Category: Liberty

Statism and Self-Projection

Read the following excerpt from this article and tell me what you see:

Age is just a number… except when it comes to marriage.

Let’s look at my stats:
Current age – 29
Divorced for – 8 months
Separated for – 1 year, 9 months
Age when I met my ex – 19
Age when I married – 24

Which brings me to my point: couples should not be allowed to get married before age 25.

While I know that this statement is going to make me very unpopular with readers, I do believe that it would be for the best — better both for the institution of marriage and the individuals getting married — if we could change the law to prevent couples from getting married before the age of 25.

OK, you can’t really tell me what you see so I’ll tell you what I see. I see a woman who is projection herself onto all other people and this projection is leading her to demand legislation. Statists seem to think because something happened to them it will happen to everybody. Gun control zealots sometime talk about what a situation would have been like if they had had a gun. Instead of ending peacefully the gun control zealot will talk about the death that would have occurred, and because they projection their violent tendencies onto everybody else they demand everybody be disarmed.

This is why I believe statism is synonymous with arrogance. When you say there ought to be a law because of an experience you had in life you’re making the arrogant statement that everybody else is just like you. Because the author of the above excerpt ended up divorced after marrying a man when she was 24 she believes everybody who marries before or at the age of 24 will end up getting divorced. This belief also requires her to believe that the cause of her divorce was the fact she was still “developing” as a person and such “development” completes at exactly 25 years of age, for everybody. This is incredibly arrogant. I know people who were fully “developed” much earlier than their 25th birthday and I know people who are much older than 25 and still “developing.” Humans don’t conform to specific cutoffs. Some children hit puberty at an early age while others hit is later. Some adults are capable of living independently when they turn 18 while others aren’t capable of such feats at any point in their lives. There are 16 year-olds I trust implicitly with firearms while there are 30 year-olds I won’t go to the range with. Everybody is different.

Differences in individuals is what individualists recognize. If I were married at age 24 and got divorced at age 26 I wouldn’t assume everybody else who married at age 25 would experience the same outcome. Projection ourselves onto others is a basic human action, one that I try to avoid (although I’m not always successful). Every time somebody argues for a law based on their personal experience they’re projecting. We need to divorce ourselves from demanding laws based on personal experience. Just because you did something doesn’t mean everybody else will do it.

The Most One-Sided Contract Every Conceived

Butler Shaffer wrote an article discussing social contract theory. Needless to say he absolutely nailed it:

Imagine that you have agreed with an auto dealer to purchase the luxurious Belchfire X-1 automobile, for which you agree to pay $45,000, with monthly payments to extend over a period of three years. You sign the sales agreement, and are then told to return the following day to sign the formal contract, which you do. When you arrive two days later to pick up the car, the dealer presents you with the title and keys to a much lesser model, the Klunkermobile J. When you ask the dealer to explain the switch, he points to a provision in the contract that reads: “Dealer shall be entitled to make ‘reasonable’ adjustments it considers to be ‘necessary and proper’ to further the ‘general welfare’ of the parties hereto.” He also tells you that the amount of the payments will remain the same as for the Belchfire X-1; that to provide otherwise would be to impair the obligations of the contract. You strongly object, arguing that the dealer is making a fundamental alteration of the contract. The dealer then informs you that this dispute will be reviewed by a third party – his brother-in-law – who will render a decision in the matter.

Social contract theory is nothing more than a statist’s wet dream. If people buy into it then, suddenly, all of the statist’s actions are morally justified. Even strict constitutionalists will use the social contract argument, claiming that the United States Constitution is a contract between the state and the people and if it is violated then the people have a moral justification to overthrow the state.

Unfortunately for those of us who believe in individual liberty social contract theory has caught on. It’s entirely one-sided though. The state not only gets the privilege of writing the contract but they also get a monopoly on interpreting the contract. You, by merely existing, are said to be a signatory to the contract. When you believe the state has violated a term in the social contract the matter is taken up with a court, which is controlled by the state. No third-party arbitration is allowed, the deck is rigged, or as my friend often says, vilescit origine tali (the dice were loaded from the start).

