in societies to take advantage of division of labor. Hunting a wooly mammoth and carrying back to your cave is much easier when you have help after all.

Of course I’ve ignored the “harming others” aspect mentioned by the linked comment. Harm can be very subjective and thus actions of theft or destruction can be easily justified as not harmful. In the case of the bread maker above one could say stealing his raw ingredients and equipment wasn’t harmful because he also has potatoes growing and thus can eat. Burning a home to the ground can be justified as not harming the home owner if he has a tent or other source of shelter. It’s trivial to make justifications based solely on whether or not an action harmed a person or not. That leads to a subjective system and subjective systems lack stability of any sort. Once again somebody is unlikely to build a store even if they know it won’t be burned down now if the rules are entirely subjective. Just because the store won’t be burned down now doesn’t mean the rules won’t subjectively change later after all.

Returning to the beginning of this post smashing windows isn’t good for anybody either. Socialists are often proponents of workers seizing the means of production from capitalists. If you smash a bunch of windows in a capitalist owned factory the workers will have to replace them if they take control. Many socialist anarchists also believe and complete abolition of money and therefore believe banks cannot legitimately exist. For the sake of argument let’s assume a society free of money rises from the ashes of a worker revolution, what will happen to the unneeded bank? A smart society would repurpose it. Banks are merely buildings and like any building they can be used for things other than being banks. Perhaps a group of workers want to open a bicycle repair shop, if the bank is now unoccupied it would make a perfect place for the operation. Yet if the windows are smashed the workers will have to replace them before doing business. Ultimately smashing windows isn’t good for anybody because they must be replaced. This is why Frédéric Bastiat developed the broken window fallacy.

Destruction of in-use products of labor isn’t productive because those products will need to be replaced. If you’re trying to bring on the workers’ revolution then you must realize any windows you break will have to be replaced and if the capitalist that owns the window doesn’t do it then the workers will have to do it after they’ve seized control. Even if you don’t recognize private property rights smashing windows must be recognized as a negative action because labor must be expended to replace the window, labor that could have been more productively used elsewhere. It’s a net loss to the store owner and society as Bastiat pointed out. Sure, you may have robbed a capitalist of one window. Since the capitalist has to expend resources to replace that window he can no longer use those resources to buy food at the local cooperative (and many capitalist do shop at cooperatives). Effectively money has been robbed from the worker/owners of the cooperative who are usually held as the darling children of socialist movements.

It’s a no-win situation that can only be justified by short sightedness.

Romney had Secret Meeting with Bloomberg

To those of you who have been telling us to support Romney to protect the rights of American gun owners let me just say… you’ve been suckered:

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee had a private breakfast with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg Tuesday morning at the the headquarters of the billionaire mayor’s philanthropic foundation. Romney’s campaign did not inform the press that the meeting would occur, although later confirmed that the men had met.

[…]

According to two people with knowledge of the Bloomberg meeting, cited by the New York Times, the pair discussed the economy, immigration, education and gun control over coffee and juice.

Romney is already having secret meetings with the biggest opponent of gun rights in this country, likely seeking an endorsement. As the head of Mayors Against All Illegal Guns I’m sure Bloomberg could be persuaded to endorse Romney if Romney promises gun control measures.

If you’re a gun owner and supporting Romney you’re making a sucker’s deal. He’ll get all the benefits (a National Rifle Association endorsement, campaign contributions from gun owners, votes, etc.) and we’ll get shafted. But the best part is that gun owners will have actively helped bring on their own destruction. I guess the state is great at hypocrites of people. When it comes to gun rights I think we’re basically screwed this election cycle (unless Paul manages to get the nomination) and the best we can hope for inaction on behalf of the president or a strong pro-gun majority in Congress.

A hat tip to Uncle for the story.

Obedience Day

On top of being a pagan holiday and International Workers’ Day May 1st is also Loyalty Day:

On Loyalty Day, we rededicate ourselves to the common good, to the cornerstones of liberty, equality, and justice, and to the unending pursuit of a more perfect Union.

Wow, talk about doublespeak. It’s actually an official holiday that enjoys its own entry in United States code:

(a) Designation.— May 1 is Loyalty Day.

(b) Purpose.— Loyalty Day is a special day for the reaffirmation of loyalty to the United States and for the recognition of the heritage of American freedom.

(c) Proclamation.— The President is requested to issue a proclamation—

(1) calling on United States Government officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on Loyalty Day; and

(2) inviting the people of the United States to observe Loyalty Day with appropriate ceremonies in schools and other suitable places.

