Month: June 2012

The War on Dogs Comes to Minneapolis

Even Minnesota isn’t safe from the state’s war on dogs:

A north Minneapolis woman whose dog was shot 10 times and whose house was ransacked by Minneapolis police officers has sued the department, alleging that the incident earlier this year was set off after a failed police pursuit of her fugitive brother.

They shot the dog 10 times? Obviously this was a vicious uncontrolled animal that threatened the lives of all involved:

As Anderson’s husband met the officers in the front yard, the family’s 8-month-old pit bull appeared. Anderson’s husband said he would collect the dog and called for it, but the officers called out “Pit bull!” and began shooting, striking the dog in the head, legs and body and fatally injuring it, the suit said.

Or it could have been entirely harmless and was merely minding its own business, that was my second guess. At least karma his the police square in the leg:

A bullet or bullet fragment struck one of the officers in the leg, and another dog also was shot and wounded.

Serves those murdering sons of bitches right. The gun control zealots keep talking about taking guns from lawful individuals but are entirely OK with allowing costume-clad government thugs to continue having them. Last I heard the average individual wasn’t going around shooting family pets for no reason.

Statism and Self-Projection

Read the following excerpt from this article and tell me what you see:

Age is just a number… except when it comes to marriage.

Let’s look at my stats:
Current age – 29
Divorced for – 8 months
Separated for – 1 year, 9 months
Age when I met my ex – 19
Age when I married – 24

Which brings me to my point: couples should not be allowed to get married before age 25.

While I know that this statement is going to make me very unpopular with readers, I do believe that it would be for the best — better both for the institution of marriage and the individuals getting married — if we could change the law to prevent couples from getting married before the age of 25.

OK, you can’t really tell me what you see so I’ll tell you what I see. I see a woman who is projection herself onto all other people and this projection is leading her to demand legislation. Statists seem to think because something happened to them it will happen to everybody. Gun control zealots sometime talk about what a situation would have been like if they had had a gun. Instead of ending peacefully the gun control zealot will talk about the death that would have occurred, and because they projection their violent tendencies onto everybody else they demand everybody be disarmed.

This is why I believe statism is synonymous with arrogance. When you say there ought to be a law because of an experience you had in life you’re making the arrogant statement that everybody else is just like you. Because the author of the above excerpt ended up divorced after marrying a man when she was 24 she believes everybody who marries before or at the age of 24 will end up getting divorced. This belief also requires her to believe that the cause of her divorce was the fact she was still “developing” as a person and such “development” completes at exactly 25 years of age, for everybody. This is incredibly arrogant. I know people who were fully “developed” much earlier than their 25th birthday and I know people who are much older than 25 and still “developing.” Humans don’t conform to specific cutoffs. Some children hit puberty at an early age while others hit is later. Some adults are capable of living independently when they turn 18 while others aren’t capable of such feats at any point in their lives. There are 16 year-olds I trust implicitly with firearms while there are 30 year-olds I won’t go to the range with. Everybody is different.

Differences in individuals is what individualists recognize. If I were married at age 24 and got divorced at age 26 I wouldn’t assume everybody else who married at age 25 would experience the same outcome. Projection ourselves onto others is a basic human action, one that I try to avoid (although I’m not always successful). Every time somebody argues for a law based on their personal experience they’re projecting. We need to divorce ourselves from demanding laws based on personal experience. Just because you did something doesn’t mean everybody else will do it.

Come Back with a Warrant

Indiana is the first state that has finally taken away one of the special privileges its state agents enjoy:

Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents and supports prosecutors. The National Rifle Association pushed for the law, saying an unfavorable court decision made the need clear and that it would allow homeowners to defend themselves during a violent, unjustified attack. Police lobbied against it.

[…]

“Public servant” was added to clarify the law after a state Supreme Court ruling last year that “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers,” he said. The case was based on a man charged with assaulting an officer during a domestic-violence call.

