Month: June 2016

Rights Cannot Exist in an Environment of Unequal Power

George Takei has justifiably become one of the biggest spokesmen for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. As an intelligent, charismatic, and well-spoken individual he’s a great spokesman for any cause. However, his position on gun rights is wrong. Yesterday he wrote an article arguing for the LGBT community to use the tragedy at the Pulse nightclub to advance gun control:

In 2004, a 10-year ban on assault weapons ended due to a sunset provision in the law. America has since lacked the political will to renew the ban, perhaps because victims of mass shootings don’t tend to have friends in Congress, even when they are innocent school children.

Now this latest and most deadly attack has targeted a group that has spent the last few decades learning how to organize, fight for, and protect its rights. Perhaps, then, the next chapter of LGBT history might not be just about the struggle to gain equality for ourselves, but also how we might help lead this country towards a collective right to participate and live free of fear and terror, and ultimately toward a common-sense, permanent ban on weapons designed for mass slaughter.

Like it or not, this history and this obligation have been thrust upon us, and we must now rise to its challenge. For if there is one group in this country with more will, more experience, and more tenacity than the NRA, it is the LGBT community.

This is something I’ve touched on before but it deserves repeating. The people who most need to be armed are those who are most marginalized. While members of the LGBT community are finally gaining much deserved acceptance within our society, they are still targets of a great deal of violence from both the State and non-governmental entities. This is the very reason why the Pink Pistols exists. By advocating for gun control, George Takei is advocating for the continued oppression of the LGBT community.

Rights cannot exist in an environment of unequal power. Whether it be the State or non-governmental entities, if an oppressor enjoys a superior capacity for force it will use that capacity to inflict its will on its targets. The gun is both the tool of the would-be oppressor and the would-be oppressed. If the would-be oppressed are disarmed then the would-be oppressor will enjoy a major advantage and will become the oppressor. If, on the other hand, the would-be oppressed are armed then the would-be oppressor will be forced to think twice about making a move.

We’ve seen this play out throughout history. Early on the force disparity between the European settlers and the American Indians allowed the former to steal the land of the latter. Gun control as a legal concept in this country is rooted in slavery. The first gun control laws were passed to prevent newly freed slaves from obtaining a means to defend themselves against the governments of the southern states, the Ku Klux Klan, and other racist oppressors. The Nazi Party restricted Jews from owning firearms so they would be less able to defend themselves against government oppression.

I can think of no historical example where a marginalized group benefited from being disarmed. I can think of many such examples where a marginalized group suffered greatly from being disarmed.

LGBT Friendly Firearms Instructors

Erin Palette has been working to assemble a map of firearms instructors who are friendly to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender individuals.

The map is geared towards individuals who can teach people a very basic introduction to firearms so certification is not required. I’m on the map and if you’re willing to teach somebody how to use a firearm and you’re not going to be a jerk to them because of their sexual orientation or gender identity you should get on the map too. Information on getting your name on the map is available at the link.

How Not to Design Security

As is common after a violent tragedy, a great deal of electrons are being annoyed by people who are calling for prohibitions. Some want to prohibit firearms, ammunition, and body armor while others want to prohibit members of an entire religion from crossing the imaginary line that separates the United States from the rest of the world. All of this finger pointing is being done under the guise of security but the truth is that any security system that depends on an attacker acting in a certain way is doomed to fail.

Prohibitions don’t eliminate or even curtail the threat they’re aimed at. In fact the opposite is true. The iron law of prohibition, a term coined in regards to prohibitions on drugs, states that the potency of drugs increases as law enforcement efforts against drugs increases. It applies to every form of prohibition though. Prohibitions against firearms just encourages the development of more easily manufactured and concealable firearms just as the prohibition against religious beliefs encourages those beliefs to be practices in secrecy.

When you rely on a prohibition for security you’re really relying on your potential attackers to act in a specific way. In the case of firearm prohibitions you’re relying on your potential attackers to abide by the prohibition and not use firearms. In the case of prohibiting members of a specific religion from entering a country you’re relying on potential attacks to truthfully reveal what religion they are a member of.

But attackers have a goal and like any other human being they will utilize means to achieve their ends. If their ends can be best achieved with a firearm they will acquire or manufacture one. If their ends require body armor they will acquire or manufacture body armor. If their ends require gaining entry into a country they will either lie to get through customs legitimately or bypass customs entirely. You attackers will not act in the manner you desire. If they did, they wouldn’t be attacking you.

What prohibitions offer is a false sense of security. People often assume that prohibited items no longer have to be addressed in their security models. This leaves large gaping holes for attackers to exploit. Worse yet, prohibitions usually make addressing the prohibited items more difficult due to the iron law of prohibition.

Prohibitions not only provide no actual security they also come at a high cost. One of those costs is the harassment of innocent people. Firearm prohibitions, for example, give law enforcers an excuse to harass anybody who owns or is interested in acquiring a firearm. Prohibitions against members of a religion give law enforcers an excuse to harass anybody who is or could potentially be a member of that religion.