Even accepting the fantasy of a “social contract” theory of the state creates more fundamental problems. The legitimacy of a contract depends upon the existence of “consideration.” This means that the party seeking enforcement must demonstrate a changing of one’s legal position to their detriment (e.g., giving up something of value, making a binding promise, foregoing a right, etc.) Statists may argue that their system satisfies this requirement – by supposedly agreeing to protect the lives and property of the citizenry, and agreeing to respect those rights of people that are spelled out in the “Bill of Rights.” The problem is that – thanks to the opinions of numerous brothers-in-law who comprise the Supreme Court – the powers given to the state have been given expansive definitions, and the rights protected by the “Bill of Rights” are given an increasingly narrow interpretation.

People often point to the clear language of the Bill or Rights to demonstrate the acts the state isn’t allowed to do. While the language may be clear to you or me, we are not the ones who get the privilege of interpreting it. It has never been about the language, it’s been about the interpretation. I can take the most seemingly straightforward statement and twist it to mean anything I want. As Cardinal Richelieu once said, “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”

Who in their right mind would sign this social contract? What third-party would agree such a contract was valid? This is the flaw in social contract theory, the contract they allude to isn’t valid under contract law. One of the biggest flaws in the United States Constitution, besides granting the federal government power to tax, is allowing the courts that interpret the Constitution to be controlled by the same state the Constitution is supposedly binding. It is impossible to legally bind somebody if you give them the power to determine what is legal.

When you look at the goal of statists, to have a large gun to wield against those who disagree with them, social contract theory makes nothing but sense. It’s just like something a mafioso would come up with.

A Counterargument to a Common Statist Argument

One argument made by statists to justify the existence of the state is that without the state that would be roving gangs going around taking everybody’s shit. This argument makes little sense in my opinion. First, it assumes that humans are inherently uncooperative and prefer to take instead of trade. Second, it assumes the state itself isn’t a roving gang of thugs who go around and take everybody’s shit.

Let’s discuss the first issue, the assumption that humans are inherently uncooperative. If the existence of the state is the only thing between modern society and complete chaos then I must know, how did humans cooperate long enough to establish a state? Anti-statists, such as myself, believe humans are inherently cooperative and use the existence of society as proof. What is society after all? It’s groups of humans who have come together to interact with one another, namely in trade. Without the division of labor that society brings each individual would be forced to provide for all of their means themselves. Imagine if you had to make every pair of shoes you’ve owned by hand. This would involve everything from obtaining the leather to creating the thread for the stitching. Then imagine other modern luxuries such as air conditioners and computers. It’s pretty easy to see that the lack of division of labor would mean modern technology would not exist.

Thankfully humans are cooperative enough that we decided to take advantage of divided labor. You perform your part of the work and I’ll perform my part. If I’m a shoemaker I’ll buy my leather from somebody who raises cattle. I believe division of labor is ultimately what lead humans to develop societies. Every task humans perform is made easier by cooperation. Hunting a large wooly mammoth seems a monumental task for one man but is certainly doable for a hunting party.

If humans were uncooperative we would not have modern society, instead we would still be in caves. Unfortunately statists take the rare exceptions to cooperative humans, the thieves, and use them as the rule. Were this true Iceland wouldn’t have enjoyed 300 years of relatively peaceful statelessness.

What about the second assumption? When somebody says the only thing between modern society and roving gangs of thieves is the state they are stating a fallacy for the state is a roving gang of thieves. Everything the state does is pays for though theft. Whether that theft is taxation or printing money (which causes inflation, which is nothing more than the theft of an individual’s purchasing power) is irrelevant, it’s still theft. If you don’t pay your taxes then the state will simply take your shit. Depending on how behind you are on your taxes you may lose your home and your car.