Young cited a hypothetical situation of a homeowner returning to see an officer raping his daughter or wife. Under the court’s ruling, the homeowner could not touch the officer and only file a lawsuit later, he said. Young said he devised the idea for the law after the court ruling.

The Supreme Court, the sole entity granted permission to interpret what Constitutional protections we serfs enjoy, ruled that us serfs had no right to defend ourselves against unlawful state agent activity. This ruling shouldn’t come as any surprise, the Supreme Court has a long history of upholding the statists’ agenda, but it’s nice to see Indiana basically gave the ruling a huge middle finger.

It’s also not surprising to see that the police lobbied against this law as it does put a barrier between their act of performing an unlawful entry and killing any dogs in the home. I’m glad to see this law passed. I believe all should be equal under the law. Whether the person unlawfully breaking into my home at two in the morning is wearing a state-issued costume or not should be irrelevant.

Now that we know the real story let’s take a look at a heavily editorialized version of this story:

Indiana legalizes shooting cops

We’re off to a good start.

Hold onto your holsters, folks: shooting a cop dead is now legal in the state of Indiana.

Oh you adorable little gun control zealots and you’re purposeful omission of details in an attempt to make the story sound evil and scary when it’s not. “Shooting a cop dead” isn’t legal in Indiana unless that cop is unlawfully entering your property. There is a vast difference between the two statements.

The rest of the article mostly reads like the one I first linked to but the openings were just too good to go without comment.

The Most One-Sided Contract Every Conceived

Butler Shaffer wrote an article discussing social contract theory. Needless to say he absolutely nailed it:

Imagine that you have agreed with an auto dealer to purchase the luxurious Belchfire X-1 automobile, for which you agree to pay $45,000, with monthly payments to extend over a period of three years. You sign the sales agreement, and are then told to return the following day to sign the formal contract, which you do. When you arrive two days later to pick up the car, the dealer presents you with the title and keys to a much lesser model, the Klunkermobile J. When you ask the dealer to explain the switch, he points to a provision in the contract that reads: “Dealer shall be entitled to make ‘reasonable’ adjustments it considers to be ‘necessary and proper’ to further the ‘general welfare’ of the parties hereto.” He also tells you that the amount of the payments will remain the same as for the Belchfire X-1; that to provide otherwise would be to impair the obligations of the contract. You strongly object, arguing that the dealer is making a fundamental alteration of the contract. The dealer then informs you that this dispute will be reviewed by a third party – his brother-in-law – who will render a decision in the matter.

Social contract theory is nothing more than a statist’s wet dream. If people buy into it then, suddenly, all of the statist’s actions are morally justified. Even strict constitutionalists will use the social contract argument, claiming that the United States Constitution is a contract between the state and the people and if it is violated then the people have a moral justification to overthrow the state.

Unfortunately for those of us who believe in individual liberty social contract theory has caught on. It’s entirely one-sided though. The state not only gets the privilege of writing the contract but they also get a monopoly on interpreting the contract. You, by merely existing, are said to be a signatory to the contract. When you believe the state has violated a term in the social contract the matter is taken up with a court, which is controlled by the state. No third-party arbitration is allowed, the deck is rigged, or as my friend often says, vilescit origine tali (the dice were loaded from the start).

Even accepting the fantasy of a “social contract” theory of the state creates more fundamental problems. The legitimacy of a contract depends upon the existence of “consideration.” This means that the party seeking enforcement must demonstrate a changing of one’s legal position to their detriment (e.g., giving up something of value, making a binding promise, foregoing a right, etc.) Statists may argue that their system satisfies this requirement – by supposedly agreeing to protect the lives and property of the citizenry, and agreeing to respect those rights of people that are spelled out in the “Bill of Rights.” The problem is that – thanks to the opinions of numerous brothers-in-law who comprise the Supreme Court – the powers given to the state have been given expansive definitions, and the rights protected by the “Bill of Rights” are given an increasingly narrow interpretation.

