Month: June 2012

Benefits by Force

A little chart produced by Think Progress has been making a second set of rounds on my social media feeds so I thought I’d address it. The charge describes the number of weeks of paid maternity leave several countries mandate by state decree (click to embiggen):

To many of my friends this chart demonstrates the horrible working conditions modern women in the United States are subjected to. Why, Canada gives women 50 weeks of paid maternity leave! They don’t seem to consider the fact that this paid maternity leave is only provided at the point of a gun. In order to provide such a benefit either the state must pay the women on maternity leave or the employer. If the state does it then it can only be done through theft, and if a business is forced to do it then it can only be done through the threat of violence.

People who are demanding the United States provide paid maternity leave should stop asking for it and start taking it. Do you want paid maternity leave? Is your employer unwilling to take it? Are you petitioning the state to provide it? Why not cut ou the middle man? Walk over to your neighbors’ homes, put a gun to their heads, and take what money you feel you’re owed. That’s what you’re demanding the state do for you after all.

This is the thing that irks me about the progressive movement. They aren’t trying to get social changes through voluntary cooperation, they’re trying to get it through force. Instead of advocating companies provide paid maternity leave or setting up mutual aid societies to help women on maternity leave they’re asking the state to use its gun to force the issue.

People want fre shit. If getting that free shit means forcefully taking it from others so be it, so long as somebody else performs the theft. It’s no different than the gun control advocates who demand the police rush to their house and kill the intruder; they’re against violence unless it’s done by proxy.

Before some member of the progressive movement accuses me of being misogynistic, waging a war on women, or simply being an asshole let me clarify this: I’m not against people voluntarily creating a mechanism to help people with newborn children. I would love to see a mutual aid society that focuses on helping families with newborns, in fact I would love to be a member of such a society because I know those services will likely be important to me when I decide to have children. You will get no argument from me if an employer decides to voluntarily offer paid maternity leave. If neighbors want to band together to help new mothers I’m all for it. I encourage helping one another but I can’t, in good conscious, support the initiation of violence.

Being a Statist is Stressful

The news came down yesterday that Scott Walker won in the Wisconsin recall election. Needless to say my progressive friends are livid, my neocon friends jumping for joy, and I don’t recognize the state as a legitimate entity so I gave no shits. What’s interesting to me is watching the reaction of my progressive friends.

After both the Al Franken vs. Norm Coleman and Mark Dayton vs. Tom Emmer election results rolled in the neocons start claiming voter fraud. Expensive time wasting recounts were held, which put the Minnesota Republican Party into a rather precarious financial situation. In both cases my progressive friends were demanding the neocons just conceded and stop acting like whiny children. Now that the tables have turned, now that the neocons have won a round, my progressive friends are starting to scream voter fraud. I’ve seen this link circling. It was written before the recall election but makes a case for possible voter fraud occurring due to one company’s tight control over the voting machines used in Wisconsin.

As additional evidence my friends have been putting forth the fact that more Republicans showed up than is traditional. No shit. You guys were moving to recall their team’s governor, you can guarantee they’re going to show up. It’s like the increase in Christian voters when gay marriage bans are up for vote, there is a vested interest in the group winning so more of them show up to vote than normal. It’s not a sign of fraud, it’s a sign of self-interest.

Worrying one’s self over these matters is very stressful, which is partially why I gave it up (even though I do admit to having a relapse once in a while).

Why People No Longer Help One Another

I’ve said it before, the reason less people are willing to help one another is because doing so is illegal:

What would you do if you came across someone on the street that had not had anything to eat for several days? Would you give that person some food? Well, the next time you get that impulse you might want to check if it is still legal to feed the homeless where you live. Sadly, feeding the homeless has been banned in major cities all over America. Other cities that have not banned it outright have put so many requirements on those that want to feed the homeless (acquiring expensive permits, taking food preparation courses, etc.) that feeding the homeless has become “out of reach” for most average people.

The article lists examples in Philadelphia, Orlando, Houston, Dallas, Las Vegas, and New York City (which I’ve covered before) of the state interfering with individuals helping those in need.