A state can’t stand between modern society and roving gangs because the state itself is a roving gang. They are taking your shit.

Flags and Nationalism

Flags are seen as symbols of countries and the ideals that supposedly stand for. In reality they are symbols used by governments to build blind nationalism. The United States government is so in love with their flag that they have written insanely detailed codes regarding it. Mind you, most of these codes are broken on a daily basis by some of the most patriotic of individuals:

(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker’s desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

[…]

(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

Regardless, my point has nothing to do with people ‘disrespecting’ the flag. In fact what I’m about to say is quite the opposite of such nonsense, I’m going to ‘disrespect’ the flag. The picture above is a quote by Indian novelist Arundhati Roy who has said some very intelligent things beyond that short quote above. I agree with her regarding what a flag really is. Throughout my early school career we were made to stand up, put our hand over our heart, and mindlessly recite the following words:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

At the time I merely recited the words because we were told to and we were told to recite those words because it was hoped we were impressionable enough to be brainwashed into mindless nationalistic robots. I’ve briefly mentioned my distain for the Pledge of Allegiance before:

The Pledge of Allegiance was a marketing ploy to instill nationalism. Since nationalism is one of the planks of fascism I’m not too fond of practicing it. Furthermore I’m none too inclined to recite a piece of propaganda written by a socialist.

Setting aside the fact the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist we need to stop and analyze the words. First, the pledge is to the flag and the republic it represents. We’re not pledging our allegiance to ideals like liberty or opposing tyranny, we’re pledging it to a republic. Whether that republic is the freest country on Earth or the most tyrannical isn’t even touched upon, you’re just supposed to be an obedient citizen who will ally yourself with the state.

Arundhati’s quote above rings true. The flag is first used to shrink wrap your brain before it is used to ceremoniously cover your coffin. You are supposed to die for your republic, even if your republic is a tyrannical dictatorship. This is what bothers me, the United States was supposedly founded on the ideal of liberty. We’re not supposed to be subservient to the state, the state is supposed to be subservient to us. Unfortunately it’s easy to build nationalism in a population, in fact it probably has something to do with our innate tribalism. You must first create a national identity, then you must create a divide, and finally you need only send good men and women to die.

In the United States nationalism is create continuously and through many different methods. The Pledge of Allegiance is only one way, we’re also constantly bombarded with concepts like respecting various political offices (I’ve written my thoughts on that subject before), we’re instructed to worship “civil servants” such as the police, etc. Hell, an entire section of federal law is dedicated to respecting the flag!

Then we have the divide. Before today various enemies of the state were created. First people living in the United States were supposed to be afraid of the “savage” Native Americans, later it was the Spanish, after them it was the anarchists, followed by the communists, today it’s Muslims. In every case the state used the national identify they created to also create a divide. It’s “us” versus “them.” “They” want to destroy our way of life. “They” want to kill our children. “They” want to take our freedom. You’re either with “us” or you’re with “them.” After the divide is created the state merely has to send armies to fight “them” and use the deaths of “us” as further proof of “their” barbarity. It worked during manifest destiny, it worked during the Vietnam War, and it’s working today with the invasions of the Middle East.

As I’ve said, I don’t pledge my allegiance to a flag or a republic. I pledge my allegiance to individuals I deem worth of it, I pledge my allegiance to ideas I believe in, I certainly don’t pledge my allegiance haphazardly or without good cause. Saying this is tantamount to heresy. You are proclaimed a witch and demands for your trail are raised. Self-declared patriots will scream “How dare you disrespect our flag!” or “How dare you not say the Pledge of Allegiance!” In their mind your unwillingness to pledge your allegiance to the flag means you’re with “them” and if you’re with “them” you’re against “us.”

