Unapproved Protests in Canada

In a strange twist of ironic fate it appears as though it’s illegal to protest the Canadian government without get approval first:

Those arrested were released on Thursday and issued with fines of more than C$600 (£370), AFP news agency reports.

Authorities invoked Bill 78, which requires eight hours’ notification before public demonstrations.

Bill 78, passed last Friday, requires marches to follow pre-approved routes, but protesters say it infringes their democratic rights, and have pledged to legally contest it.

Since the passing of the public assembly law, more than 300 people were arrested overnight at a protest in Montreal last Sunday and another 100 were detained in the city on Tuesday.

Maybe I’m missing something but isn’t the whole point of protesting to oppose an action or actions by the state? Was the Canadian government trying to be ironic by passing a law that requires you ask the state for permission in order to air grievances with the state? Is the Canadian government full of fixie-loving hipsters?

This does show that the United States doesn’t have a monopoly on police state behavior, even our supposedly polite neighbors to the north have a little police state going.

Why Nobody Wants to Help Anybody Anymore

It’s often said that people don’t help one another anymore. Some blame television and others blame the lack of religion but the real answer is probably because it’s illegal:

The ticket cited Section No: 613.06 of Cleveland’s Municipal Codes, which is littering from a motor vehicle.

His offense was listed as, “Throw paper out window,” and in parenthesis, “money to panhandler.”
John said he was confused because money is paper but it’s not trash.

Cleveland police can’t comment on the ticket at this time but according to a spokesperson there is another code that may have been violated.

There is a code which states that it is illegal to panhandle or give money to panhandlers near a highway or street including a berm, shoulder, treelawn or sidewalk.

Section No: 471.06 states in part that “No person shall stand on a highway for the purpose of soliciting…contributions…”

You know those Federal Reserve notes you get handed in exchange for your labor? You can use them to buy a great many things but if you give them to a panhandler in Cleveland you’re violating the law. How can giving money to somebody who is likely homeless be illegal? Probably because large cities are waging war against the poor. This is probably being done in the hopes of running the poor out of town in order to boost the average income statistic of the city so a bunch of bureaucrats can trot around and claim their leadership has lead to more prosperity for all.

Ever since the state decided to enter the welfare market they’ve made it harder and hard for individuals to voluntarily help one another. It seems new prohibitions against helping those in need are put into the law books everyday. You can’t even hand out food to the hungry without getting a stamp of approval from the state, which requires an inspected and approved kitchen staffed by state-sanctioned personell serving food that has been blessed by the state as meeting arbitrary nutritional requirements.

People haven’t largely stopped helping one another because of any societal issue, they’re just watching out for themselves because they know helping another person in need can lead to fines or being thrown in a cage.

Copyright Infringement and Restitution

Ladies and gentlemen it’s time again for and rant regarding the United States legal system. The Supreme Court just refused to hear a case involving copyright infringement, which may cost the defendant $675,000:

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear the case of Joel Tenenbaum, who illegally downloaded music during college and now faces a $675,000 fine.

Tenenbaum’s been battling the music industry since 2007, over charges that he downloaded 31 songs online. A federal jury slapped Tenenbaum with a $22,500-per-song verdict in 2009, but a year later, U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner reduced the fine to $67,500, calling the original amount “unconstitutionally excessive.” Then, last November, an appeals court raised the verdict back to its original amount.

For the act of downloading 31 songs Tenebaum is being nailed with a $675,000 fine, or $22,500 per song. Copyright infringement in the United States has nothing to do with protecting copyright holders or restitution, it has everything to do with punishment. Tenebaum isn’t being made to make amends for his infraction, he’s being made an example of because he dared to challenge the state’s cronies. The state doesn’t like it when you challenge it or its cronies and will usually bring down the biggest hammer possible as a demonstration of its power.