People often point to the clear language of the Bill or Rights to demonstrate the acts the state isn’t allowed to do. While the language may be clear to you or me, we are not the ones who get the privilege of interpreting it. It has never been about the language, it’s been about the interpretation. I can take the most seemingly straightforward statement and twist it to mean anything I want. As Cardinal Richelieu once said, “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”

Who in their right mind would sign this social contract? What third-party would agree such a contract was valid? This is the flaw in social contract theory, the contract they allude to isn’t valid under contract law. One of the biggest flaws in the United States Constitution, besides granting the federal government power to tax, is allowing the courts that interpret the Constitution to be controlled by the same state the Constitution is supposedly binding. It is impossible to legally bind somebody if you give them the power to determine what is legal.

When you look at the goal of statists, to have a large gun to wield against those who disagree with them, social contract theory makes nothing but sense. It’s just like something a mafioso would come up with.

Possible Hope in Fast and Furious

How long as the Fast and Furious scandal been known about? It’s been a while and the House Oversight Committee is finally moving to hold a hearing on whether or not Eric Holder should be nailed for contempt:

(CBS News) CBS News has learned the House Oversight Committee will vote next week on whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. It’s the fourth time in 30 years that Congress has launched a contempt action against an executive branch member.

This time, the dispute stems from Holder failing to turn over documents subpoenaed on October 12, 2011 in the Fast and Furious “gunwalking” investigation.

[…]

However, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., says the Justice Department has refused to turn over tens of thousands of pages of documents. Those include materials created after Feb. 4, 2011, when the Justice Department wrote a letter to Congress saying no gunwalking had occurred. The Justice Department later retracted the denial.

“The Obama Administration has not asserted Executive Privilege or any other valid privilege over these materials and it is unacceptable that the Department of Justice refuses to produce them. These documents pertain to Operation Fast and Furious, the claims of whistleblowers, and why it took the Department nearly a year to retract false denials of reckless tactics,” Issa wrote in an announcement of the vote to be released shortly. It will reveal the vote is scheduled for Wednesday, June 20.

Will anything come of this? I’m not holding my breath. With the exception of a handful of members of Congress, it appears as though the legislative body has been less than apathetic in pursuing Fast and Furious. On the other hand this ruling could be a big deal during the election and the Republicans have a vested interest in ruling Holder in contempt. As the Republicans hold the majority of seats on the committee and have a vested interesting in holding Holder in contempt something may actually come of this. Of course state agents are also vested in protecting one another from prosecutions related to their criminal activities so the House Oversight Committee may not vote to hold Holder in contempt, doing so may cause the Democrats to seek revenge by calling the Republicans on one of their criminal activities. This is the problem with organized criminal entities, reform is almost impossible because everybody has dirt on everybody else. Ruling Holder in contempt would also interfere with the state’s move to push gun control forward, which was, at least one of, the goals of Fast and Furious.

This will be an interesting case to continue watching to say the least.

Gun Control Zealot Editorialization

Reading articles by gun control zealots is interesting because they’re often laced with countless editorializations that attempt to make a case for disarming the people. Take this recent case from Wisconsin where a 75 year-old man shot a 16 year-old kid because the older man thought the kid stole his firearm collection:

75-year-old John Henry Spooner from Milwaukee, WI, appointed himself judge, jury and executioner when he gunned down a 13-year-old boy whose only crime appeared to be…his appearance. The victim, Darius Simmons, was black, unarmed and brutally shot in front of his now grief-stricken mother.

At issue was a gun collection, which had been, according to Spooner, stolen. Simmons lived next door. Spooner confronted Darius, who was in sixth grade, and his mother, Patricia Larry, when the boy was moving a garbage can in the front yard. Darius denied involvement in the theft. In fact, he was in school at the time of the robbery, but that answer was unsatisfactory to Spooner, who proceeded to point his 9mm handgun at Darius.

[…]

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Spooner was upset that his neighborhood had turned from a majority Caucasian neighborhood to a mixed-race neighborhood. Darius and his family had recently moved next door to Spooner.