What so many people are too blind to see is the fact there is no “us” or “them.” There are only individuals, all of whom are unique. We’ve been raised our entire lives to swear mindless obedience to the state. Public education is all about obedience, you’re not supposed to think critically, you’re supposed to do and believe what you are told. Teachers, the chief propagandists, are described as gods and you’re instructed to kneel down and worship them. Their word is law. If they say two plus two equals five you’re suppose to nod your head and mindlessly repeat “Five!” whenever asked the sum of two and two. When your teacher tells you the United States is the greatest and freest country on Earth you’re supposed to nod and accept it as fact, you’re suppose to stand up and swear your undying love and allegiance to your flag, you’re suppose to be outraged when anybody disrespect your country or its symbol.

Some will eventually see the situation for what it is and break free of the trap while others will not. In the eyes of those who haven’t broken free of the trap I’m a pariah who is to be shunned. Frankly, I stopped giving a damn what other people think of me long ago because I realize they view me as part of the nebulous “them” and thus their hatred is irrational and without basis.

A Taste of Power

I spend a great deal of time bitching about the current president, mostly because he is yet another person in a long line of assholes who have been made the figurehead of the country. I’m not sure if there will every be a president I don’t hate but Obama is a very special case because he actively campaigned on closing Gitmo, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, making the government more transparent, and ending the drug war only to do a 180 degree spin after his election. He hasn’t shutdown Gitmo, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still being waged, the government is less transparent, the war on drugs is still being waged, and he has even found time to order the assassination of two American citizens.

What happened? In my opinion, power happened. The New York Times has a long article that appears to have been written specifically to inflate Obama’s ego. It tries to make him out to be a great leader by explaining all the hard decisions he’s had to make since becoming the president. Desperately it attempts to explain Obama’s actions in a way that makes it appear as though he never deviated from his campaign promises. Eight pages are used in an attempt to address this concern:

Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.

How could a liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture end up ordering the death of so many individuals without a trial? According to the New York Times article Obama is a messiah who swooped down from the heavens to personally ensure only the wicked received the wrath of the United States. Gone are the days of Bush’s tyranny, smitten by the wholesome nature of the great angel Obama! He has delivered this country from evil, he has given it a conscious, he is making the difficult decisions all good leaders must make!

Bullshit.

While the New York Times attempts to take eight pages to explain Obama’s actions are due to the difficult decisions he’s had to make as president the truth is Obama tosses his campaign promises to the wind because he got a taste of power, and he liked it.

The Lord of the Rings is really a story about the corrupting nature of power, something that shouldn’t be surprising coming from a man who expressed his political views as being more and more towards anarchy. In the story the One Ring is a magical entity that can give its wearer a great deal of power but that power comes at a price, it eventually corrupts its wearer no matter how noble they are. There is little difference between the One Ring and the presidency.

I’m not aware of one president who has entered the White House and kept his campaign promises. Most presidential hopefuls have grand campaign promises that would expand individual liberty and reduce the power of the state but once they get into office they try to destroy individual liberty and expand the state’s power. Some would say this is merely because politicians are liars, a sentiment I partially agree with, although I feel there are more pieces to this puzzle. Power is another piece.

You can see the corrupting nature of power in most people. Watch a random powerless schmuck suddenly feel the need to reign power viciously over unsuspecting air travelers when you pin a badge to his chest that reads Transportation Security Administration. Suddenly that meek individual is happily shouting orders at air travelers demanding that they remove their shoes, empty their pockets, and submit to either a radiating naked body scanner or sexual molestation. Your best friend in high school can suddenly become an insufferable dick because he caught you driving faster than the posted speed limit after being issued a costume and badge by the local police department. Even the neighborhood dog catcher can go from a kind man to a rabid bastard who is screaming at you to keep better control over your dog (even when your dog is on a leash and you’re holding it).

I have no doubt many people enter politics with good intentions. They believe they can change things or make them better. Is your local school allowing children to purchase soft drinks from a vending machine? Those bastards! Don’t they understand that soft drinks are making children obese? Obviously you must run for a position on the school board to correct this monstrous failure. Once seated on the school board though the soft drinks become a minor annoyance, you now have power over everybody in the school district after all. You can do so many things, you can stop bullying by demanding any offense speech be squashed and the speaker be suspended. Children who are missing school, regardless of their grades, can also be punished, you have the power to make it so. Teachers who teach material you don’t approve of, such as evolution, can be sacked and the classroom will once again be safe for God fearing christians.