When the state decides to get itself involved in a service they quickly move to establish a monopoly. One of the first things the state did when it decided to move into the welfare market was to legislate mutual aid societies out of existence . Without a means for groups of people to come together in mutual aid individuals moved to help those in need by themselves. Needless to say the state is now working to make such actions illegal and thus ensure monopoly status on welfare.

The next time you hear somebody trying to blame capitalism, materialism, or the lack of religion for today’s apathy for mutual aid kindly inform them that the state is the real culprit.

I Think Obama is Officially Insane

It finally happened, I think Obama has finally falled off the deep end. Perhaps all the power of the presidency has driven him mad, perhaps he was mentally disturbed before every running for office, who knows? Either way the words coming out of his mouth aren’t making any sense:

Republicans “have gone from a preference for market-based solutions to an absolutism… [to] a belief that all regulations are bad; that government has no role to play,” said Obama…

As an individual who actually believes the government has no role to play, I must call bullshit on this. Republicans, in general, are just as statist as the Democrats. The Republicans claim they support “deregulation” and “free markets” but what they really support is cronyism and tightly controlled markets, same as the Democrats (granted, the Democrats are actually honest about their intentions to control markets). While the Democrats believe the government should provide welfare, subsidized contraceptives, healthcare, education, and protection the Republicans believe the government should provide welfare, make the use of contraceptives illegal, healthcare, education, and protection. Neither party believes the government has no role to play, that belief lies with those of us who dare oppose the state in its entirety.

The president’s divisive strategy is designed to persuade swing-voters that the former governor of Massachusetts is a radical libertarian…

Good luck with that, tell us how it turns out for you.

Considering the evidence at hand it seems wise to have Obama committed to psychiatric care before he does something really crazy like launch a nuclear weapon at China.

Explain to Me Again How We Don’t Live in a Police State

People keep telling me that I’m living in the freest country on Earth. If that’s the case then the rest of the world must be one giant supermax prison:

Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.

[…]

Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.
Police said they had received what they called a “reliable” tip that the culprit in an armed robbery at a Wells Fargo bank committed earlier was stopped at the red light.

“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News.

Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars.

“Cops came in from every direction and just threw their car in front of my car,” Sonya Romero, one of the drivers who was handcuffed, told ABC News affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver.

People were removed from their vehicles and handcuffed with no probably cause, no reasonable suspicion, and no warrant. The only thing the police had to go on was a “reliable” tip. That’s not even the worst part of this story:

“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said. “They all granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were un-handcuffed.”

Shame on every person who gave the police permission to search their vehicle. Each and every one of you demonstrated one of the worst aspects of modern American society, mindless subservience. If a costume-clad thug pulls you out of your vehicle, handcuffs you, and asks for permission to search your vehicle the only correct response is, “Go fuck yourself.” Seriously. At such a point you should say, “Officer, I don’t consent to a search of my person or property.”

I would be livid if the police did that to me. In fact I would likely lose my typical professional demeanor and go straight to the stereotypical anarchist mode of yelling, “Fuck you pig!” When the police are acting like this they’re no longer deserving of well-mannered responses. In fact every police officer involved in this stunt should be tossed in the slammer for kidnapping and every person who granted the police permission to search their vehicle should attend a course on Constitutional protections.

We need to stop kowtowing the state and its thugs and rekindle the American tradition of rebelliousness.

Green Jobs

When the state said it was investing in green jobs they must have meant drone pilots:

Phantom Eye’s innovative and environmentally responsible liquid-hydrogen propulsion system will allow the aircraft to stay on station for up to four days while providing persistent monitoring over large areas at a ceiling of up to 65,000 feet, creating only water as a byproduct. The demonstrator, with its 150-foot wingspan, is capable of carrying a 450-pound payload.

At least the state will be more environmentally friendly while the’re spying on the citizenry and bombing people overseas.

Louisiana Moving to Privatize Public Education

Many people in the libertarian sphere have been jumping for joy over the news of Louisiana moving to privatize public education:

Louisiana is embarking on the nation’s boldest experiment in privatizing public education, with the state preparing to shift tens of millions in tax dollars out of the public schools to pay private industry, businesses owners and church pastors to educate children.

Starting this fall, thousands of poor and middle-class kids will get vouchers covering the full cost of tuition at more than 120 private schools across Louisiana, including small, Bible-based church schools.

