May 2014 – Page 7 – A Geek With Guns

Find My iPhone Vigilantism, a Demonstration of State Failure in Providing Security

The New York Times ran a story covering a recent phenomenon where victims of iPhone theft use the Find My iPhone feature to find the thief and reclaim their phone:

Using the Find My iPhone app on her computer, she found that someone had taken the phones to a home in this Los Angeles exurb, 30 miles east of her West Hollywood apartment.

So Ms. Maguire, a slight, 26-year-old yoga instructor, did what a growing number of phone theft victims have done: She went to confront the thieves — and, to her surprise, got the phones back.

Ah, the lovely Hollywood outcome where all is well at the end. But the news isn’t Hollywood so you know that a happy ending at the beginning of the story must be followed by a story of horror:

In San Diego, a construction worker who said his iPhone had been stolen at a reggae concert chased the pilferer and wound up in a fistfight on the beach that a police officer had to break up. A New Jersey man ended up in custody himself after he used GPS technology to track his lost iPhone and attacked the wrong man, mistaking him for the thief.

The rest of the article mostly consists of dire warning, primarily form police officers, against people seeking out thieves and attempting to recover their property. By the end of the story you’re supposed to see these so-called vigilantes as well-meaning albeit foolish people. What isn’t discussed are the motivations of these people willing to put themselves at risk to recover their stolen property.

I see this phenomenon (which likely consists of no more than ten or so people but the media needed a story so it inflated how common this practice is) as an example of the state’s failure to provide adequate security. As you likely know the state maintains a virtual monopoly on security services via its monopoly on law enforcement. While there are a few areas that the state allows private security providers to operate in (namely building security) the personal electronics recovery market isn’t one of them. If somebody steals your mobile phone you’re expected to rely on the police to recover it. This wouldn’t be an issue if the police would actually invest resources into recovering a stolen phone. But in most cases they will fill out a meaningless report and inform you that it’s almost impossible to recover a stolen personal electronic device. Even providing the police with access to your Find My iPhone service will seldom encourage them to get off of their asses and retrieve your phone. In fact you can get more done by contacting Apple and providing it with your stolen phone’s serial number. At least then the phone will be kept by Apple should it ever be brought in for repairs and the person who brought it in will be reported to the police. But that’s a pretty big if.

Since the solution provided by the state is unwilling to retrieve your phone and private solutions are verboten you’re left with only one option: if you want to retrieve your stolen phone you have to do it yourself. Don’t blame the vigilantes, blame the state that monopolized the security market and failed to provide an adequate service.

A Real Minimum Wage Proposal

My biggest criticism of minimum wage laws are the people who proposed them. You can tell that those people don’t actually believe the bullshit they spew out. If they did they would propose major hikes in minimum wage instead of the incremental steps they always throw out. Thankfully we have Barbara Lee, a senator from California who believes in minimum wage laws and isn’t a pussy about it:

California Democratic congresswoman Barbara Lee expressed support for a $26 minimum wage in her state — a move Republican congressman Andy Harris encouraged, assuming jobs would rapidly flee California to his state of Maryland.

[…]

“Let me ask you this question, you’re a good advocate for this,” Gingrich asked Lee. “The mayor of Seattle is proposing that the minimum wage ought to go up to $15 an hour.”

“Good for him,” Lee responded. “In California — more than likely, from what I remembered — a living wage where people could live and take care of their families and move toward achieving the American dream was about $25, $26 an hour.”

“So would you support that as a minimum wage for California?” Gingrich asked.

“Absolutely I would support it for California. I think the regional factors –”

“And you don’t think that’d have an effect on unemployment?” Gingrich interrupted.

“No, Newt, trust me, believe you me,” Lee replied, “you’d have a more productive workforce, you’d have people who could afford to live in areas now where they cannot afford to live. You would increase diversity in certain communities where you don’t have diversity anymore. You would have economic parity and the income gap would begin to close.”