A special day for reaffirmation of loyalty to the United States? If that doesn’t scream nationalism I don’t know what does. Why don’t they just call it Obedience Day and designate its purpose to dedicate one’s self to being an obedient slave of the state? How the hell did we go from a country founded by individuals who espoused rebellion and seemed to hold no desire of mindless loyalty to the state to a country populated by people who believe it’s a good idea to reaffirm their loyalty to the state on an annual basis?

Nationalism is a plank of fascism so I guess having Loyalty Day in the United States makes nothing but sense.

Did You Enjoy Your Pagan Holiday

Yesterday was May Day, a day celebrated by socialists as International Worker’s Day. Long before the socialists hijacked the holiday May Day was one of the most important holidays for European pagan. The Celts celebrated Beltane while Germanic pagans celebrated Walpurgis Night, both on the day we no refer to as May 1st (OK, technically Walpurgis Night is celebrated on May Day eve). With the Christian’s success of hijacking pagan holidays (Halloween, Christmas, Easter, etc.) I guess the socialists decided to it a whirl and International Worker’s Day was born. I find this kind of ironic being Marx advocated atheism and even went so far to refer to religion as the “opium of the people.” Why would followers of an atheist philosophy feel the need to hijack a pagan holiday? Most socialists will tell me that International Worker’s Day commemorates the Haymarket Riots but that happened on May 4th so I find such a claim a little dubious.

Either way I hope you had a great pagan holiday. Spending the day lighting bon fires and dancing around maypoles is far more fun and productive than doing single day boycotts that accomplish nothing because everybody you’re boycotting knows you’ll be back tomorrow. Also, pagan mythology is far more interesting than the history of socialism. You really can’t compare stories about great gods doing battle with text books talking about the exploitive nature of capitalism.

Even the Mainstream Media is Noticing the FBI’s Penchent for Stopping Its Own Terror Plots

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) dirty little secret is that the terrorist plots they’ve “stopped” have all been ones of their own creation. Earlier this year the FBI “stopped” a bombing attempt on the United States Capitol, which was made possible by the FBI who not only encouraged the supposed bomber but gave him the “bomb” to as well. This practice has become so common that even the New York Times is no longer able to overlook it:

THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years — or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.

But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.

[…]

This is legal, but is it legitimate? Without the F.B.I., would the culprits commit violence on their own? Is cultivating potential terrorists the best use of the manpower designed to find the real ones? Judging by their official answers, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department are sure of themselves — too sure, perhaps.

The FBI knows two things: nobody pays attention to the details of stories anymore and fear is the state’s most powerful weapon. Point one relates to how easy it is for the FBI to pull off their little scams. They know 90% of the population isn’t going to bother looking into the details of any story about terrorist plots stopped by the FBI. In addition that 90% won’t listen to the 10% of us who do look into the details because they think we’re crazy conspiracy theorists. Point two’s value is pretty obvious, if people are afraid they’ll submit to the state in the hopes of receiving protection from the communist muslim extremist terrorists who are bent on bring Sharia law by bombing our country.

For the FBI it’s a pretty sweet scam… until people start to notice. Eventually even the 90% who pay no attention to the details of these stories wake up and notice something is amiss. Usually this happens when some mainstream media source finally reports on it, such as the case with this New York Times article. It looks like the FBI may have to find another way of cowing the American public into obedience.

Everything I Don’t Like is a Loophole

If you don’t like something that’s legal the first thing you must do is label it a loophole. Don’t like the fact that a company is using the tax code as written? Claim that company is exploiting a tax code loophole. Don’t like individuals owning legally allowed firearms? As Uncle points out you must merely those individuals are exploiting a loophole:

California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. But one wouldn’t know that going to the firing range these days. AR-15s and AK-47s are the must-have guns of choice. How can that be?

Every time California tightens up the assault weapons ban, the gun industry finds a way around it. The latest example involves a tiny device.

[…]

That’s because the most popular guns at the range these days are semi-automatic rifles. In a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, how is it these military-style guns are legal?

Brian Normandy is an instructor at Jackson Arms. “As long as we don’t have a detachable magazine in it, it’s actually a legal firearm,” Normandy said.

Other states allow people to use their finger to pop out the magazine and quickly reload. It is called a detachable magazine, which is illegal in California.

The intent is to slow down the process of reloading the weapon. But many target shooters don’t like the reloading hassle. “For me to use this on the range, I would have to open up the receiver and top load it,” said Normandy.

