Month: May 2015

Conservatives are Such a Sensitive Bunch

Conservatives like to make fun of “liberals” and “social justice warriors” for being overly sensitive. They commonly used the phrase, “Your rights end where my feelings begin” to mock those groups. It’s hypocritical. Why? Because these supposed masters of logic cannot control their feelings. Don’t believe me? Just insult one of their beloved war heroes or their precious flag.

Abby Martin demonstrated just how sensitive these dainty little conservatives are when she had the audacity to criticize a man who became famous for his effectiveness at killing people. Sensitive conservatives lost all control over their emotions and began issuing her death threats.

Another emotional chord was struck when people began, what they’re referring to as, the Eric Shepard Challenge, which challenges people to exercise their freedom of speech by stomping on a piece of cloth colored in a specific way. Needless to say conservatives have been losing their shit over imagines of people walking on the United States flag.

The next time you hear or see a conservative insult a liberal for being too sensitive try insulting one of their war heroes or their flag. They’ll quickly prove to you that they’re just as sensitive and probably never catch the irony.

Entrepreneurship is the Best Defense Against Hierarchy

G. K. Chesterton once wrote, “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.” The concern that a handful of capitalists will eventually become so wealthy and powerful that they will wield complete power over the rest of society is one often raised by socialists. It’s a common criticism against libertarianism (especially anarcho-capitalism). And it’s not without merit. Employees are naturally at a disadvantage when compared to employers.

What’s to stop an employer, for example, from demanding an employee either provide sexual favors or face termination? Statists will point out that this is the reason a state is necessary but then ignore that agents of the state could, and periodically do, demand exactly that. Libertarians will point out that the employee is free to find employment elsewhere but then ignores the difficulty, especially if the employee is providing for their family, often involved in doing so. Communists will point out that such demands are irrelevant when everybody is economically equal but then ignore the necessity of a hierarchy to enforce that equality.

All three approaches to the problem result in hierarchy. In the case of statism the state wields power that is even greater than that of the employer. Under libertarianism the employer wields power over the employee. Communism, although its advocates often pretend it’s not so, requires a power over all members of society to enforce economic equality. So what’s the solution? Easy. Become an entrepreneur.

OK, it’s not necessarily easy but nothing worth doing ever is. Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK3), in A New Libertarian Manifesto [PDF], expressed his belief that the employer-employee relationship is a holdover from feudal times and would likely disappear in a free society. Although I’m not sure if the employer-employee relationship would disappear entirely in a free society I do believe eliminating this relationship as much as possible is the most effective means of creating and maintaining a free society. The failure of statism and communism is that they look at the problems inherent in hierarchy on a societal level. Libertarianism understands that the problems inherent in hierarchy must be looked at on an individual level. Where many libertarians fall short is assuming everything stops at the non-aggression principle.

The non-aggression principle certainly allows for employer-employee relationships. But the non-aggression principle only asks if something is ethical. Just because something is ethical doesn’t mean it’s optimal. Consider a meth addict. There’s nothing unethical under the non-aggression principle in using meth. That doesn’t mean slowly killing yourself with meth is a great idea though (although that determination, ultimately, lies with the meth user). Likewise, there’s nothing wrong with being an employee but it may not necessarily be an optimal situation.

When you work for an employer you necessarily have to abide by their terms. If you don’t they can fire you. Under a state you may have some protections from an employer but you must then abide by the state’s terms. Failing to do so will likely result in even more severe consequences since the state reserves for itself the right to kidnap, cage, and even murder you. Therefore the only means of achieving true liberty is to be self-sufficient.

Self-sufficiency often brings to mind recluses living in the woods, raising their own food, and building their own shelter. This doesn’t have to be the case though. Anybody who has the means of creating enough wealth to trade for their wants and needs is self-sufficient. You don’t need to raise your own food so long as you can trade with somebody who has a surplus of food and is willing to trade it with you. As an entrepreneur you cannot be fired by a boss and you’re not reliant on a state to protect you from an egregious employer.