Finally! None of this $11 or $15 per hour nonsense. I think it’s time for everybody to finally put their money where their mouths are. If minimum wage laws are good for the economy, as many economically illiterate people claim it is, then they should demand a minimum wage that would put everybody into the middle class. That way poverty could be entirely eliminated.

Of course when economic reality hits everybody will be unemployed. Facing the decision between starvation or working in the “underground” economy most people choose the latter. Then we can finally see real markets in action instead of this coercive cronyism we suffer under now. So my desire to see an absurd minimum wage is not entirely without self-interest. As an agorist any restriction placed on the market by the state is a good thing because it pushes people into the “underground” economy, which deprives the state of authority and resources.

It’s My Least Favorite Time Again

It’s time again for yet another frivolous waste of everybody’s time. I am, of course, talking about the biennial political season. This year doesn’t involve a presidential election, which has an upside and a downside. The upside is that we aren’t being assaulted with wall-to-wall coverage of meaningless political drivel. The downside is that the people who involve themselves in off years become more annoying. They believe that the off years are the years where one can really make a difference. Since most of the politicos are supposedly sitting at home the people who show up can get politicians elected who will actually changed thing. Except the politicos aren’t sitting at home because politics is their one and only hobby. Political wannabe power players, the people who run local conventions and are well known in local political circles, never take a year off and they have enough influence locally to get their way every year.

But that doesn’t stop my more politically involved friends from calling, e-mailing, and messaging me on Facebook to beg me to show up to a local caucus, speech by their favored politician, or fundraiser. No matter how many times I explain to them that I’m not interested in politics they keep harassing me. They tell me that “This year is the most important year ever!” Yes, they tell me that every year. When I ask what’s in it for me (because I’m a self-interested bloke) they always try to feed me a line of bullshit that they think will convince me to stop doing whatever it is that I’m enjoying so I can go suffer through the mind numbing political process. As you can guess the most common reason given is that politician So-And-So is planning to take my guns so I must get out there and work for So-And-So’s opposition. Of course they usually leave the part out about So-And-So having a abject hatred of brown people in sandy regions, two men getting it on (they’re usually cool with two women getting it on but they would never tell you that), and people who want to keep secrets from the state. But I digress.

The point is I fucking hate this season. I hate the people running for office. I hate how people think they can make a meaningful difference through politics (trust me if you could it would be illegal). I hate how persistent my friends are no matter how clearly I state my hatred of politics. In fact I hate everything about the political season.

What I am about to write will almost certainly fall on deaf ears but I’m going to try anyways. I’m not going to help your pet politician. I don’t even like your pet politician. The fact that your pet politician is running for office already tells me everything I need to know about his or her moral character (which is to say he or she has no notable moral character). There are roughly 100 trillion other things I would rather do including watch paint dry, getting hit by a school bus that is on fire, or being locked in a five square foot cell with ravenous badgers (the number of badgers doesn’t matter).

Monday Metal: Show Me How to Die by Battle Beast

Do you know what I miss? ’80’s hair metal. While we will always have the classics I want more. Fortunately there is Battle Beast. Battle Beast is a band determined to bring back the glory days of ’80’s metal. Every one of the band’s songs sound like it was written back when I was watching ninja turtles duke it would with robot ninjas and giant transforming robots beating each other silly.

I actually had a difficult time selecting a song that I felt best represented the band (which means Battle Beast will certainly be featured in future Monday Metals). Show Me How to Die was the song I finally settled on because it includes a lot of old fashioned ’80’s metal screaming:

Shot Down in Flames

Rand Paul has obvious aspirations of the presidency (everybody has dreams, some dreams are just stupid). Anybody who has researched presidential politics knows that becoming president requires one to kneel down and perform fellatio on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). For those of you who don’t know the AIPAC labels itself as America’s biggest Jewish lobby. In reality the group is America’s biggest pro-zionist lobby and not all Jews are zionists. But the point is you must appease the AIPAC to stand a realistic chance of attaining the presidency.

