You Can’t Stop the Signal

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) really though it was hot shit after shutting down the original Silk Road. But the Internet doesn’t take kindly to censorship and markets cannot be stifled. Since the original Silk Road was taken down others have popped up to replace it. And online advertisements for unpatentable drugs have actually increased:

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) closed down the original online illegal drug market, Silk Road, in 2013.

But new figures suggest the trade has actually increased since then.

And other research indicates one in four British drug users has accessed hidden websites.

This is a beautiful thing. Silk Road, in addition to providing for the wants of drug consumers, also reduced the amount of violence in the drug trade. Nobody should be surprised by this since violence is much harder to perpetrate when both parties in a transaction are anonymous. It’s also much harder for the biggest perpetrators of violence in the drug trade, the police, to storm the homes and kill the dogs of drug consumers if they cannot identify them.

It’s always nice to see the state’s control slipping through its fingers. The war on unpatentable drugs is untenable because markets always win. Agorism is such a powerful tool against the state precisely because it relies on markets, which are the manifestation of human action.

Speed Limits

This month the men and women of Minnesota’s various police departments have been holding one hell of a fundraiser in the form of speed traps. They’ve been using the tagline “There’s not excuse for speeding.” And they’ve been covering billboards, newspaper pages, and other advertising space (with our tax dollars no less) with propaganda about the dangers of speeding (the ads are kind of like reefer madness but less entertaining).

Do you know what fucks up traffic flow? People who don’t drive with the flow of traffic, which is always above the posted speed limit because those posted speed limits are bullshit and the state knows it. This shouldn’t surprise anybody though. Who knows the maximum safe operating speed of a stretch of road better than the people who drive it twice a day, five days a week as they go to and from work? Posted speed limits are the product of arbitrary decisions made by people sitting in marble buildings who have no idea what the maximum safe speed on a random stretch of road they’ve never driven on is. Flow of traffic is the result of people who have a great deal of experience driving on a stretch of road doing so at the maximum speed they know to be safe.

You Need the State to Protect Your Rights; You Need to Fight the State to Protect Your Rights

As an anarchist that hangs out with statist libertarians I am often involved in political and philosophical debates. When I mention my belief that we humans don’t need to be ruled my more statist cohorts have to quickly jump in to tell me how wrong I am. According to them government is absolutely critical for a free society (because nothing says free like being ruled). When I ask why they almost always claim that a government is necessary to protect the rights of the citizenry.

This reason has always amused me. Governments have it easy. They get to make all of the rules, including what is considered a right under their legal system. You would think that they would write a set of rules that they intend to follow. But governments are the biggest violators of the very rights they declare. When I point this out my statist friends reply by saying that we need to stand up to the government whenever it violates our rights.

So the theory of statism goes like this. We need a government to protect our rights and we must protect our rights against the government. If we’re worried about our rights why would we want to charge the biggest violator of those rights with protecting them? That makes as much sense as charging the fox with guarding your chickens.

Being forced to choose between defending my rights against smaller groups of vicious people or one large, centralized organization with a monopoly on violence and perceived legitimacy by a sizable portion of the population I’d choose the former. It’s much easier to defend yourself against small mostly disorganized groups who nobody considered a legitimate authority. When you have to defend yourself against a government, which is nothing more than a very large gang, you end up not only having to fight the government but all of the people who believe it to be a legitimate entity (because, after all, it’s their gang so it must be the right one).

To Disclose or Not to Disclose

Should security vulnerabilities be disclosed? What if they could be used to kill somebody? That’s a question Robert Graham recently asked on his blog:

Historically, we’ve dealt with vendor unresponsiveness through the process of “full disclosure”. If a vendor was unresponsive after we gave them a chance to first fix the bug, we simply published the bug (“drop 0day”), either on a mailing list, or during a talk at a hacker convention like DefCon. Only after full disclosure does the company take the problem seriously and fix it.