To get around this, gun manufacturers are selling firearms to Californians with what is called a “bullet button.”

The user uses the tip of a bullet to release the empty magazine and pop in a new one. The button doesn’t work with one’s finger, so the magazine is considered “fixed.”

What? People owning firearms that are legal under California law? They must be exploiting a loophole! Wow… that sounds incredibly stupid when I type it out. When you think about it the people crying out against this “bullet button loophole” are really saying, “These people own something I don’t approve of and it’s entirely legal! I don’t like how the law is written therefore they must be exploiting a loophole!” It’s almost like claiming somebody is exploiting a loophole is a loophole in of itself. In fact I think I’m going to start calling this the loophole loophole.

This does demonstrate the fact that gun control advocates will never be satisfied. No matter how many hoops we jump through, not matter how cumbersome we make firearms to use, no matter how many days we make people wait to purchase a firearm the anti-gunners will never be happy. We can’t negotiate with these people because they only want one thing: a complete abolition of firearm ownership. There is no meeting these people halfway so we shouldn’t even consider doing so. In their eyes the only common sense gun control laws are blanket prohibitions. Why should be placate them? I say we give them a big middle finger and refuse to implement any of their beloved gun control laws. They won many victories in the ’90’s and kept coming back for more and we finally pushed back. Unfortunately many gun owners now believe we’re at a point where we can stop pushing, I say we keep pushing until every single gun control law currently on the books is entirely overturned. Every. Last. One.

The State Makes Hypocrites of Its Supporters

Stephen King wrote an article that has the entire progressive movement cheering his name. In the article King expresses his desire to have the state tax him more. While I give a great deal of credit for the comedic value in this article (seriously, I never knew King was such a vicious writer, kudos to him) I have to take that credit away from him due to his total lack of understanding of the nature of the state. His closing paragraph says it all:

What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

King wants the government to tax him more so they can pay for maintaining roads, education, repairing the faltering infrastructure, and caring for the sick and poor. Unfortunately that’s not what the state will do with the extra money. What will the state do? Buy more bombs.

This is something I don’t get, a vast majority of my friends who demand the rich be taxed more also claim oppose the police state and war. They’ve been duped into holding hypocritical beliefs. On one hand they decry any expansion of the police state and military intervention but on the other hand they advocate people give more money to fund the same beast that’s implementing the police state and killing innocent people overseas. Giving the state more money enables it to buy more military hardware such as drones, tanks, bombs, and bullets. The more money they have at their disposal the more they can spy on you here and the more people they can kill overseas. During the Vietnam War people actually advocated tax protests in an attempt to starve the beast that was sending American men and women to die needlessly in a foreign country that never attacked us. What does it take to get these people to wake the fuck up? Do we have to kidnap their children and send them off to war? Do we have to install spy cameras in their homes?

Let’s address King’s next claim of “American responsibility.” He claims that charity and private investment cannot fix environmental issues (he specifically states global warming but I would like to give him a little more credit than just using a random talking point). What’s the solution than? Give the state more money? The very same state who causes most of our environmental problems in the United States by granting legal protection to polluters? Yeah, that’s worked out well so far. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an organization that exists solely to protect wealthy polluters. Terry Anderson wrong an excellent book titled Political Environmentalism that goes over some of more egregious instances of environmental cronyism. Instead of protecting the environment the EPA protects its cronies by ensuring the business environment is hostile to competition while allowing the emission of as much pollutants as their cronies demand. Does King really want to give the primary instigators of our environmental problems the power to further intervene on environmental matters? That would be akin to handing a serial killer a chainsaw and telling him has full immunity from legal prosecution for any murders he commits with that chainsaw.

The state has mastered duping people. They can get the same people who demand the banks be allowed to fail support a bank bailout. How the fuck did they get so good at fooling people? Is the average person so lacking in the department of critical thinking that they’re unwilling to stop and consider issues more deeply than the talking points they’re fed by the 10 o’clock news? Do these people not actually read bills before stating their support of them? These aren’t even clever scams, anybody who spends 15 minutes looking into them can see what is really going on.

It’s amazing how the state gets so many suckers to back mutually exclusive demands. Are you against war? Demand more taxes to fund the war machine! Do you want the banks to fail? Support a bank bailout! Want the environment cleaned up? Fund the political machinery that allows polluters to dump toxic waster into the water and air from lawsuits! Do you believe two plus two equals four? Believe it equals five instead!

