Month: April 2013

Working Through the System

Those of you who are new to libertarianism or unfamiliar with the history of the libertarian movement may not be familiar with the name Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK3). Although not the originator of counter-economics he was the first libertarian to express in detail how counter-economics, which he called agorism, could be used to topple the state. His strategy conflicted with that of another famous libertarian, Murray Rothbard. Instead of advocating counter-economics, Rothbard attempted to change the United States government by working within the political system through the Libertarian Party. Rothbard was a brilliant man when it came to economics and put forth a convincing ethics system built upon Austrian economics. With that said, I find it unfortunate that he was the one of the two to rise to prominence within libertarian circles. Konkin and Rothbard enjoyed, what I would call, a friendly rivalry. Rothbard would criticize Konkin and agorism and Konkin to rebut Rothbard and the political means.

I think history has demonstrated that Rothbard’s chosen tactic, the political means, failed miserably to establish a libertarian society. That being the fact most people new to the libertarian movement will be exposed to the political means and will only come across agorism if they’re fortunate enough to meet an anarchist in libertarian political circles or venture off of the beaten path to research the more radical side of libertarianism.

The two factions within the libertarian movement don’t always seen eye to eye. Libertarian working within the political system, who often refer to themselves as pragmatists, often vehemently oppose libertarians who use counter-economics as their means of fighting for liberty. During a debate Konkin explained the danger of libertarians who attempt to work their way through the system (the explanation starts at about the 11:50 mark):

And of course, the ultimate nightmare, which I’ve described in a few pamphlets for those of you who don’t remember it, the idea of a libertarian working his way through the system. Who arrests one of us counter economists, one of us people who go and break laws and things because we don’t believe in the government. And he takes us in front of a libertarian who works his way through the system as a judge and he takes us in front of a libertarian, you know he sentences us, and a libertarian working his way through the system as a bailiff, takes us to the jail where a libertarian working his way through the system as a turnkey. Holds us prisoner until eventually a libertarian working his way through the system as a court, or the prison priest, brings us up to the electric chair where a libertarian working his way through the system as a state technician is making sure it’s in good working order and a libertarian working his way through the system as a burly guard slaps us down on the chair and another libertarian working his way through the system as an executioner throws a switch and wipes out the one person who was, in fact, a libertarian not working his way through the system.

The danger of pragmatism rears its ugly head. A libertarian working through the system can be a frightening prospect because, as I explained in my post about the dangers of pragmatism, they often become willing to sacrifice their principles for political gain. This willingness to sacrifice principle can have a devastating effect on libertarians who choose to use counter-economics. By turning in agorists libertarians working through the system can gain favor from other statists, which they often believe will allow them to further their goal of advancing liberty.

My reason for poking fun at libertarians who work within the political system is because they can actually be a danger to us libertarians who work outside of the system (whereas us libertarians who work outside of the system are no danger to those working within the system). I wish Konkin was more popular than Rothbard because then, perhaps, a majority of new libertarians would participate in counter-economics instead of being sucked into the political machinery that has a habit of turning would-be libertarians into slightly less fascist statists.

IRS Claims They can Read Your E-Mail Without a Warrant; They Can’t (Unless You Let Them)

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) believes that they can read your e-mails without acquiring a warrant:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has claimed that agents do not need warrants to read people’s emails, text messages and other private electronic communications, according to internal agency documents.

[…]

In a 2009 handbook, the IRS said the Fourth Amendment does not protect emails because Internet users “do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.” A 2010 presentation by the IRS Office of General Counsel reiterated the policy.

It’s fortunate that we live in a world where what the IRS thinks and what is actually true are two different things. While the Fourth Amendment doesn’t offer any protection from warrantless searches OpenPGP does. Enigmail is a plugin for Thunderbird that lets you easily encrypt your e-mail with Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). By encrypting your e-mail you can ensure only the intended recipient(s) can read it. Even if the IRS obtains a warrant to copy your e-mails from your service provider’s servers it won’t do them any good because they won’t be able to read those e-mails.

The IRS, or any other state agency, can only read your e-mail if you let them.

Welcome to the New Site

Without saying a word or indicating I was going to do so I’ve moved this site over to a different server. What’s that mean for you? I do have a valid SSL certificate now. If you go to the HTTPS version of my site your browser should indicate that you have a secure connection for a brief second. WordPress, by default, has no way to force secure connections and always attempts to redirect users to the unsecured version of the site. I’m still working to correct that. It is my intention to provide an always secure site in the future.