[…]

So let’s say I’ve found a pacemaker with an obvious BlueTooth backdoor that allows me to kill a person, and a year after notifying the vendor, they still ignore the problem, continuing to ship vulnerable pacemakers to customers. What should I do? If I do nothing, more and more such pacemakers will ship, endangering more lives. If I disclose the bug, then hackers may use it to kill some people.

The problem is that dropping a pacemaker 0day is so horrific that most people would readily agree it should be outlawed. But, at the same time, without the threat of 0day, vendors will ignore the problem.

As the article explains the lack of vendor responsiveness is major problem in the computer security field. Vendors often have the attitude that if a vulnerability isn’t widely know then it’s not dangerous. Of course they never stop to consider the fact that the person reporting the vulnerability found it so in all likelihood other people will find or have found it as well. And that lack of forethought will lead them to ignore the problem, which will ensure more people receive the vulnerable devices.

In this debate I’m a firm believer in, what Graham refers to as, coder’s rights. It’s unfortunate but often the only way to get a company to address a major security vulnerability is to attack its bottom line. The fact is any vulnerability in a medical device that could lead to human death would absolutely destroy the manufacturer’s reputation. Impending lawsuits would also do some financial damage.

Additionally there is the fact that concealing the vulnerability will often lead to continued product sales. That means a continuously growing number of people at risk of being killed by an exploit. By going public with the exploit the amount of potential damage can be limited.

But regardless of the side you sit on this debate is an interesting one.

Why Voting isn’t For Me

I’ve given up voting. The last presidential election, in which I wrote in Vermin Supreme, was the last election that I plan to vote in. When I say this I’m often met with criticisms from people who believe voting is the way to change things politically. That may be true if your idea of change is to replace a Democratic ruler with a Republican ruler of vice versa but that’s not the type of change I’m trying to accomplish. I came across an essay by one of my leftist anarchist brethren that does a good job of summarizing why I’m done with voting:

To vote is to give up your own power.

To elect a master or many, for a long or short time, is to resign one’s liberty.

Call it an absolute monarch, a constitutional king, or a simple M.P., the candidate that you raise to the throne, to the seat, or to the easy chair, he will always be your master. They are persons that you put “above” the law, since they have the power of making the laws, and because it is their mission to see that they are obeyed.

My goal, politically speaking, is to abolish masters. It’s not a matter of a neoliberal or a neoconservative ruling my life. I’m more than capable of ruling myself thank you very much. The only thing that I ask is that nobody initiate aggression against me and in return I won’t initiate aggression against anybody. We don’t need rulers to dictate this request, common sense and community outcry will do so. There doesn’t need to be men in marble buildings writing decrees against murder because targets of a murderer will defend themselves and members of the target’s family and community will rise to his defense. The same is true of theft, rape, and other acts that involve one individual aggressing against another. Rulers only need exist to write decrees prohibiting behavior that a community won’t itself enforce. In other words rulers only exist to write decrees that a community doesn’t actually want.

Truth be told I don’t care if you choose to vote. That’s your choice. But I’m not going to vote and I don’t give a damn if you think that makes me a bad person.

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.

Starting an Agorist Business On the Cheap

Last week I discussed my views on on wage slavery. In it I proposed a solution for those wanting to increase their independence from wages: start a business. Many people are fearful of starting a business because they think the initial costs are too high and the prospects of failure are too risky. To alleviate these concerns I’m going to dedicate this post to offering some advice for stating a business. Before I begin please note that this post is being written from the perspective of an agorist. That means I any advice given here will assume that the business you’re starting is “underground” and therefore I won’t waste a bunch of time writing about regulatory compliance. If you want to handicap yourself by starting a “legitimate” business then the costs and risks will be quite a bit higher because you need to pay off the middle man, the state.