Another cost is a decrease in overall security. Firearm prohibitions make it more difficult for non-government agents to defend themselves. A people who suffer under a firearm prohibition find themselves returned to the state of nature where the strong are able to prey on the weak with impunity. When religious prohibitions are in place an adversarial relationship is created between members of that religion and the entity putting the prohibition in place. An adversarial relationship means you lose access to community enforcement. Members of a prohibited religion are less likely to come forth with information on a potentially dangerous member of their community. That can be a massive loss of critical information that your security system can utilize.

If you want to improve security you need to banish the idea of prohibitions from your mind. They will actually work against you and make your security model less effective.

The Libertarian Party is Becoming a Real Political Party

Everybody who knows me knows that I think the Libertarian Party is a joke. It’s not because they’re politically impotent, that is at least consistent with libertarianism. It’s because the party is striving to become like the two major political parties and in so doing is sacrificing libertarian principles. Case in point, the Libertarian Party is now purging dissenters from its ranks:

The Howell man whose impromptu striptease last month at the Libertarian Party’s national convention made headlines across the U.S. has been suspended from the party.

James Weeks II announced Sunday evening that Libertarian Executive Committee officials approved his suspension earlier in the day because of his actions.

Weeks, chairman of the party’s Livingston County branch and an announced party candidate for county sheriff, said “the reasoning behind this suspension is their disapproval of my use of free expression in lieu of a speech during my run for Libertarian Party chair at the national convention.”

Normally I don’t find dancing overweight men wearing a g-string appealing. But Weeks was the highlight of the Libertarian Party’s national convention. While all the super serious people were busy nominating somebody who isn’t a libertarian to be the party’s presidential candidate, Weeks went on stage to reminded everybody that the idea of a libertarian political party is a joke. John McAfee, the only frontrunner in the Libertarian Party’s presidential race that displayed genuine libertarian beliefs, had the best response to Weeks antics:

When James Weeks stripped at the LP Convention last Sunday there were widespread boo’s and general disapproval of Mr. Week’s exuberance. Rather than enjoying a respite from the grey blandness of the convention, people were muttering that the world would think that Libertarians were fools. Well, if we care about such tivialities, then we are indeed fools.

Libertarianism cannot spread if its proponents allow their actions to be guided by the people in power. When libertarians try to emulate those people in power, outside of being satirical, they must sacrifice their principles. Once the principles of libertarianism are sacrificed then there is no point in spreading them.

The Attack in Orlando

Yesterday a person claiming allegiance to the Islamic State attacked the Pulse club in Orlando. In his wake are 50 bodies. Like vultures the politicians have already descended on this tragedy. Predictably Obama and Hillary are blaming the lack of gun control laws:

Mr Obama said the “brutal murder of dozens of innocent people” was a further reminder of how easy it was to acquire a deadly weapon in the US and shoot people.

[…]

Mrs Clinton said she was an “ally” of the gay community and used a statement to push for tighter gun controls. She said: “This reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.”

The irony of two people who have used the might of the heavily armed United States military to murder innocent civilians complaining about the wide availability of weapons is not lost on me.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, Trump is calling for Obama to step down because he didn’t speak the right words:

Meanwhile her Republican rival, Donald Trump, said Mr Obama should step down for refusing to use the words “radical Islam” when condemning the attack.

Absolutely nothing would have changed if Obama said the words “radical Islam” or any other phrase.

Politicians always leave a sick feeling in my stomach. Their concern for the dead only extends to their ability to exploit them for political posturing.

Over the next week or two the major media outlets are going to report on everything and anything they can get their hands on, even though almost everything will be speculation as an investigation hasn’t been conducted, so they can boost their ratings and up their advertisement revenue. I feel safe in saying that it’s best to ignore them until a proper investigation has been conducted and actual facts are available. Only time will reveal the facts. Until then the only thing that can be done is offering as much assistance to the families of the victims as possible.

Monday Metal: The Last Battalion by Sabaton

Since Sabaton is one of my favorite bands they pretty much become the weekly Monday Metal whenever they release a new song. Last week they dropped the first song from their next album, The Last Stand. The song, titled The Last Battalion, has been receiving a bit of hatred for sounding similar to Hearts of Iron and supposedly suffering from poor production. Personally, I really enjoyed the song and I’ll let you judge it for yourself:

Surviving Encounters with the Police

Tony Cornish gains a lot of favor with Minnesota gun owners for being pro-gun rights. However, he’s also a ruthless statist and apologist for rampant abuses of power by police. Two days ago he submitted a letter to the editor to the Star Tribune that offers tips on how us lowly peasant can survive police encounters. Let’s take a look at his tips and translate them into laymen’s terms:

Lately, some advocacy groups have been asking what we can do to “reduce the use of force by police.” Well …

1) Don’t be a thug and lead a life of crime so that you come into frequent contact with police.

So… don’t be a cop?

2) Don’t rob people, don’t use or sell drugs, and don’t beat up your significant other.

Again, don’t be a cop?

3) Don’t hang out on the street after 2 a.m. Go home.

Don’t work night shifts.