So Rand Paul decided to demonstrate his loyalty to it by presenting the Stand With Israel Act of 2014:

Sen. Rand Paul today introduced the Stand with Israel Act of 2014. This legislation halts all U.S. aid to the Palestinian government until they agree to a ceasefire and recognize the right of Israel to exist. The bill, S. 2265, can be found HERE and below:

“Today, I introduced legislation to make all future aid to the Palestinian government conditional upon the new unity government putting itself on the record recognizing the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state and agreeing to a lasting peace.”

Too bad for Rand but the AIPAC is having none of his shit:

While the legislation is expected to garner widespread backing in Congress, AIPAC is quietly expressing reservations about it, according to those familiar with the group’s position.

“We are not supporting the Paul bill,” said one AIPAC insider. “We believe the law currently on the books is strong and ensures that aid is contingent on key conditions that help maintain America’s influence, keep Israel secure, and advance the peace process.”

“I want to be very clear, AIPAC supports a cut off of aid to any Palestinian government that includes an unreformed Hamas, and this is what is provided for in current law,” the AIPAC insider said.

In other words it’s not fucking stupid. The United States already has a policy of not providing funding [PDF] to any organization in Palestine that could possibly be against Israel. You can’t buy off one of the most politically powerful lobbies in the United States by simply making something that is currently against policy more against policy.

I could point out how Rand Paul’s attempt at picking sides in a foreign conflict isn’t a libertarian thing to do. But commenters over at The Daily Paul reminded me Rand Paul’s “liberty” supporters will perform fantastic feats of mental gymnastics to explain away any of Rand’s anti-libertarian actions as part of his super secret plan to bring libertarianism to America. If that’s what Rand’s supporters want to believe so be it. But one thing is certain, if Rand doesn’t figure out how to play the game better he’s never even going to become president.

Don’t Worry Mr. President, The Senate Has Your Back

The best thing about having three branches of government is that you can get three separate affirmations for all government activities. I kind of feel bad for dictators, kings, and other monarchs. When they make a decision they don’t have anybody else to back them up. But here in American when the government does something it’s first written and voted on by Congress, signed by the President, and ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.

A few days ago President Obama was concerned that he might actually have to release details about the people who he ordered to be executed by drones. Fortunately the Senate reassured him that it had his back:

WASHINGTON — The Senate has quietly stripped a provision from an intelligence bill that would have required President Obama to make public each year the number of people killed or injured in targeted killing operations in Pakistan and other countries where the United States uses lethal force.

The move highlights the continued resistance inside the government about making these operations, primarily carried out using armed drones, more accountable to public scrutiny. In a letter to the Senate earlier this month, James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, expressed concern that a public report would undermine the effectiveness of the operations.

And with that simple removal the Senate affirmed that the President’s practice of withholding information about those executed by drones is totally cool. We’re still waiting for the Supreme Court’s affirmation of this behavior but that should be coming soon since the case is moving through the judicial system:

A federal appeals panel in Manhattan ordered the release on Monday of key portions of a classified Justice Department memorandum that provided the legal justification for the targeted killing of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who intelligence officials contend had joined Al Qaeda and died in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

The unanimous three-judge panel, reversing a lower court decision, said the government had waived its right to keep the analysis secret in light of numerous public statements by administration officials and the Justice Department’s release of a “white paper” offering a detailed analysis of why targeted killings were legal.

I’m sure the Supreme Court will reverse this decision quick, fast, and in a hurry. We can’t have the government going around disagreeing with itself, it creates a bad image.

Police Officers Aren’t Lawyers

I must confess that I made a poor decision last night. Needless to say I’m not proud of myself. Although I would like to blame a shortage of newsworthy events to write about that is hardly an excuse. Last night I broke down and visited the Star Tribune’s opinion section, which is known to have some of the lowest hanging fruit in existence.