The biggest hurdle to overcome when starting a business is the concern about start up costs. Most people believe that starting a business requires a great deal of initial capital. While that is true of some businesses you aren’t required to start one of those businesses. In fact many businesses can be started with the equipment you have on hand already. Look at your hobbies. Can you think of a way to monetize any of them? I reload ammunition to lower my ammunition costs when shooting. That means I already have all of the equipment and some of the knowledge required to reload ammunition. There’s no reason I cannot sell some of the ammunition I load to fellow agorists who are looking for cheaper ammunition that is also free of taxes.

I’m a programmer by trade. That means I have all of the tools and some of the knowledge necessary to write software. I can even write websites if I’m really motivated to do so. Programming is a skill many people already know and most people are able to learn. It’s a skill that only requires the equipment most of us already have, a computer. Resources to learn programming are available for free online. Used programming books are a dime a dozen. Everybody seems to want a website or an iOS or Android app. Becoming an agorist programmer is a business one can start will minimal investment capital.

Are you a practical person? Can you do plumbing, automobile repair, or electrical wiring? Do you already have the tools for these activities? Good news, somebody is willing to pay you for such work! Are you a person who enjoys baking? I guarantee that there are people who would be willing to buy fresh baked bread, pastries, and treats from you. Have you learned any skills that you would like to teach others? Consider giving lessons. Perhaps you’ve been working on a novel for the last 10 years. Think about finishing it up and selling it or building a reputation as an author so you can crowd source funding for a later novel. Many municipalities now allow individuals to own chickens and there are a lot of people willing to pay decent money for organic eggs. Speaking of organic, did you know people will pay good money for organic vegetables? Maybe it’s time to start that garden you’ve been talking about.

Admittedly the ideas I’ve given here won’t make you rich (unless you’re super luck). But that’s not the point when starting out. The point is trying to find a marketable product or skill that you can provide without needing a large amount of investment capital. Even if you fail to make money at the endeavor you will learn something from the experience. Whether you succeed or fail you will come away with knowledge that will improve your possibility of success in your next enterprise. If you do succeed you will enjoy a little piece of mind knowing you have some income source that is independent of an employer, which will make you a freer person.

If you start by trying to monetize one of your hobbies you will have most of the equipment needed and therefore keep your risks low. Failure simply means continuing to use the equipment you already had as a hobby. Success means more independence.

Wage Slavery

I pride myself on the fact that those who self-identify as leftists accused me of being a rightist and those who self-identify as rightists accuse me of being a leftist. Failing to fit into the preconceived notions of others is a good indicator that you are on the right track.

As an advocate of non-aggression and truly free markets I believe my philosophy fits under the libertarian umbrella. But, for reasons I’ve describe previously, I believe that my philosophy is leftist in nature. This not only means a tendency towards radicalism but also a willingness to question ideas that have traditionally been thought of as libertarian.

Today I want to spend some time discussing a term often used by socialists and communists. That term is wage slavery.

Traditional libertarian thinking opposes the concept of wage slavery. The reason for this is that employer-employee relationships are seen as voluntary arrangements, which I agree with. Socialists counter this statement by noting that employees are reliant on their employers for their very survival so the relationship isn’t really voluntary, which I also agree with. Thus I come to my favorite point regarding wage slavery. Both sides have valid points.

For a relationship to be voluntary one must be free to termination that relationship at will. A person’s relationship with the state isn’t voluntary because attempting to break off that relationship tends to end with the person being kidnapped and caged by agents of the state (or outright murdered). But a person can leave their job at will — unless they can’t. Something libertarians often forget to consider is how dependent an employee generally is on their employer.

Why do people work for an employer? Because they need money to buy goods and services. Everything from food to water to healthcare are reliant on acquiring money. Here in the United States an individuals healthcare accessibility is also dependent on their employer’s provided health insurance policy. In other words there are sizable barriers preventing an employee from simply up and leaving his or her job.

Now that I’ve covered why I think wage slavery is a valid condition I think it’s time to address solutions to it. Socialists tend to favor ideas such as a universal basic income (UBI). The idea behind a UBI is that each person receives an income necessary for survival regardless of employment status. While the idea sounds good on paper any descent economists will rightly point out that such a program is necessarily inflationary and libertarians will point out that such a program requires the use of force to implement.