Obviously the progressives are already screaming bloody murder. Many people seem to assume I’m joining other libertarians in celebrating this apparent victory, I’m not. How could an advocate of the free market oppose this? Easy, this isn’t going to be a free market in education, it’s going to be tightly controlled at best and cronyism at worst.

The state didn’t say, “Hey guys, were removing all regulations dealing with education and turning it over to you!” What they said was, “We’re going to give you vouchers so you can attend any number of state sanctioned private education facilities.” There’s a huge difference.

A free market in education would mean no regulations, no state approvals, and no money being handed out by the state to those in its favor. Unfortunately the state has an approved list of some sort as the story states the vouchers will be usable” at more than 120 private schools.” That indicates there is some kind of state approval process, which means there is no free market.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the state approved schools are run by politically well-connected cronies. The state wouldn’t make this move unless it benefited its benefactors. Don’t be too quick to cheer this news as a libertarian victory, it’s merely a statist package wrapped in a very thin layer of mock liberty.

Flags and Nationalism

Flags are seen as symbols of countries and the ideals that supposedly stand for. In reality they are symbols used by governments to build blind nationalism. The United States government is so in love with their flag that they have written insanely detailed codes regarding it. Mind you, most of these codes are broken on a daily basis by some of the most patriotic of individuals:

(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker’s desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

[…]

(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

Regardless, my point has nothing to do with people ‘disrespecting’ the flag. In fact what I’m about to say is quite the opposite of such nonsense, I’m going to ‘disrespect’ the flag. The picture above is a quote by Indian novelist Arundhati Roy who has said some very intelligent things beyond that short quote above. I agree with her regarding what a flag really is. Throughout my early school career we were made to stand up, put our hand over our heart, and mindlessly recite the following words:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

At the time I merely recited the words because we were told to and we were told to recite those words because it was hoped we were impressionable enough to be brainwashed into mindless nationalistic robots. I’ve briefly mentioned my distain for the Pledge of Allegiance before:

The Pledge of Allegiance was a marketing ploy to instill nationalism. Since nationalism is one of the planks of fascism I’m not too fond of practicing it. Furthermore I’m none too inclined to recite a piece of propaganda written by a socialist.

Setting aside the fact the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist we need to stop and analyze the words. First, the pledge is to the flag and the republic it represents. We’re not pledging our allegiance to ideals like liberty or opposing tyranny, we’re pledging it to a republic. Whether that republic is the freest country on Earth or the most tyrannical isn’t even touched upon, you’re just supposed to be an obedient citizen who will ally yourself with the state.

Arundhati’s quote above rings true. The flag is first used to shrink wrap your brain before it is used to ceremoniously cover your coffin. You are supposed to die for your republic, even if your republic is a tyrannical dictatorship. This is what bothers me, the United States was supposedly founded on the ideal of liberty. We’re not supposed to be subservient to the state, the state is supposed to be subservient to us. Unfortunately it’s easy to build nationalism in a population, in fact it probably has something to do with our innate tribalism. You must first create a national identity, then you must create a divide, and finally you need only send good men and women to die.

In the United States nationalism is create continuously and through many different methods. The Pledge of Allegiance is only one way, we’re also constantly bombarded with concepts like respecting various political offices (I’ve written my thoughts on that subject before), we’re instructed to worship “civil servants” such as the police, etc. Hell, an entire section of federal law is dedicated to respecting the flag!

Then we have the divide. Before today various enemies of the state were created. First people living in the United States were supposed to be afraid of the “savage” Native Americans, later it was the Spanish, after them it was the anarchists, followed by the communists, today it’s Muslims. In every case the state used the national identify they created to also create a divide. It’s “us” versus “them.” “They” want to destroy our way of life. “They” want to kill our children. “They” want to take our freedom. You’re either with “us” or you’re with “them.” After the divide is created the state merely has to send armies to fight “them” and use the deaths of “us” as further proof of “their” barbarity. It worked during manifest destiny, it worked during the Vietnam War, and it’s working today with the invasions of the Middle East.