Under a just system what would Tenebaum be made to pay? I would argue nothing because I don’t believe infinitely plentiful resources should be protected with violence but let’s assume copyright laws are somehow just, what should Tenebaum be made to pay? He should be made to pay restitution, that is the value he took. Assuming each song can be purchased for $0.99 on the iTunes store the grand total of Tenebaum’s fine should be $30.69 plus all fees paid by the copyright holder to recover the money. Instead Tenebaum is being forced to pay 21,994.134897 times the value he “stole.” How the hell is this just? It’s not, but it is legal:

(c) Statutory Damages. —

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

Looking at the law the fact that it was written to punish instead of deliver justice is obvious by the fact that the minimum fine for infringing a copyrighted work is $750.00. This was actually an increase from what the fine once was:

The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 amended section 504(c) as follows: 1) in paragraph (1), by inserting “$500” in lieu of “$250” and by inserting “$20,000” in lieu of “$10,000” and 2) in paragraph (2), by inserting “$100,000” in lieu of “$50,000” and by inserting “$200” in lieu of “$100.” Pub. L. No. 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853, 2860. The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 amended section 504(c), in paragraph (1), by substituting “$750” for “$500” and “$30,000” for “$20,000” and, in paragraph (2), by substituting “$150,000” for “$100,000.” Pub. L. No. 106-160, 113 Stat. 1774.

Apparently a $500.00 fine for “stealing” a $0.99 song wasn’t enough and thus it had to be increased to $750.00. I find this to be ridiculous. How the hell is this legal? Oh, I almost forgot, Disney and the Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA) are politically well-connected and therefore get special protection from the mob state.

Let’s consider what copyright infringement is for a minute. When you steal a car from somebody you have effectively taken away another person’s right to said car. Two people cannot be in possession of the car at the same time so in order for one person to use it another must go without. If you steal a $30,000 car I would argue that anywhere between $30,000 and $60,000 restitution, plus recovery fees, would be just compensation. The reason I would set an upper limit of $60,000 is because stealing the car really took away the owner’s right to the car and therefore a just punishment would be to have the thief lose his right to a car. Copyright is different since no actual theft takes place.

If I download a song via BitTorrent I’m not depriving another human being of that song. No theft has occurred because theft implies taking another’s right to something, copyright infringement merely implies you violated a state granted monopoly over an infinitely reproducible good. Of course many followers of Ayn Rand have argued that by downloading said song you’re taking away the copyright holder’s “right to a sale” but that implies that the downloader was actually planning to buy the song if it wasn’t available freely, an assumption that is often false. Either way you’re not denying anybody the copyrighted work when downloading a digital copy and thus should not be made to pay double the “damages” incurred.

Justice is supposed to imply righting a wrong, not enriching politically well-connected favorites of the state. Unfortunately our “justice” system is really a punishment system. It’s not about righting wrongs, it’s about making examples out of those who dare disobey the decrees of the state. Courts aren’t used primarily for mediation in disputes but for striking fear into the people.

Objectivist-C

As most of you probably know I write software. Consequentially I’m always looking for new languages to learn and I think Objectivist-C may be something worth putting time and effort into. Some unique features in Objectivist-C are:

In Objectivist-C, there are not only properties, but also property rights. Consequently, all properties are @private; there is no @public property.

In Objectivist-C, each program is free to acquire as many resources as it can, without interference from the operating system.

Unfortunately I hear the specification is extremely long.

The Folies of Rent-Seeking

In economics the term rent-seeking is used to define actions where economic rent is sought by manipulating the social or political landscape instead of mutual trade. The classic example of this practice are patent trolls, companies that either buy or register patents for ideas they have no intention of manufacturing so they can sue another company that does attempt to manufacture a good that is covered by said patents. This has become very easy in today’s environment because almost anything is allowed to be patented including software and business models.