No, a UBI isn’t a working solution in my opinion. Instead I find the solution to wage slavery to be similar to solutions for most relationship-based problems. You don’t need a job, you need a business. This is a common saying amongst Minnesota’s agorist community and it rings true. So long as you’re dependent on an employer you’re not really free. If your survival is made possible by your work alone then you are much freer. Granted, you are still dependent on your customers but at some point anybody unwilling to subsistence farm is dependent on other human beings. With that in mind I still believe starting a business is the best option for achieving as much independence as possible.

This doesn’t mean you can’t be an employee. Many agorists work for an employer and operate a side business. If they lose their main employment they are able to fall back on their side business to make ends meet, at least until they find employment again. Sometimes a side business becomes successful enough to become an agorists primary source of income. It also doesn’t mean that you have to start a business. Many people are content working for an employer and they should be free to continue doing so if that is what they want. All that I’m saying is that having your own businesses makes you more independent and therefore freer.

So I believe wage slavery is a valid condition, which makes me a dirty leftists, but I also believe a libertarian solution exists, which makes me a dirty rightist (by United States standards anyways). Wage slavery is something that both sides of the aisle could find common ground with. Sadly the self-proclaimed leftists seem unwilling to accept a libertarian solution and the self-proclaimed rightists seem unwilling to acknowledge wage slavery as a legitimate condition. Thus two radical philosophies will continue to find themselves locked in an eternal death spiral while the statists continue to rule over everybody.

Reasons to Abandon Politics

My journey as a libertarian has seen me through a gun rights activist who looked at few other political issues, to a Constitutional libertarian who believe most of societies ills would be fixed by strictly adhering to the United States Constitution, to an anarcho-capitalist, and finally to an anarchists (without adjectives). During this journey I’ve come to many conclusions and learned many lessons. One of the lessons I’ve learned is that statism, regardless of its form, will always take the shape of an oligarchy. This is why I’m an anarchist. If nobody rules then everybody rules. So long as any individual enjoys privileges above another individual then the disease of statism will spread. By leveling the playing field, by ensuring nobody enjoys privileges above another the foundation for a free exists.

My journey has also seen me drudge through the political system. During my time in politics I believe I learned my most valuable lesson: freedom cannot be had through political participation. This realization has lead me to pursue agorism. Through counter-economics, that is performing as many transactions within the untaxed “black” market, the state can slowly be starved and the services it provides can be replaced by voluntary alternatives. The agorist community in my area is slowly growing as more people face the realization that freedom cannot be had through politics. By participating in agorism they are taking the first step in separating themselves from statism. They are abandoning politics. Abandoning politics is something I urge every anarchist to do. Why? Because it is the antithesis of what anarchists fight for.

The political process is necessarily hierarchical. Participation means you are either running for a position that will grant you power over others or are helping somebody else gain a position of power over others. Worse yet, the system is rigged in such a way as to make radical change impossible. Preventing radical change is the only activity for which real checks and balances exist in the political system. Demonstrating this fact is as simple as looking at the history of America’s political system. When was the last time you can recall an actual radical change, that is to say when power was taken from the political elite and their cronies, happened through the political system? Although every rule has its exception you’ll be hard pressed to find one for this.

Besides being the antithesis of anarchism, participating in the political process has another problem: dependency. I have seen more friends succumb to political dependency than I care to admit. They live for politics. It consumes them. In fact I can think of no less than five marriages that were destroyed because one of the two spouses became politically addicted. I have other friends who even depend on politics for their livelihood. Recently one of my friends has begun shilling for a local political campaign. I’m not talking about a little promotion, it was as if my friend was being paid to shill for this campaign. This seemed odd to me because he had been discussing his disgust of political campaigns and continuously described himself as an anarcho-capitalist. After looking through financial records for said campaign (thanks to the Internal Revenue Service for publishing that information, it is the only thing I will ever thank it for) I saw that $4,500 had been paid from the campaign to my friend over the span of roughly two months. Suddenly his advocacy of this candidate made perfect sense. Getting paid approximately $2,250 per month just to shill for a candidate isn’t bad money. But he is now dependent on the political system for a good chunk of his income. The main downside to such a dependency is that eliminating the state has become the antithesis of his survival. If the political system went away he would be out roughly $2,250 a month.