Not surprisingly I found something stupid. This stupidity comes in the form of mistaking police for lawyers. The author, after running down and tackling a woman who broke into his home, called the police. After they took the suspect into custody the author asked what they could do to prevent future burglaries:

In stunned amazement, we asked the police what we could do to prevent future burglaries. A friendly female cop replied: “You can either get a burglar alarm or a gun …. But if you get a gun, shoot to kill, because the wounded, breathing burglar will claim, ‘I was just looking for a warm place to sleep for the night.’ And you, sir, will be charged with attempted manslaughter.”

You know what that was? Really shitty advice, that’s what. If you’ve taken a Minnesota permit to carry class (which I’m betting most of my readers have) the legalities of self-defense were likely explained to you (and if they weren’t your instructor sucked). You don’t shoot to kill, you shoot to stop. It doesn’t matter if the aggressor is dead or just incapacitated. Once the threat of immediate death or great bodily harm is no longer present you stop using deadly force. Any lawyer versed in Minnesota’s self-defense laws will tell you this. And this is why you ask lawyers for legal advice not people who have a badge that allows them to break the law without consequence.

The author goes on to point out that Byron Smith followed the officer’s advice:

Byron Smith did what the cops recommended, except that he also produced evidence against himself with the tape recordings. Was this self-incrimination?

Byron Smith isn’t in prison because he produced evidence against himself. He’s in prison because he followed the officer’s advice. In other words, Smith’s case is proof that the officer’s advice was shitty. If the author asked a lawyer he would have been informed that shooting home invaders to the point of incapacitation, dragging their bodies to another part of the house, and finishing them off is not allowed under Minnesota’s self-defense laws (nor, in my opinion, is it allowed under common decency).

So we’ve learned to valuable lesson today: don’t go to the Star Tribune’s opinion section and don’t ask a police officer for legal advice.

Happy Loyalty Day You Stupid Serfs

Are you a good an obedient serf? Do you always do what your oligarchs commands of you? If so I have good news. Today is your day! That’s right, today is Loyalty Day:

In order to recognize the American spirit of loyalty and the sacrifices that so many have made for our Nation, the Congress, by Public Law 85-529 as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as “Loyalty Day.” On this day, let us reaffirm our allegiance to the United States of America and pay tribute to the heritage of American freedom.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2014, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.

For those of you not familiar with the history of Loyalty Day, it was first observed during the First Red Scare as a response to uppity socialists who chose May 1_st to remember the 1886 Haymarket Massacre. During the Second Red Scare Congress passed observance of Loyalty Day into law.

It might seem pretty absurd that Congress would waste time passing the observance of Loyalty Day into law but when you look at the big picture it makes sense. The United States government opted for fascism, which made socialism its ideological enemy (national socialists really hate international socialists and vice versa). Hoping to stomp out its ideological rivals the United States government worked very hard to instill hatred of international socialism in the American people. This resulted in many stupid things included two Red Scares, the Cold War, and an absolutely retarded level of nationalism. Loyalty Day is merely the result of the retarded level of nationalism that exists in this country.

Now get out there, wave your flag, and pledge your lifelong obedience to the oligarchs that run this nation!

Regulation Nation

For being the freest nation on Earth (no, seriously, that’s why my patriotic friends tell me) the United States sure has a lot of red tape. I think the the term “regulation nation” accurately describes the United States. After all, if the costs of complying with its regulations were a nation it would be the 10_th largest economy on Earth:

After years of rapid growth during the Obama administration, the cost of federal regulations is now bigger than the entire economies of all but nine countries in the world.

That’s according to the latest annual report on the regulatory state issued by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, titled “Ten Thousand Commandments.”

Suddenly the fact that the average bank regulator makes more money than the average banker makes a lot of sense. There’s a lot of money sunk into regulatory compliance and all of that money is entirely wasted (unless you believe investing in an institution that bombs the shit out of foreign nations is productive).