Microsoft has just be smacked upside the head because a judge has determined the Xbox 360 S violates the patent of another company and has recommended an import ban on the console:

An administrative law judge for the International Trade Commission issued a recommendation that the commission ban 4GB and 250 GB Xbox gaming consoles from import to the United States. The recommendation(PDF) was released to the public on Monday, and would punish Microsoft for infringing against some of Motorola’s patents. The patents permit video transmission and compression on the console and between the console and its controllers.

Right now it’s up to the International Trade Commission (ITC) to either agree with the judge and order the import ban or disagree with the judge and overrule the ban. Of course this case is really payback for the import ban Microsoft got enacted against Motorola:

The US International Trade Commission today ordered an import ban on Motorola Mobility Android products, agreeing with Microsoft that the devices infringe a Microsoft patent on “generating meeting requests” from a mobile device.

Payback is a bitch, especially when dealing with rent-seeking. Instead of spending money on research and development to introduce newer and better products for consumers to buy Motorola and Microsoft have instead opted to sink money into costly court battles. It is becoming more common in the business world to rely on suing violators of held patents to make money instead of selling goods and services, in fact an entirely business model has developed around the process.

The patent system is a mechanism used by the state to grant monopolies over ideas. Ideas, not being scarce resources (in other words if I tell you my idea I haven’t lost my idea, we both have it), should not be artificially restricted through the state’s monopoly on violence. Unfortunately the state does grant monopolies on ideas and they do enforce those monopolies through force. Instead of fostering an environment of innovation as the founders of this country believed they were doing when implementing the patent system, an environment of liability has been created. Innovation has taken a backseat to lawsuits, after all suing somebody is still a cheaper and less risky process then researching and developing new products.

You Have to Pay if You Want to Play

So many laws on the books claim to be about enforcing safety but are really about extracting money from the populace. Speed limits are a good example of this. Every excuse in the book has been used to justify speed limits including environmental and safety reasons. Truth be told it’s about money, as long as you can afford to pay the ticket your violation of the speed limit will be forgiven. Failing to comply with regulations are another example of this, so long as you can afford the fines you can continue violating said regulations.

Uncle’s post shows that the state of Tennessee is getting more blatant about their pay to play system:

Tennesseans who have committed certain nonviolent crimes will be able to have their criminal records expunged for a $350 fee under a bill expected to become law July 1.

[…]

Tennesseans convicted of a single felony or misdemeanor for nonviolent theft, certain types of fraud, vandalism, or other nonviolent crimes may qualify. They must have stayed crime-free for the past five years and paid all restitution and penalties.

In other words your crimes of nonviolent theft, fraud, or vandalism will be forgiven as long as you can prove your loyalty to your masters (stay crime-free) and foot the $350.00 indulgence fee. I’m waiting for the day the church’s old practice of indulgences is fully reimplemented. It would be very convenient to merely pay some money upfront to be forgiven of future transgressions against various state decrees.

The Manipulation of the Sugar Market

If you go to grocery stores that cater to international tastes you’ll usually run across what is most often referred to say “Mexican Coke.” Truthfully it should be called international Coke because the drink people are often seeking out isn’t just available in Mexico, it’s available in many other countries. Why? Because “Mexican Coke” is made with real sugar so it tastes far different that the crape we can buy in bulk here in the United States. The sugar market, like so many other markets, has been manipulated by the state to such an extent that high fructose corn syrup is more economical than pure natural sugar:

When a government guarantees profits to those large corporations with powerful lobbies, the market loses its natural regulating mechanism. Instead of weeding out the most inefficient companies, the state subverts the consumer and keeps these companies propped up with corporate welfare. This is particularly true with respect to the agricultural industry.

In the absence of tariffs, importation quotas, and subsidies, the natural tendency of the market would be to produce cheap foreign sugar, which soda manufacturers would then import to sweeten their product. Domestic farmers are naturally opposed to this system because they cannot compete with more-efficient foreign firms. So, instead of competing for the dollar votes of the millions of individuals who form the free market, these large corporations have the power to lobby a select group of politicians to confer them special privilege. When a businessman tries to secure his profits not through free competition but through state privilege, he is not acting as a market entrepreneur but rather as a political, rent-seeking one.