Putting yourself into a position where you are dependent on your enemy to survive ensures you will probably never make a real attempt to defeat your enemy. Consider the average political addict. They often depend on one or more campaigns for their financial well being. Their friendships begin to revolve more and more around politics. As their time in politics increases their interest in non-political activities decreases. I’m sure you have or have had a friend who attempts to bring up politics at every social gathering. Such behavior tends to push non-political friends and friends with differing political views away. From my observations this has a habit of not only creating an echo chamber around political participants but makes them almost entirely reliant on politics for their general happiness. For an anarchist this becomes a vicious cycle because they don’t want to destroy the political system as it would also destroy their primary source of happiness.

Politics also has many similarities to cultism. The longer somebody is involved in the political process the more they push away non-political friends and friends who have differing political opinions. Cults tend to isolate themselves from outsiders. This isolation reinforces dependency on the cult. Social circles hold a lot of power over us. At some point most people want to fit in with some crowd. Even rebels tend to want to fit in with their fellow rebels. So if your only friends are fellow members of your cult you will likely attempt to appeal to them by being a good cult member. Failing to abide by a political party’s, campaign’s, or candidate’s beliefs can lead to ostracization. Again, this is another thing political participation shares with cultism. I’ve seen this happen numerous times. For example, anybody who espoused a belief in public schooling at a Ron Paul gathering tended to get humiliated, shouted at, and shutdown rather quickly. Seeing a majority of participants disagree with somebody espousing public education wasn’t surprising but seeing how zealous they were at ensuring the heathen wasn’t heard was frightening. Needless to say such people quickly learned to keep their dissenting opinions to themselves less they be ostracized by their friends.

If your goal is to abolish statism then you should abandon the political process and find a more radical way of pursing your goal. Political participation will only lead to ruin. In fact it is designed to lead to ruin if your goals are something other than further empowering the oligarchs. To paraphrase a famous saying, if politics could change things it would be illegal. Always remember that the political process is the system put in place by the current rulers. Nobody is going to give their enemies an effective way to defeat them and anarchists are the enemies of the current rulers.

Scott Adams: Possible Future Anarchist

I work in an office environment so it should go without saying that I’m a fan of the Dilbert comic. In a strange but positive turn of events, a recent post by Dilbert’s author, Scott Adams, leads me to believe he’s traveling down the road to anarchism:

I have a hundred-year plan to eliminate government.

The key to making this work is picking one element of government at a time and using technology to eliminate it. Remember, we have a hundred years to develop and test lots of little plans. So we won’t permanently eliminate any part of government until citizens have seen proof it can work on a state level, or for a brief test period nationally, or in another country.

He gives several examples of how technology could be used to replace government functions. If you’re a neophile anarchist, such as myself, what he’s saying is nothing new. I’ve been advocating the use of technology to eliminate the state by providing competition and alternatives to its programs. One of the state’s greatest weaknesses is its inability to adapt to long term changes. We see this whenever the state moves to regulate a new technology, often before the ramifications of that technology are understood.

Its regulations are seldom sensible and usually take the form of outright prohibitions or licensing. My favorite example of this is Wisconsin’s ban using electromagnetic weapons for hunting. Electromagnetic weapons, as far as hunting goes, are still fantasy but the Wisconsin government has already banned such usage even though we have no understanding of how such technology would effect hunting.

I theorize that the state’s hatred of new technologies stems from its fear of being supplanted by them.