Obama may have very well entered the White House with the plan to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he may have been ready to bring a new wave of transparency to the United States government, he may have even had a bill written up that legalized medical marijuana. Unfortunately for us something happened, Obama suddenly had access to executive orders, armed drones, the military, and the entire law enforcement arm of the federal government. Suddenly he had to tools to right all of the world’s wrongs. He could stop the terrorists from performing another attack by taking out terrorist leaders, he could prevent crime by sicking the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) on dissidents, the options were limitless.

What Obama never stopped to consider was the fact that every tool at the state’s disposal requires the use of violence. To a socially well-adjusted individual the idea of using violence is to be reserved as a last resort, and only as a response to initiated violence. Once you succumb to the idea that violence can be used for the “greater good” you’re soon to be entirely corrupted. Any act of aggression is justifiable when it’s for the “greater good.” Sure, some innocent people may die when a hellfire missile is launched at a terrorist leader at a wedding party but that terrorist leader won’t be able to hurt anybody else! By killing that handful of people many more lives were saved! The ends justify the means!

This is why power scares me and why I avoid it at all costs. I don’t want power over others because I know what that can lead to. Politics is a game I won’t play, I’ve seen what happens to those who do. Some of the most liberty-minded individuals I know decided to play the political game only to turn into authoritarians. They justified supporting neocons by claiming that politician had his toe in the liberty lake and with enough coaxing would dive in entirely. Sometimes they claimed the neocon was better than the alternative and that we must suffer through his or her reign because it was a babystep in the right direction. The justifications becomes endless, they were given access to the One Ring and believed they could shake the curse, they were better than those who previously held it, they could use it for good. They were wrong.

From what I’ve witnessed there are really only two outcomes for those entering politics: you either realize what it is and exit as quickly as possible or you succumb to the power and descend into a world of darkness. I played the political game for a short while and recognized it for what it was and got the hell out as fast as I could. Obama on the other hand played the political game and was seduced by the power. Did he have good intentions? That I don’t know, psychopaths are attracted to power and have no qualm with using it. Obama may have had good intentions or he may have been a psychopath before entering politics. The only important part is the outcome, he is now a power hungry creature who has been entirely corrupted. He is part of a legacy of such people who we have called presidents.

What can we do? Elect Romney? Hardly. I hope you take away from this post my warning against the seeking power. I also hope you see the underlying lesson, the corrupting nature of power means no good can come from its use. Romney could be the “lesser” or two evils but the second he gets in the White House he will become entirely corrupted and end up being no less evil than Obama. I even worry that Paul could be corrupted if he won the presidency, it’s just so much power to hold. So long as we continue to grant individuals power over us we cannot “fix” this country. No man can wear the One Ring without being corrupted just as no man can win the presidency without being corrupted. We can’t “fix” this country by electing the “right people” because the right people will quickly turn into the wrong people once they are granted presidential power.

Let me end this post by quoting Frank Herbert:

This, then, was one of my themes for Dune: Don’t give over all of your critical faculties to people in power, no matter how admirable those people may appear to be. Beneath the hero’s facade you will find a human being who makes human mistakes. Enormous problems arise when human mistakes are made on the grand scale available to a superhero. And sometimes you run into another problem.

It is demonstrable that power structures tend to attract people who want power for the sake of power and that a significant proportion of such people are imbalanced-in a word, insane.

That was the beginning. Heroes are painful, superheroes are a catastrophe. The mistakes of superheroes involve too many of us in disaster.