4) Don’t make furtive movements or keep your hands in your pockets if told to take them out.

Shut up, slave, and do what the aggressive man who is showing intent to cause you harm demands you to do!

5) Don’t flap your jaws when the police arrive. Don’t disobey the requests of the police at the time. If you think you are wrongfully treated, make the complaint later.

Again, shut up, slave. If you think you’re being abused you should take it! You can file a complaint later, if you survive.

6) Don’t use the excuse of a lack of a job or education for why you assault, rob or kill.

Instead become a cop so you have the excuse of having a job to assault, rob, and kill!

Tips one and two seem to disagree with tip six. The first two advise you to not live a light of thuggery, theft, and violence, which means you should avoid becoming a law enforcer. But then tip six advises you to have a job that allows you to commit assault, robbery, and murder, which is what law enforcers do. Tip three is bizarre since it’s basically a variation of blaming a woman’s clothing choice for her being raped. The only difference is he’s blaming a person’s work shift for being harassed or assault by the police. I also find the other two tips alarming because they advise you to submit to and cooperate with your abuser.

It probably won’t surprise any of you that Tony Cornish is a former police officer. It also shouldn’t surprise anybody that a man who sought a career choice that gave him power over others sought another career choice that gave him power over others. As you can probably tell from his letter he really enjoys being in a position of power. I wonder how he would feel if he was on the receiving end of the State’s truncheon instead of the giving end.

The Most Transparent Government in History

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) claims to allow regular people like you and me to request information from the federal government. Each individual state has also implemented legislation to the same effect. But requests made under these laws often result in responses claiming no such information exists or reams of paper with large black blocks concealing any useful information. New York has gone an extra step. In addition to refuting the existence of requested information or handing over redacted information the state can now tell requesters that it cannot confirm or deny the existence of such information:

Normally, when you submit a FOIA request to a government agency, one of three things happens: You get the records you want, the agency says no such records exist, or the agency says the records are exempt from disclosure.

But there’s another possible outcome: You might be told that the agency can “neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence” of the records. That’s been permissible under federal law since 1976. And now, thanks to a case raising concerns in media circles, it’s permissible under state law in New York—where, for the first time, an appellate court has affirmed the use of such a response under the state Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).

Now New York doesn’t even have to play the usual game where they keep denying your request until you make it so specific that they are no longer able to claim that the information doesn’t exist. Instead it can just tell you that it can neither confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of the information! In other words, the Freedom of Information Law is entirely useless in New York.

Tragedy Of The Commons

Waze is a wonderful app that allows users to alert other users of traffic issues. I use the app because I like to report and know about road pirate activity but it’s also useful for avoiding traffic issues that aren’t caused by thieves with badges. Now that we’ve entered road construction season here in Minnesota Waze is useful to routing around the every changing landscape is the transportation infrastructure. But some people are unhappy with the app because it sometimes routes travelers through their neighborhoods:

When the traffic on Timothy Connor’s quiet Maryland street suddenly jumped by several hundred cars an hour, he knew who was partly to blame: the disembodied female voice he could hear through the occasional open window saying, “Continue on Elm Avenue . . . .”

The marked detour around a months-long road repair was several blocks away. But plenty of drivers were finding a shortcut past Connor’s Takoma Park house, slaloming around dog walkers and curbside basketball hoops, thanks to Waze and other navigation apps.

“I could see them looking down at their phones,” said Connor, a water engineer at a federal agency. “We had traffic jams, people were honking. It was pretty harrowing.”

And so Connor borrowed a tactic he read about from the car wars of Southern California and other traffic-weary regions: He became a Waze impostor. Every rush hour, he went on the Google-owned social-media app and posted false reports of a wreck, speed trap or other blockage on his street, hoping to deflect some of the flow.

He continued his guerrilla counterattack for two weeks before the app booted him off, apparently detecting a saboteur in its ranks. That made Connor a casualty in the social-media skirmishes erupting across the country as neighborhoods try to contend with suddenly savvy drivers finding their way on routes that were once all but secret.

Cry me a river. Mr. Conner must have quite the ego if he thinks he has some kind of right to decide who can and cannot use roads he doesn’t even own.

The issue he’s seeing, without being intelligent enough to realize it, is a tragedy of the commons. Most roads in this country are considered public (which is a fancy word for the State claiming exclusive ownership rights). They’re funded by money that has been stolen from the population in the form of taxes. That being the case, Conner has no right to bitch about how the road in his neighborhood is used. If it suddenly becomes popular with motorists and that popularity causes the road to degrade faster and to be less usable by people living in the neighborhood then there’s no recourse for the people of the neighborhood.

There is a solution to this: private roads. Suddenly everything changes. The people using your private road without your permission are trespassers. If they do want to use your road they can attempt to negotiate a deal with you. If you’re not interested in a deal then you can tell them to buzz off. But none of that is possible if the roads are public because then the State gets to decide who can and cannot use them.

Instead of whining about people using the road that they were forced to pay for, Mr. Conner should really try to see if there is a way to privatize the road so his neighbors and him can decide who gets to use it.