Underneath a few things have changed. Previously this site was hosted on OS X 10.6 Server. Apple no longer provides any notable support for 10.6 and their new server software has proven to be unusable. This time around I decided to go with OpenBSD 5.2. OpenBSD has a solid track record when it comes to security, which is something I really like. Hosting the site on OpenBSD also gave me an excuse to become more knowledgeable about BSD-based operating systems. In addition to changing operating systems I also put the server in a virtual machine. Previously I was hosting this site on a natively installed operating system. Now I can move the site from server to server with little trouble and take advantage of useful tools such as snapshots.

There may still be some bugs to work out. If you notice any problems please feel free to e-mail me using the address on the sidebar.

The Myth Surrounding Slavery

One of the common myths surround slavery is that the institution, historically, was well received. With the exception of a few people slavery is reviled today (unless it’s state slavery, of course). What’s interesting is that many people that revile slavery believe that the institution was almost unanimously supported until the 1800’s rolled around.

This belief often manifests itself when one criticizes the Founding Fathers of the United States for owning slaves. Oftentimes that criticism is swept under the table by those who revere the Founders as demigods of freedom and liberty. They claim that it’s not fair to raise such criticisms because, even though slavery isn’t popularly supported today, it was during their time and we must look at their actions through the lens of that time. That claim is crap.

Slavery has always been fiercely opposed by great swaths of people. Even one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, tried to include strong anti-slavery language in the Declaration of Independence. But, more to the point, the opposition to slavery primarily came from, as you can guess, the slaves.

How many people would support a system that forces them to perform hard labor for no pay? How many people would support a system where armed thugs would collect them if they left a specific plot of land? How many people would support having their children taken to be auctioned off to another slave owner? I can’t think of a single person who would support such a system and I’m guessing you can’t either.

The only people who supported slavery were those who directly profited from the institution. Slave owners, slave hunters, and politicians whose pockets were lined by pro-slavery lobbyists were the primary supporters of slavery. Slaves and the abolitionist movement strongly opposed slavery and remainder of the population likely didn’t give two shits either way.

Whenever somebody claims that the institution of slavery received popular support historically you need to realize that they’re, in all likelihood unknowingly, omitting the opinion of the slaves.

Paychecks Usually Trump Beliefs and Politicians Don’t Care What Anybody Thinks

A survey has started making its way through the gun rights community. Supposedly the survey shows that most law enforcement officers oppose enacting stricter gun control laws:

The law-enforcement support site PoliceOne.com has released the results of a massive survey in which “more than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals” were asked 30 questions about current gun control proposals. The results may surprise you.

“Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe,” writes Police One Editor in Chief Doug Wyllie, “police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.”

On the surface this sounds great because the police would be tasked with enforcing any new gun control legislation. Another apparently positive aspect of these results is that politicians often justify their support for gun control by claiming law enforcement officers support gun control. Many supporters of gun rights are using these results to imply that most law enforcement officers wouldn’t enforce new gun control laws and politicians may be less inclined to advocate for more gun control knowing that a majority of law enforcement officers oppose it. These implications ignore two major factors: paychecks usually trump beliefs and politicians don’t care what anybody thinks.

Law enforcement officers are paid to enforce the state’s decrees. If an law enforcement officer is unwilling to enforce the state’s decrees they are dismissed. Have you ever heard an officer say, “I’m just doing my job?” What they mean is that they may not agree with what they’re told to do but they will do it because that is the job assigned to them. It’s a cop out, a way of justifying an act that the person knows is wrong. When faced with the choice between enforcing new gun control laws or receiving a paycheck you can guarantee that a vast majority of police officers will choose the latter. We must always remember that the police are not our friends, their job is to take our shit and put it in the state’s coffers.

Politicians often claim that they support gun control laws because their police officers do. That is also a cop out. When a politician says his law enforcement officers support legislation they really means that the select officers they personally opted to seek advice from support the legislation. If the politician can’t get the opinion they want from the officers they selected they simply select different officers to advise them. Politicians don’t care what anybody thinks, they have an agenda and they seek the advice of people that will support that agenda.

I hate to say it but that survey is meaningless outside of being an argument against the claim that a majority of law enforcement officers support gun control. If the politicians want to pass new gun control laws they will and the police will enforce those laws just as they enforce every other laws.

Bipartisan Deals are a Myth

Have you heard? The Democrats and Republicans have come together to reach a bipartisan deal on gun control:

Two US senators have struck a bipartisan deal to expand background checks on gun buyers, boosting White House hopes for a firearms control law.

Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Senator Pat Toomey, a Republican, unveiled their plans in Washington DC.