Libertarian Ethics and Suicide

Via Tam I came across the following post by Roberta X discussing libertarian ethics, namely as it applies to suicide. Apparently there has been a bit of a debate in the libertarian/gun blogger realm over whether or not it’s ethical, according to libertarianism, to intervene when somebody is threatening suicide. I left a rather lengthy post on Tam’s site but I wanted to discuss this in a bit more detail and cleanup my thoughts. Roberta X had the following to say regarding the threat of committing suicide:

You don’t own other people; you don’t get to control what they do. When you threaten to harm someone — even yourself — you’re initiating force, attempting to extort something from the persons to whom you are expressing your threat.

I disagree with her statement. I’ve discussed self-ownership in more depth previously, but surmise it to say your are the sole owner of yourself. One cannot control your actions, even if they are in a position of authority you have the ability to rebel. Slaves have the option of attacking and attempting to kill their masters because humanity hasn’t yet (thankfully) developed a technology to entirely control the minds and actions of others.

Ownership in libertarian ethics implies some amount of control. The amount of control one wields depends on the amount of ownership one holds, if you are the sole owner of something you have total control over it, if you are a partial owner of something you have partial control over it. Let’s use the example of an automobile. If you are the sole owner of an automobile you may do with it as you please. Whether your drop a higher performing engine in the car, put in a more powerful sound system, or simply burn the car to cinder is nobody’s concern except your own (unless your action puts another or their property into harm, for example driving your vehicle into a building owned by another). On the other hand if you are a partial owner then anything done to the car must be agreed to by every other partial owner. You cannot rightfully drop in a faster engine in the car, put a more powerful sound system in the car, or burn the car unless the other owners also agree to your actions.

As the sole owner of yourself you have the right to do with yourself whatever you please. If you want to drink alcohol you can drink alcohol, if you want jump around in a mosh bit then you can just around in a mosh pit, if you want to destroy yourself entirely by committing suicide then you may commit suicide. No other person holds a stake in your person and therefore has no right to prevent you from taking any action that doesn’t harm others or their property. What about the statement that threatening to commit suicide is a form of extortion? This too I disagree with.

Extortion, under libertarian ethics, is generally considered a threat of action you have no right to perform. For example, if somebody pulled a knife on you and demanded your wallet they have performed an act of extortion, they have threatened to stab you if you don’t surrender your wallet. This can be considered an act of extortion because the attacker has no right to attack your person, such an act is considered an initiation of force. Were you to say to your attacker, “I have a gun and I will draw it an shoot you if you attempt to attack me” you would not be performing an act of extortion, you have every right to take such action to defend yourself against an initiator of force (I know such an act is not a good idea in a self-defense situation, I’m merely using this as an example to demonstrate a point, I’m certainly not recommending you perform such an action).

We’ve established that a person is a self-owner and therefore has total dominion over themselves and that extortion is a threat to perform an action that the threatener has no right to perform. Therefore suicide is not an act of extortion because one has a right to commit suicide by the fact they are the sole owner of themselves.

Does that mean one cannot intervene to prevent somebody from committing suicide? No, at least I don’t believe so. Ethics are black and white when discussing black and white situations but they aren’t so clear cut when discussing issues with a great deal of gray area. Like hypothetical self-defense situations, people who argue ethics usually create hypothetical scenarios where a “good” option exists. Unfortunately a “good” option doesn’t always exist. Murray Rothbard discussed one such situation in The Ethics of Liberty. Chapter 20 discusses lifeboat situations:

IT IS OFTEN CONTENDED that the existence of extreme, or “lifeboat,” situations disproves any theory of absolute property rights, or indeed of any absolute rights of self-ownership whatsoever. It is claimed that since any theory of individual rights seems to break down or works unsatisfactorily in such fortunately rare situations, therefore there can be no concept of inviolable rights at all. In a typical lifeboat situation, there are, let us say, eight places in a lifeboat putting out from a sinking ship, and there are more than eight people wishing to be saved. Who then is to decide who should be saved and who should die? And what then happens to the right of self-ownership, or, as some people phrase it, the “right to life”? (The “right to life” is fallacious phraseology, since it could imply that A’s “right to life” can justly involve an infringement on the life and property of someone else, i.e., on B’s “right to life” and its logical extensions. A “right to self-ownership” of both A and B avoids such confusions.)