One might ask, what if nobody is making what you want or need? That indicates an unfulfilled market demand, which is a great opportunity for entrepreneurship. In all likelihood if you want or need something then somebody else does as well. If you have a want or need that’s unfulfilled use the opportunity to practice a little entrepreneurship.

In a stateless society where everybody is an entrepreneur the amount of hierarchy is extremely limited. To return to Chesterton’s quote, capitalism maximizes individual liberty when everybody is a capitalist. This is something SEK3 understood. And while the universe doesn’t allow for perfect solutions being and entrepreneur is certainly a better option for individual liberty than being reliant on somebody else.

We need to move the conversation away from the employer-employee relationship and towards advocating entrepreneurship.

Why the Government Sucks at Building Roads

A common phrase you’ll hear amongst libertarian circles is “But without government who will build the roads?!” This phrase is a sarcastic remark meant to poke fun at statists who cannot conceive of an alternative to government transportation infrastructure. While statists continue to claim that government is necessary to build and maintain roads, us libertarians are asking why government roads suck so much.

As I mentioned yesterday, Minnesota has a lot of dilapidated bridges. Anybody who drives the roads around here knows that bridges aren’t the only part of our automobile infrastructure that sucks. Some roads are so full of potholes that I feel as though the off-road package on my Ranger is necessary when traveling on the roads. No tax increases or surpluses seem to change anything. What’s the problem?

The problem is incentives. Statists scoff at the idea of private roads but the fact of the matter is private entities that derive profits from roads have an incentive to maintain those roads. Businessed, for example, want to make it as easy as possible for customers to get to them. Organizations that own highways want to provide motorists the best experience possible so they’ll keep coming back. Governments have no such incentives.

The two biggest problem with government roads are monopolization and mandatory payments. In many states the government maintains a near monopoly on road infrastructure. This is done through regulations that make building roads illegal or prohibitively expensive. Regulations usually take the form of outright bans, building permits, property taxes, arbitrary environmental restrictions, etc. Effectively the state declares a monopoly for itself on any notable infrastructure. If people living in a state need access to roads and don’t like what the state has provided they have no alternatives so there is no concern that users will go elsewhere. Even if users stopped using the roads they’re still required to pay for them. Taxes, after all, aren’t voluntary. Using private roads to get around wouldn’t exempt you from paying the state gas tax when you filled up your tank. Property and sales taxes, which are sometimes used in addition to gas taxes to build infrastructure, are also not optional.

When an alternative can’t exist and you have to pay for something regardless there is no incentive for the provider to make you happy. Motorists weren’t able to go to a different provider when the 35W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed due to government negligence because there were no alternatives. Minnesotans also didn’t receive a discount on their taxes as compensation for being unable to utilize the bridge. In fact Minnesotans were expected to pay more. How’s that for an incentive? If the state government neglected more bridges to the point of collapse it could then demand even more tax money.

There are no shortages of entrepreneurs who want to build roads so the idea that nobody will build them if the government doesn’t is preposterous. The real question is what incentive does the state have to provide motorists with quality infrastructure?

Deprecating Non-Secure HTTP

One of the biggest weaknesses of the Internet, in my opinion, is the fact secure connections aren’t the default. E-mail servers often don’t transmit messages to other e-mail server over secure connections. Many Jabber servers don’t utilize secure connections to other servers they’re federated with. Even the protocol most of us deal with multiple times on a daily basis to interact with web servers, the hypertext transport protocol (HTTP), isn’t secure by default. This lack of security has been a boon for national spy agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Even private businesses have been exploiting the lack of secure HTTP connections so they can better spy on their customers for advertising purposes. At this point it’s clear that non-secure Internet connections need to die.

To this end Mozilla, the developer of Firefox, has announced its plan to depricate non-secure HTTP:

Today we are announcing our intent to phase out non-secure HTTP.

There’s pretty broad agreement that HTTPS is the way forward for the web.  In recent months, there have been statements from IETF, IAB (even the other IAB), W3C, and the US Government calling for universal use of encryption by Internet applications, which in the case of the web means HTTPS.