In this case, the political entrepreneur was Archer Daniels Midland, a company that lobbied Congress to pass draconian quotas on sugar importation. But why would ADM, a corn producer, want to artificially raise the price of foreign sugar? A basic lesson of economics is this: when the price of a good is raised, all other things being equal, people cut back on their consumption, and (depending on the elasticity of demand) they look for substitutes.

High-fructose corn syrup, which is made from cornstarch, which ADM grows, is such a substitute.

Sugar doesn’t grow well in the United States so producing it cheaply is impractical. Because of this consumers of sugar usually import it from foreign produces. This isn’t a problem in a free market because farmers in the United States are able to grow crops that don’t do well in areas favorable to sugar cane so trade can go both ways. Unfortunately when given the option to hinder competition through the political process most economic actors will jump on the opportunity.

In this case an individual who produced a corn-based sweetener wanted to push out competing foreign sugar producers. Doing this is easy when there is a state that can impose import restrictions (and also subsidize corn producers to encourage more of the crop to be grown, thus reducing the cost). Tariffs, import quotas, and subsidies are nothing more than mechanisms available to the state to grant its cronies monopolies. If a domestic producer is having difficulties selling their produce because of a superior foreign competitor the state will happily intervene and push out the foreign competitor so long as the domestic producer has something of value to offer the politicians. In fact this demonstrates the fact that we never moved away from mercantilism. The state still controls foreign trade, they are just less overt about it. Instead of a king openly granting a monopoly to a favored merchant the state now hides those grants of monopolies behind tariffs, import restrictions, regulations, subsidies, government contracts, etc. Even though the rules of the game have changed the game itself hasn’t.

Some people are probably curious about why this matters. It matters because market interventions come at a costs to your and me, the consumers. Our choices are artificially restricted and the lack of competition ensures prices will remain higher than they would otherwise. We end up having to pay a higher price for an inferior product. While producers of high fructose corn syrup will claim it tastes the same as sugar anybody who has had a “Mexican Coke” and a domestic Coke will let you know such claims are bullshit.

They’re Tracking You to Protect Your Freedom

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) are moving to create a database of license plates that are spotted driving down a targeted highway:

The DEA wants to capture the license plates of all vehicles traveling along Interstate 15 in Utah, and store that data for two years at their facility in Northern Virginia. And, as a DEA official told Utah legislators at a hearing this week (attended by ACLU of Utah staff and covered in local media), these scanners are already in place on “drug trafficking corridors” in California and Texas and are being considered for Arizona as well. The agency is also collecting plate data from unspecified other sources and sharing it with over ten thousand law enforcement agencies around the nation.

Why do they want this data? What do they plan to do with the data when they have it? The state does have a hardon for civil forfeiture laws and a database of license plate numbers driving on specific highways would certainly help the state increase the amount it can steal using said laws. Considering the state already claims that merely possessing “too much” cash is evidence of a drug crime it’s not stretch to imagine them claiming driving on a stretch of highway, say during your daily commute to work, would constitue evidence of drug trafficking.

But it’s OK, the DEA only wants to collect license plate numbers, not personally identifiable information:

The DEA official claimed to the Utah legislators that “we’re not trying to capture any personal information—all that this captures is the tag, regardless of who the driver is.” The idea that a license plate number is not personally identifiable information is laughable. It is true that different people can drive one vehicle, but they are usually closely related to the registered owner and their identities are rarely difficult to ascertain after the fact.

I don’t know why the state even feels the need to justify its violations of privacy anymore. Instead of trying to feed us bullshit like claiming license plate numbers, which are registered by the state to a vehicle owner, aren’t personally identifiable information they should say, “We don’t give a fuck about your privacy, due process, or your so-called rights. Now shut up slave or we’ll put you in a cage.”