The proposal would expand criminal background checks for buyers to include gun shows and online sales.

I’m not sure why the term bipartisan is still used. According to Google bipartisan is defined as “Of or involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other’s policies.” Bipartisan, by definition, assumes the existence of two political parties that usually support opposing policies. Besides the minor differences of party color and totem animal there are no notable difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. Both parties have the same goal: expand the power of the state. To maintain the illusion of choice the parties pretend that they have different strategies when it comes to expanding the state’s power but, in the end, they both want an all powerful state and rules over every detail of our lives.

Therefore it’s not an accurate statement to call this gun control deal bipartisan. The deal was brokered between two organizations within the same political party. The term is used solely as a mechanism to divide and conquer the populace. So long as the general population believes that there are two ideologically different political parties they will happily fight one another over meaningless details instead of focusing on the real enemy, the state.

The Great Bitcoin Crash

Yesterday my prediction based on the utmost scientific research came true. Bitcoin, which has seen a remarkable increase in value compared to dollars, began to crash. Supposedly the cause of this crash was a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack:

We’ve reached out to one of the biggest exchanges, Mt. Gox, to see what happened. But another San Francisco-based exchange called TradeHill is saying that the crypto-currency is falling because of apparent distributed denial of service attacks on Mt. Gox and Bitstamp. A denial of service attack happens when an attacker overwhelms a target with external requests, so that it can’t honor regular requests from legitimate users.

All commodities are vulnerable to some amount of manipulation and Bitcoin is no different. The sudden drop in value demonstrates a potential exploit that can be used to make a great deal of money off of Bitcoin. Let’s hypothesize that the DDoS attack was planned some months back. Planning to execute a DDoS attack against several prominent Bitcoin trading sites individuals decided to first buy a large number of Bitcoin as the then current price and then move to manipulate the price by bringing the currency to the media’s attention. After generating a good deal of interest those same individuals begin to trade some Bitcoin for larger amounts of dollars, which raises the high point trade value. Seeing an increase in the high point trade value people uninvolved with the plan begin trading at higher prices. Eventually the system becomes a sort of Ouroboros, a self-feeding cycle that causes the price of Bitcoin to continuously rise. Once the value of Bitcoin has been manipulated high enough the manipulators sell off all of their Bitcoin and begin their DDoS attack. With the most prominent Bitcoin trading sites down the perceived value of Bitcoin tumbles along with it. After that the cycle can begin again. Buy low, manipulate the price higher, instigate a DDoS attack to drop the price, buy low, and so on.

The scenario I just explained is hypothetical, I’m not implying that it is fact. But the scenario is a possibility.

It will be interesting to see what the price of Bitcoin does over the next several days. Will is drop in price? Will it return to the pre-DDoS high? Will it climb even higher?

The Danger of Pragmatism

As an anarchist who refuses to take part in the political system I’m often derogatorily referred to as a purist or idealist. Those calling me a purist usually consider themselves pragmatists. Pragmatists like to harp on idealists because, in their view, idealists bitch while pragmatists get things done. What pragmatists seldom see is the cost of, as they say, getting things done.

This rant was brought on by the recent death of Margaret Thatcher. For some reason many pragmatist libertarians love Thatcher because she reduced the political influence of public unions and privatized a great deal of infrastructure. I, on the other hand, don’t view Thatcher as a bastion of libertarianism who rode a white horse and delivered freedom to the suffering serfs of the United Kingdom. Because of my unwillingness to ignore the results of her actions I’m accused of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Unlike so-called pragmatists I would not support Thatcher were she alive and running for a position of power. The cost of her actions were too great.

Thatcher may have bitch slapped socialism back in the United Kingdom but she did so by replacing it with fascism. Under Thatcher’s policies the denizens of the United Kingdom suffer under a police state. Their every action is captured by Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) that rise above most street corners, their Internet is censored, and their every communication is recorded by the state. Thatcher’s advancement of the police state was the catalyst for these modern problems.

I already hear the pragmatists screaming, “But she privatized nationalized industries!” Privatization, as defined by the state, is another word for nationalization. Instead of the state directly owning an industry a crony, who is part of the state in all ways that matter, is given ownership over the industry. The state gets away with this practice by claiming the nationalized industries are natural monopolies. That claim fools many libertarians into supporting the state’s definition of privatization but the truth is natural monopolies don’t exist. Natural monopoly is a made up label used to sucker free market advocates into accepting the state’s transferring of ownership from one branch of itself to another. True privatization would require entirely deregulating nationalized industries so anybody wanting to compete in those markets could compete.