After a robust discussion on our community mailing list, Mozilla is committing to focus new development efforts on the secure web, and start removing capabilities from the non-secure web.

This could be a huge move in the right direction. If every major browser deprecated non-secure HTTP it would force web servers to make secure connections available by default or lose users. More importantly, in my opinion, is that getting rid of non-secure HTTP would also eliminate the what’s encrypted guessing game. Many websites only utilize a secure connection for specific actions such as logging into an account or sending credit card data. Other interactions with the web server are done over a non-secure connection. That guessing game can make users believe that they’re connection is secure even though it isn’t.

Deprecating non-secure HTTP isn’t a straight forward move. Enabling transport layer security (TLS) isn’t as simple as flipping a switch. You need to obtain a keypair signed by an authority that major browsers trust, load them on the web server, and ensure those keys aren’t compromised. Administrators also have to keep up on recent security news so they can reconfigure their server when new exploits are discovered. Managing certificates could become much easier if Let’s Encrypt gains traction. Ensuring broken TLS protocols and features aren’t being used is a more difficult task but one that will likely be made easier as more sites move towards TLS. With that said, deprecating non-secure HTTP must be done regardless of the challenges involved.

A New Nation is Born

While good patriotic Americans were getting their jingoism on and communists were deluding themselves into believing a world with completely economic equality is possible, a small group of people were declaring their independence. These people occupy a small 2.7 square mile plot of land on the border between Croatian and Serbia:

A group of Czechs and self-styled founding fathers of a “micro-nation” on the bank of the Danube River held their own version of Independence Day Friday, christening “Liberland” as a 2.7-square-mile country where taxes are optional and freedom reigns.

Vít Jedlička, a Czech libertarian politician who claims to have found a plot of land left unclaimed in the 1990s border settlement between Croatia and Serbia, told FoxNews.com dozens of would-be citizens traveled by boat to Liberland to toast its birth.

[…]

Jedlička, who is a member of the Conservative Party of Free Citizens in the Czech Republic, recently appointed himself president of the new free republic of Liberland, on the tiny patch of land that sits on the Croatian-Serbia Border. Jedlička claims international law allows his claim over the terra nullius—or literally “No Man’s Land.”

Libertarians are cheering this declaration while statists are scoffing. To libertarians the declaration of independence is just as legitimate as any other country’s declaration of independence. Meanwhile statists cannot comprehend the idea that a nation can exist unless it has the permission, err, recognition of other states.

I’m glad to see the people of Liberland declaring themselves independent of neighboring states. My only hope is that this trend will continue in the tiny 2.7 square mile nation. Hopefully a group of Liberland’s people will declare Jedlička’s presidency illegitimate and secede. From there I hope the secession continues until each individual living there no longer recognizes themselves as members of a nation but sovereign individuals.

I’ve heard several statists point out that this declaration won’t last because the neighboring states; who, in their opinion, are the rightful owners of that little chunk of land; will reclaim it. Perhaps that will happen. Yet there’s a chance that their declaration will be considered so ludicrous that neither Croatia or Serbia will acknowledge the declaration as something that needs to be dealt with. That is similar to the story of Emperor Norton. Because of his perceived insanity the federal government never challenged his declaration of being emperor yet the money he issued was accepted at local establishments and his declarations were often adhered to, which made him just as much of an emperor as any other.

Liberland, in the same way, could become an independent nation by function if not recognition. If, for instance, taxes remain voluntary due to Croatia and Serbia simply not bothering to enforce tax laws on that chunk of land then it would functionally be an independent land much in the same way Neutral Moresnet was independent of its surrounding powers.

Liberland will be fun to follow. Even if it doesn’t manage to maintain its independence it could be fun watching Croatia and Serbia bicker about who really owns the land.

Minnesota’s Bridge Problem

The politicians here in Minnesota have been pushing to raise gas taxes. Thanks to a recently release report on the condition of Minnesota’s bridges [PDF] the politicians have the justification they need to sucker people into accepting the increase. Without the increase in gas taxes, according to the politicians and the people who are stupid enough to believe them, dilapidated bridges won’t receive the repairs they need. But within the report a critical piece of information exists that seems to be getting ignored by the alarmists:

And a staggering 90 percent (750 total) of Minnesota’s 830 deficient bridges are maintained by local entities.