As I’ve said, I don’t pledge my allegiance to a flag or a republic. I pledge my allegiance to individuals I deem worth of it, I pledge my allegiance to ideas I believe in, I certainly don’t pledge my allegiance haphazardly or without good cause. Saying this is tantamount to heresy. You are proclaimed a witch and demands for your trail are raised. Self-declared patriots will scream “How dare you disrespect our flag!” or “How dare you not say the Pledge of Allegiance!” In their mind your unwillingness to pledge your allegiance to the flag means you’re with “them” and if you’re with “them” you’re against “us.”

What so many people are too blind to see is the fact there is no “us” or “them.” There are only individuals, all of whom are unique. We’ve been raised our entire lives to swear mindless obedience to the state. Public education is all about obedience, you’re not supposed to think critically, you’re supposed to do and believe what you are told. Teachers, the chief propagandists, are described as gods and you’re instructed to kneel down and worship them. Their word is law. If they say two plus two equals five you’re suppose to nod your head and mindlessly repeat “Five!” whenever asked the sum of two and two. When your teacher tells you the United States is the greatest and freest country on Earth you’re supposed to nod and accept it as fact, you’re suppose to stand up and swear your undying love and allegiance to your flag, you’re suppose to be outraged when anybody disrespect your country or its symbol.

Some will eventually see the situation for what it is and break free of the trap while others will not. In the eyes of those who haven’t broken free of the trap I’m a pariah who is to be shunned. Frankly, I stopped giving a damn what other people think of me long ago because I realize they view me as part of the nebulous “them” and thus their hatred is irrational and without basis.

What’s Need Got to Do With It

Advocates of gun rights know gun control advocates love to ask, “Why do you need X?” where X is any firearm that the gun control advocate is trying to ban. Gun control advocates aren’t the only group who like to use the “need” argument, collectivists love to use it to.

Whenever I talk about the wonders of the market some collectivist inevitably tries to swoop in and rain on my parade. One of my favorite aspects of the market is the ability to provide for the wants of so many. If you want an expensive sports car there are several to choose from, if you want a cheap car to get you from point A to point B there are also many to choose from. Do you want an expensive handmade wristwatch? Rolex, Ball, Omega, and many others are more than happy to provide you with one. For those who prefer a cheap wristwatch Casio, Fossil, Timex, Seiko, and many others are happy to deliver you such a product. Are you looking for a reliable handgun for self-defense? Take your pick, Glock, Smith and Wesson, Springfield Armory, and many other companies can give you want you’re looking for. Planned economies doen’t have such variety, instead you are stuck choosing between a handful of state approved goods if there is any choice at all. When you drive down the road of a communist country you don’t see much variety in automobiles, there are usually a handful of models from the handful of state approved manufacturers.

When I bring this up collectivists are often quick to see we don’t need that many choices. My response is this: what does need have to do with it? Basing your argument on need is idiotic and self-defeating. All humans need is shelter, clothing, food, water, and a handful of tools. Cavemen had all of their needs met. The caves they lived in provided shelter, the animals they hunted with their crude spears provided clothing and food, trees and bushes offered more food, and flowing streams and rivers provided water. Of course they lived incredibly short lives, the average age being under 20 years. It was also a rather miserable existence since all of their time was spent hunting and gathering food, building their crude weapons, and fighting off wild animals and competing tribes. Still, they had all of their needs.

Another problem with the “need” argument is that it’s incredibly arrogant. By telling somebody they don’t “need” something you’re also telling them that you know what they need. While you may not think the guy driving the Ford F-350 needs such a large truck you have no idea if he hauls heavy trailers, workers construction, or simply enjoys the ride and feel or a large truck. Perhaps you don’t believe the woman carrying a 9mm Glock needs a weapon but her ex-husband could have a history of stalking and abuse. Who needs an expensive suit? Perhaps the owner of a high-end jewelry store where appearance is a huge part of the business. The Austrian tradition of economics is based on the fact only an individual can know what he or she needs or wants. I can no more know what you need than you could know what I need. Each individual has different hopes, desires, weaknesses, strengths, interests, aspirations, dreams, thoughts, etc. It’s impossible, in extremely arrogant, to know what another needs.

The next time somebody tries to argue what you can and can’t have based on need kindly inform them to give up their worldly possessions, live in a cave, and hunt and gather their food. Nobody needs more than that to survive.