There are a lot of people looking for work at the moment. Once in a while one of these poor souls will ask me what I think a good career move would be. My first question is always “Do you have any moral issue working for criminals?” Surprisingly nobody who has asked me for advice has answered in the negative to that question. But if they had I would then tell them to get a government job. That’s where the real money is made. You usually have to start out as a peon but you can quickly work your way up the ladder. When you get high enough on the ladder you gain authority and connections. The authority is there for personal amusement and allows you to get revenge on all of those kids who laughed at you in elementary school. Connections, on the other hand, are a valuable currency because when you rub enough elbows with enough government bureaucrats you can whore yourself out to a regulatory commission, lobbyist group, or non-profit organization. After that you really rake in the cash!

America is still a land of opportunity, so long as you have questionable or entirely absent morales. As the linked story shows government is a growth industry!

An Argument for Cryptocurrencies

The financial industry is a quagmire of censorship, morality policing, and market control. How the financial industry restricts markets is pretty easy to ascertain. Numerous laws exist that prohibit the transfer of money for transactions that the state has declared criminal. That makes the use of the financial industry to perform transactions for things like cannabis more difficult. But how does the financial industry perform censorship and police morality? By deciding who can and cannot have a bank account. We’ve seen this before with gun stores mysteriously having their bank accounts closed. But gun store owners aren’t the only target of the financial industry’s morality policing. The adult entertainment industry has also come under the financial industry’s ire:

Just as ISPs and search engines can become weak links for digital speech, too often financial service providers are pressured by the government to shut down speech or punish speakers who would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. It’s unclear whether this is an example of government pressure, an internal corporate decision, or some combination.

Chase has yet to give an official statement on why the accounts are being closed. At least one of the customers affected by Chase’s decision to shut down adult entertainers’ accounts, Teagan Presley, was told by Chase that her account was being shut down “because she’s considered ‘high risk.'” According to NY Daily News, her husband Joshua Lehman (whose account is also being closed) reports receiving conflicting information from Chase about why the accounts were being shut down:

I’ve heard three different reasons…When I went into our branch, they said it was the nature of our business. When I called, they said they were closing my personal account because my wife is an ‘infamous’ adult star. When I talked to my branch again, they said it wasn’t because we were in the adult industry but because we did business with a convicted felon.

This isn’t the first time Chase has been under fire for morality-based account closures. In 2013, Chase faced a lawsuit from the founder of MRG Entertainment for denying loans to people within the adult entertainment industry. And just a few months ago, Chase refused to process payments for Lovability, an online condom store. After bad press and public pressure, Chase reversed its decision, but it’s unclear whether Chase ever changed the policies that led to the decision in the first place.

Bank accounts are an Achilles heel for most “legitimate” businesses. Without one it’s difficult, if not impossible, to accept credit and debit card payments and many banks will only cash checks for account holders (or charge non-account holders a nasty cashing fee). Imagine if every bank refused to allow MidwayUSA or Brownells to have a bank account. Those stores would likely be finished.

Centrally controlled financial services, like most centrally controlled industries, are dangerous things to rely on. At any point those services can be used to enforce selected ideals. This is why I see decentralized financial systems, namely cryptocurrencies, as an important development.

I will use Bitcoin as an example because it is the most well known, but there are many cryptocurrencies out there with similar advantages. Bitcoin is a decentralized system. It doesn’t attempt to judge whether or not a transaction is legal, moral, or otherwise acceptable. The only thing the Bitcoin network attempts to do is ensure transactions are recorded and the appropriate amount of Bitcoin is transferred between accounts. Adult entertainers can bypass the financial industry’s censorship by accepting Bitcoin and may have to resort to doing so if things continue as they have been.

Cryptocurrencies really shine, at least in my opinion, because they enable the transfer of wealth without the risk of third-party judgements. As governments and industries (but I repeat myself) continue their efforts to control markets it will become more important to develop tools that allow people to bypass their controls. Obviously cryptocurrencies aren’t the be-all and end-all. Controls can still be inflicted by delivery services, manufacturers, and many other middlemen that are commonly involved in a transaction.