Herein lies the biggest problem. A vast majority of the bridges in need of repair are locally owned and maintained. That means local governments are responsible for raising the funding necessary to repair or replace those bridges. As the report notes the only other option these local entities have is to get down on their knees and beg federal and state governments for consideration in budgets they are unlikely to get:

In MAP-21, the current federal transportation law, Congress reduced access to dedicated funding for the repair of most locally-owned bridges. Although these bridges account for nearly 90 percent of all deficient bridges nationally, all dedicated federal bridge repair money now goes toward the ten percent of deficient bridges on the National Highway System (which do, admittedly, carry far more traffic each day.)

These locally-owned bridges provide essential links, and those who use them also deserve to be safe. Given the budget woes of so many local governments, there is little prospect of reducing the repair backlog absent federal or state assistance. As it stands now, however, these bridges are forced to compete with all other local priorities such as health care and public safety. At the state level, these bridges are often at the mercy of the budgeting process, and unless the state’s overall transportation budget grows through an increase in the gas tax or other funding sources, the condition of these bridges is unlikely to markedly improve in the coming years.

So the federal government only gives money for the maintenance of state-owned bridges and the state seldom provides local entities with assistance to repair or replace bridges. Supposedly increasing gas taxes will net more funding for local entities but I fail to see the logic in that conclusion. Especially when you consider how the state divvies up transportation funding:

In Minnesota, out of the $627 million on average spent annually on road expansion and repair from 2009-2011, only 40 percent ($250 million) went toward repair and maintenance.

The state appears to be more concerned with building new infrastructure than it is with maintaining what already exists. Unless somebody knows of some change in heart that exists at the state level I don’t know why anybody would believe additional gas taxes wouldn’t be used to increase expansion instead of maintenance.

What incentive does the state have to priorities local infrastructure over its own? Given the option of improving your home or your neighbor’s home what would you choose? Most people would choose to improve their own. For some reason people believe that the state is an exception to the self-interest inherent in humanity. It’s not. There is no reason to believe raising gas taxes would provide local governments with funding to improve their decaying bridges. And even if there was an assurance given by the state it could go unfulfilled or the conditions could be changed a year later. The biggest problem with political solutions is that they only last as long as the currently rulers. If the next set of rulers decide the last set’s policies were undesirable they will change them.

CryptoParty in Minneapolis on May 9th

Do you want to learn how to communicate securely but don’t want to spend any money? Join CryptoPartyMN at The Hack Factory this Saturday between 13:00 and 17:00. We’ll teach you how to secure your stuff and won’t even hit you up for loose change!

This event will serve as a dry run before our main CryptoParty at Security B-Sides MSP on June 13th and 14th. Some mistakes will likely be made but I think we’ll be able to help you secure your life with a decent amount of competency.

If you’re interested in attending please RSVP here.

An Introduction to OpenBazaar

In addition to writing this blog I also give presentations from time to time. A bunch of Libertarians got together on April 25th and played politics. Hoping to save some wretched souls from the Hell of politics a friend and I ran an agorist hospitality suite. While the Libertarians discussed bylaws and other such shenanigans we were giving presentations on peaceful parenting, agorism, literature recommendations, and OpenBazaar. The last presentation was given by yours truly and for some reason the good folks over at AnarchyinAction.TV recorded it. If you want to hear me babbling on for 22 minutes and 57 sections (I don’t know why you would) about OpenBazaar this is your chance.

Yes, I almost always dress like a casual mall ninja and regret nothing about it.

I don’t know if it made it into the video (and I’m not vane enough to watch myself speak) but I did clarify to the audience that I had not had time to look through all of the technical specifications of OpenBazaar. Some of the information I gave, such as how the notary system works, was inaccurate and for that I apologize. But the presentation seems to have been generally well received by the people over at the Bitcoin subreddit so I don’t think I failed completely.