One of the Greatest Compliments I’ve Ever Received

It’s not often that I’m honored deeply by a compliment I’ve received but one of my friends on Facebook said the following about me:

Yeah, I mean, she’s [Ayn Rand] practically a socialist compared to you. (-:

That’s right, compared to me Ayn Rand is practically a socialist. I’m doing something right!

May Day

Today is May Day, or as it’s also commonly known, International Workers’ Day. Supposedly it’s a day to celebrate the proletariat and help build their dictatorship commonly referred to as socialism. There are protests occurring all over Europe (ironically many of these protests are occurring in more socialist countries such as Greece, Spain, and France) and some are even happening here in the United States. Along with protests, marches, and other forms of rabble rousing there are also calls for a general strike. What’s a general strike you ask? It’s basically a day when everybody refuses to go to work, do any banking, or shop. It’s the most meaningless form of mass protests I can think of.

I’m sure some advocate of socialism is probably demanding I explain my last sentence so I will (never let it be said that I don’t fulfill reader requests). Let’s say you decided not to go to work, perform any banking, or shop today, what’s the result? In the case of work you may have a vacation or sick day docked. In the case of the banks and shops they will just wait idly for you to do your banking and shopping tomorrow. Many Occupiers are calling today a “day without the 99%.” What they fail to see is that it’s only one day, everybody knows they will return to business as usually tomorrow.

When you see workers striking they don’t do it for a single day and the reason for this is obvious, if they just walked out for one day only to return the next they won’t have much of an impact. Protests don’t work when they last a single day, especially when that day is well known. If businesses know a large chunk of the population isn’t going to be shopping tomorrow than business will likely have fewer staff come in that day (ironically this causes the staff who aren’t there to receive no pay in most cases). The banks? They’ll only have one teller working instead of four. Basically they will treat it like any other holiday.

Things suck right now but taking a single day off of work and refusing to bank or shop isn’t going to change anything. In order for things to change you must sustain any boycotts. Do you know why those “don’t buy gas today” events never work? Because gas companies aren’t stupid, they know you’ll be filling your tank tomorrow. I don’t oppose those who protest or strike, that’s your right as an individual (likewise I don’t oppose those who fire employees who go on strike, that’s their right as employers) but doing it for a single day accomplishing nothing more than making yourself feel good about fighting for a cause. It’s not different than the people who texted $10.00 to help the people of Haiti without actually looking into the organization they were sending money to (here’s a hint, that money didn’t reach Haiti). They feel good about themselves and can brag to their friends about how altruistic they are but nothing of value is actually accomplished.

If you want to celebrate workers go ahead. As a worker I feel I’m pretty awesome and deserve to be celebrated by the masses, but don’t delude yourself with the idea that a single day action is going to change anything.

Also, if the change you’re seeking involves increasing the size or power of the state you’re doing it wrong.

Party Abandonment

It appears many hardcore Republican Party members are getting all butt hurt about the possibility of Ron Paul leaving if he doesn’t get the nomination and taking his supporters with him. As a person who supports Ron Paul and has no other interest in the Republican Party let me say that I’m one of those supporters who will be leaving if he leaves. Don’t worry, my departure isn’t a big deal since I wasn’t going to support anybody else in the party anyways. With that said I do want to clear something up; if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination and his supporters leave it won’t be a case of them abandoning the party, it’ll be a case of the party abandoning the supporters.

How can I say such things? Easy. Let’s look at a large number of Ron Paul’s supporters. Most of them are more libertarian leaning and have become fed up with how the Republican and Democrat Parties have been running things. They joined the Republican Party to help Ron Paul get elected because Paul is the only candidate that actually promises, and has a track record of trying to deliver, liberty. He’s running under the Republican Party which offers cute phrases like personal liberty, belief in free markets, gun rights, sound money, and other things that make freedom loving individuals feel warm and fuzzy inside. Of course what they claim to offer and what they actually offer are two entirely different things.

Ron Paul’s supporters, many of whom are new to politics, must feel like suckers after looking at what the party has given them. It’s like they received a job offer that promised $100,000 a year only to join and receive a paltry $10,000 a year. Who would stick around after such abuse? Even gun owners claiming we need to support Romney this election are having a hard time swallowing it. Think about that. Gun owners, who seem to lean more Republican, are having a hard time swallowing the bullshit they’re being fed. People should be abandoning the Republican Party. They claim to be conservatives but they’re nothing but a bunch of war mongering neocons who want to strip us of our rights just as quickly as the Democrats. The only difference between the two parties is in what order they want to strip our rights.