There is some editorialization that attempts to build a case of racism against Spooner, something we saw in the Zimmerman case. Speaking of the Zimmerman case, the author of this article doesn’t forget to make a spurious editorialization to play on the death of Trayvon Martin:

Wisconsin does have both Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws on the books, although it probably be even more difficult for Spooner to make the case that he was under any sort of threat than it will be for George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin.

The article attempts to convince the reader that Spooner was a racist who gunned down an unarmed black teenager for the sole reason that the teenager was black. Because of the Zimmerman case I won’t believe any such accusations unless absolute proof is brought forward. Let us not forget that both MSNBC and CNN were caught fabricating evidence to make Zimmerman’s motivation appear race-related. The media has shot what little credibility it may have once had when it comes to reporting the facts in any crime that involves a black individual being shot by a person of a differing race.

Not only has the author attempted to make this shooting appear race related but it attempts to make the Zimmerman case entirely race related. The paragraph should read, “Wisconsin does have both Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws on the books, although it probably be even more difficult for Spooner to make the case that he was for the racist murder Zimmerman who had no claim of self-defense whatsoever.” Seriously, if you’re going to editorialize go big or go home. Either way the author forgets to bring up the fact that evidence exists supporting Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. Of course it took ages for this evidence to come to light because it didn’t fit the media’s narrative, and it’s possible Spooner’s action was legitimate self-defense and we’ll only learn of evidence supporting such a claim much later down the road, and it won’t be reported to any extent.

Let’s take a look at another recent story written by a gun control zealot:

BAD boy swimmers Nick D’Arcy and Kenrick Monk have sparked outrage after they posed with high-powered weapons in a US gun shop.

The pair smiled and looked smug as they handled automatic pistols and pump-action shot guns similar to those used in the Port Arthur massacre.

[…]

Mr Crook said Monk was holding the same pump-action shot guns used by Martin Bryant, who murdered 35 people in Port Arthur in 1996.

D’Arcy was pictured holding semi-automatic pistols, similar to those used by Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui.

The only story here is that two Australian Olympic swimmers went to an American gun shop and took a picture of themselves holding firearms while exercising poor trigger discipline. I forgive the poor trigger discipline simply because they are from a hoplophobic country where firearms training is probably suppressed as much as firearms. After all, you don’t want the peasants to familiarize themselves with firearms or they might find out they enjoy shooting and thus demand the strict firearm laws be struck from the books.

The author of this article tries to make this non-story appear to be a scandalous one but tying the swimmers to two massacres. According to the article the weapons were similar to those used in the Port Arthur massacre and the Virginia Tech massacre. Since no logical argument can be made for gun control proponents must appeal to peoples’ emotions. They must pull at your heartstrings and rely on your fear in order to push their agenda.

These articles are perfect examples of gun control zealots editorializing stories to push their agenda. Because of these editorializations they’ve taken potentially serious issues and turned them into irrelevant gibberish that people have become entirely desensitized to due to the constant Chicken Little claims that never pan out. Editorializations have also made the media entirely unreliable, credibility cannot be granted to organizations that continuously lie in order to push an agenda. Thankfully the people have become wise to these tactics and are no longer buying the gun control zealots’ malarkey. You idiots advocating gun control screwed yourselves in the end. While lying worked in the short term people eventually woke up and called you out. When you refused to back down after being called out people recognized you for the cheats you are and began ignoring you. In all honesty I should thank those of you who editorialized in an attempt to push gun control, you lies basically did gun rights advocates’ work for them. Instead of having to argue ideas gun rights advocates’ merely had to point out your lies, which destroyed your credibility. Victory was handed to all of us in the gun community, by yourselves, on a silver platter.