Why not, the State Already Implemented Nazi Gun Control Laws

For those who are unaware the Gun Control Act of 1968 very similar to Nazi gun control laws that were implemented to disarm Jews. Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership published an excellent book titles “Gun Control” Gateway to Tyranny that compares an english translation of the Nazi gun control laws to the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the similarities cannot be denies.

Consider this, I’m not surprised by the fact that the state is moving to emulate more Nazi laws:

Call it the return of the Reichsfluchtsteuer.

The president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, did not use the term. But that is what Mr. Norquist was talking about when he spoke to The Hill newspaper about the legislation proposed by Senator Schumer, the Democrat of New York, to tax at a 30 percent rate the $2 billion capital gains of Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who renounced his American citizenship before Facebook’s initial public offering.

“I think Schumer can probably find the legislation to do this. It existed in Germany in the 1930s and Rhodesia in the ’70s and in South Africa as well,” Mr. Norquist said. “He probably just plagiarized it and translated it from the original German.”

The Reichsfluchsteuer, or Reich flight tax, that the Nazis imposed on Jews trying to flee in the 1930s was 25 percent; Mr. Schumer and his Senate colleague Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, want 30 percent. Give Mr. Schumer some credit for creativity, Mr. Norquist; the New Yorker did not just translate, he also raised the rate.

When you’re a fascist regime it only makes sense to take ideas from former fascist regimes. Noting the state’s propensity to simply repeat failed policies but harder we can see that our politicians took what the Nazis did, stealing 25 percent, and did it hard, stealing 30 percent.

More Kids Should Defy Teachers

Once in a great while I’m amazed by the intelligence of children. Even though most are forced to attend indoctrination camps known as public schools they are often able to see through the bullshit that is being shoved down their throats:

“Stop, no, because there is no comparison,” she says. Romney, she says, is “running for president. Obama is the president.”

When the student says they’re both “just men,” the teacher continues to argue that Romney, as a candidate for president, is not to be afforded the same respect as the president.

“Listen, let me tell you something, you will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom,” she says.

The student replies that he’ll say what he wants.

This post serves not only to bring this awesome kid to your attention but to unveil a new award: the Christopher Burg Award for Noncompliance in the Face of False Authority. This award is bestowed by this blog to those who refuse to comply with those who hold a fasle sense of authority. One cannot win this award by mouthing off to their boss or other person whom they voluntarily agreed to work under, one can only win this award but giving a big middle finger to some prick who has decided to lord power over you without your consent.

This student stood up to his teacher and called her on her bullshit. While she demanded the student respect the president like some kind of devine king the student refused.

Along with the unveiling of this award I also want to bring up something that annoys me, the idea that you must respect somebody because of a position they hold. Many people claim you must respect the president and even if you don’t like the man you must respect the office. This isn’t true, there is no reason that I have to respect the office. Technically the president is supposed to be a civil servant, he’s suppose to respect us because we’re supposed to be his bosses. Obviously this has been turned around, the president is now saw as the one deserving of respect and we’re supposed to bow down and kiss his ring. I’m not buying that, I don’t give my respect to offices, titles, etc.; I give my respect to individuals that I feel have earned it.

I respect my father not because of the fact he’s my father but because of the fact he’s a damned good man. He managed to start his own business with basically nothing, help raise three children, and not only ensured we had food on the table but also did everything possible to make his business expand so we could all enjoy a comfortable life. He’s never once ripped a customer off or attempted to make a quick buck, he came by his money by performing honest voluntary transactions. That is deserving of my respect, merely winning a popularity contest is not. One of the few politicians I respect is Ron Paul and that’s because he advocates voluntary association, opposes war, and believes in individual liberty. Instead of using his office to gain personal wealth by dealing with cronies under the table he has opposed such political maneuvers. If he were president I would still respect him, not the office, him.