It’s also worth spending a few seconds looking at Thatcher’s foreign policy. One of the biggest criticisms libertarians aim at the current United States government is its interventionist foreign policy. The United States loves to go around the world and start shit with other nations. Thatcher also enjoyed this practice. I’m not talking about the Falkelands War, which a minarchist may consider legitimate as it involved Argentina invading a British colony. I’m talking about her insistence that the United States invade Iraq and her support of Pol Pot. While some may be willing to forgive her support of starting the Gulf War I don’t see how anybody can forgiver her for supporting a man who murdered an estimated 2 million Cambodians. Even the most flexible of pragmatists must admit that supporting such a murderer goes against everything libertarianism promotes.

Pragmatism is a term most often used by those who aren’t principled. By calling themselves pragmatists, people can claim the label libertarian without actually supporting libertarian principles. I understand why they do it, working within the currently established political system offers a path of least resistance. Using the political system to force your beliefs onto an entire population is much easier than leading by example and living your life in accordance with the principles you claim to support. I also understand why pragmatists berate idealists. When a pragmatists looks at an idealist they see everything they want to be but can’t bring themselves to be. In order to cope with the guilt of betraying their own principles they accuse the idealist of wrongdoing. Pragmatists blind themselves and, in so doing, end up working against the ideas they claim to support. They may, as they say, get things done but they get all the wrong things done.

The ATF is Emulating the FBI’s Tactic of Creating Criminals

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has a long, proud history of creating terrorists and “stopping” them. Somebody in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) must have been paying attention during some inter-agency meeting because they are now emulating the FBI’s tactics:

ATF agents running an undercover storefront in Milwaukee used a brain-damaged man with a low IQ to set up gun and drug deals, paying him in cigarettes, merchandise and money, according to federal documents obtained by the Journal Sentinel.

For more than six months, federal agents relied on Chauncey Wright to promote “Fearless Distributing” by handing out fliers as he rode his bike around town recommending the store to friends, family and strangers, according to federal prosecutors and family members.

Wright, unaware that the store was an undercover operation being run by agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, also stocked shelves with shoes, clothing, drug paraphernalia and auto parts, according to his family.

Once authorities shut down the operation, they charged the 28-year-old man with federal gun and drug counts.

[…]

Wright’s IQ measures in the 50s, about half of a normal IQ, according to those familiar with him. Wright’s score is classified as mildly or moderately disabled, depending on the IQ scale used.

Congratulations go to the brave agents of the ATF who managed to capture this most dastardly of criminals! If it wasn’t for the ATF this man would… likely have done nothing illegal. This tactic of creating criminals works well because there are a lot of people out there who make easy prey for smooth talkers. When you look at the history of the FBI’s creation of terrorists you find that the people they recruited, armed, and “stopped” are usually dull witted. In this case the ATF recruited a man who’s IQ measures around 50 (the average IQ is 100).

Were I a tasked with capturing criminals to obtain funding for my agency, suffering a lack of criminals or an inability to capture them, and a complete psychopath I would likely use the same tactic as well. When agency funding is tied to the number of criminals they capture higher ups are eventually going to opt to create criminals in order to justify their demands for more funding.

Budget Permitting, You Have a Right to a Speedy and Public Trial

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution says:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

However within that amendment lies a caveat, your have a right to a speedy trial only if the state has the budget to prosecute you:

A judge said it was “stunning” that lawyers might not be ready for the case because of unpaid leave imposed by the so-called sequester.

Sulaiman Abu Ghaith last month denied charges in New York that he helped plot the 9/11 attacks on the US.

His trial could now be delayed until next year.

The handcuffed defendant listened to Monday’s proceedings through an Arabic interpreter as it emerged that his case could be held up because of budget cuts caused by political gridlock in Washington.

Since sequestration is actually a $110 billion spending increase there is no ground from which to demand mandatory unpaid leave. Furthermore, there is no reason that the mandatory unpaid leave couldn’t be taken after the conclusion of the trial (which is likely to be a show trial with a preordained result). This maneuver is likely a tactic to further delay the trail as the United States government has demonstrated no desire to actually try those accused of being involved with the 9/11 attacks.

Delaying this trial could set an interesting, and extremely dangerous, precedent. As it currently stands an illusion of due process exists. If this trial is allowed to be delays under the guise of budget issues then there is no reason other trials couldn’t be indefinitely delayed under the guise of budget issues. The state can finally jail people without trail, while maintaining the illusion of being constrained by currently established laws, by simply saying the trial will occur when the budget allows and ensuring the budget never allows for it to occur.