North Dakota Looking to End Property Taxes

I’m rather torn when it comes to deciding which is more evil between property taxes and income taxes. While income taxes are a direct theft of your labor, property taxes make it impossible for one to actually own property. When a locality implements a property tax they are turning you from a property owner to a property renter, and failing to pay the rent will lead you to losing your property. This is incredibly insidious when you apply it to a homeowner who falls on hard times. Being unemployed sucks but owning a home would at least ensure you have someplace to sleep. That is unless you fail to pay your property tax and your kicked out onto the street with no job.

Thankfully North Dakota is looking at ending property taxes in its state:

Since Californians shrank their property taxes more than three decades ago by passing Proposition 13, people around the nation have echoed their dismay over such levies, putting forth plans to even them, simplify them, cap them, slash them. In an election here on Tuesday, residents of North Dakota will consider a measure that reaches far beyond any of that — one that abolishes the property tax entirely.

I hope this goes through because it would be a step towards absolute property rights. The state shouldn’t be able to take your property because you are unable, or merely unwilling, to pay an extortion fee.

Rovio Looking to Abandon Finland over High Taxes

Rovio is the latest successful company that is looking to flee the country it started in over high taxation:

THE FINNISH company that created the hugely successful Angry Birds mobile phone game is considering moving its headquarters to Ireland, chief executive Mikael Hed has said.

[…]

The corporation tax rate in Finland is 24.5 per cent, while Ireland’s rate is 12.5 per cent. Most of the world’s fast-growing technology companies, such as Google and Facebook, have set up European headquarter operations in Dublin so as to benefit from Ireland’s low corporation tax rate.

When victims of theft get sick of being stolen from they have a habit of leaving. Why suffer the loss of 24.5% of your wealth when you can simply move to Ireland and only suffer the loss of 12.5% of your wealth? This is why a state can’t tax itself out of debt or into prosperity. Eventually the state runs out of stuff to steal and that ends the party.

A Counterargument to a Common Statist Argument

One argument made by statists to justify the existence of the state is that without the state that would be roving gangs going around taking everybody’s shit. This argument makes little sense in my opinion. First, it assumes that humans are inherently uncooperative and prefer to take instead of trade. Second, it assumes the state itself isn’t a roving gang of thugs who go around and take everybody’s shit.

Let’s discuss the first issue, the assumption that humans are inherently uncooperative. If the existence of the state is the only thing between modern society and complete chaos then I must know, how did humans cooperate long enough to establish a state? Anti-statists, such as myself, believe humans are inherently cooperative and use the existence of society as proof. What is society after all? It’s groups of humans who have come together to interact with one another, namely in trade. Without the division of labor that society brings each individual would be forced to provide for all of their means themselves. Imagine if you had to make every pair of shoes you’ve owned by hand. This would involve everything from obtaining the leather to creating the thread for the stitching. Then imagine other modern luxuries such as air conditioners and computers. It’s pretty easy to see that the lack of division of labor would mean modern technology would not exist.

Thankfully humans are cooperative enough that we decided to take advantage of divided labor. You perform your part of the work and I’ll perform my part. If I’m a shoemaker I’ll buy my leather from somebody who raises cattle. I believe division of labor is ultimately what lead humans to develop societies. Every task humans perform is made easier by cooperation. Hunting a large wooly mammoth seems a monumental task for one man but is certainly doable for a hunting party.

If humans were uncooperative we would not have modern society, instead we would still be in caves. Unfortunately statists take the rare exceptions to cooperative humans, the thieves, and use them as the rule. Were this true Iceland wouldn’t have enjoyed 300 years of relatively peaceful statelessness.

What about the second assumption? When somebody says the only thing between modern society and roving gangs of thieves is the state they are stating a fallacy for the state is a roving gang of thieves. Everything the state does is pays for though theft. Whether that theft is taxation or printing money (which causes inflation, which is nothing more than the theft of an individual’s purchasing power) is irrelevant, it’s still theft. If you don’t pay your taxes then the state will simply take your shit. Depending on how behind you are on your taxes you may lose your home and your car.

A state can’t stand between modern society and roving gangs because the state itself is a roving gang. They are taking your shit.