In the first place, a lifeboat situation is hardly a valid test of a theory of rights, or of any moral theory whatsoever. Problems of a moral theory in such an extreme situation do not invalidate a theory for normal situations. In any sphere of moral theory, we are trying to frame an ethic for man, based on his nature and the nature of the world—and this precisely means for normal nature, for the way life usually is, and not for rare and abnormal situations. It is a wise maxim of the law, for precisely this reason, that “hard cases make bad law.” We are trying to frame an ethic for the way men generally live in the world; we are not, after all, interested in framing an ethic that focuses on situations that are rare, extreme, and not generally encountered.

That is to say an extremely rare situations are special cases and should be treated as such. Being in a position to stop a suicide is one of these rare situations, one where other factors come into play. Using another example let’s say you come across a situation where somebody is being held a knifepoint by an attacker. Do you have a right to intervene if the victim doesn’t specifically ask? I would say yes, because it is a very safe assumption that the victim would gladly take you up on an offer to help if he or she was in a position to ask. In many cases people threatening or attempting to commit suicide are not in complete control of their faculties, they are often extremel depressed, mentally disturbed, under the influence of some kind of drug, etc. A schizophrenic may threaten or attempt suicide because a voice in their head is telling them to while a manic depressive may threaten or attempt to commit suicide during a depressive episode. Were the individual in full control of their faculties it is a safe assumption that they would ask for intervention. In fact the threat or even attempt of suicide is often a cry for help in of itself.

Considering the fact that being in a position to prevent a suicide is one of those rare situations akin to lifeboat situations and that threats or attempts of suicide are often cries for help I believe it just to intervene. That isn’t to say that all interventions to prevent suicide are warranted, if a person is in a state of perpetual pain and in full control of their faculties it is very possible that they would want to end their life to prevent ongoing suffering. In such a case intervention would be unwarranted.

Black and white situations seldom exist, there is usually a great deal of gray area. Because of this there are rarely absolute answers and thus some amount of common sense must be considered. Saying somebody has a right to commit suicide is correct, saying that intervening to prevent that suicide is a violation of libertarian ethics is subjective. Sure, ideally, such an intervention is a an encroachment on the rights of another. We don’t live in an ideal world, numerous circumstances often exist that would lead one to believe such intervention is desired. Perhaps the person threatening or attempting suicide is crazy, perhaps their family is being threatened and suicide is the only option that person sees to protect his or her family, perhaps the person is merely sick of living and desires to die. It’s nearly impossible for somebody in a position to prevent a suicide to know all the facts and therefore make the right decision. We don’t want to do what the state does, make an environment that discourages people from helping one another, and thus must rely on a great deal of individual judgement and at the moment common sense.

Ethics are great for general cases, which is why I like the “don’t be a dick” rule. Yes, there are times when one must certainly be a dick but for a vast majority of the time there is no need and thus not being a dick is a great general rule.

Copyright Infringement and Restitution

Ladies and gentlemen it’s time again for and rant regarding the United States legal system. The Supreme Court just refused to hear a case involving copyright infringement, which may cost the defendant $675,000:

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear the case of Joel Tenenbaum, who illegally downloaded music during college and now faces a $675,000 fine.

Tenenbaum’s been battling the music industry since 2007, over charges that he downloaded 31 songs online. A federal jury slapped Tenenbaum with a $22,500-per-song verdict in 2009, but a year later, U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner reduced the fine to $67,500, calling the original amount “unconstitutionally excessive.” Then, last November, an appeals court raised the verdict back to its original amount.

For the act of downloading 31 songs Tenebaum is being nailed with a $675,000 fine, or $22,500 per song. Copyright infringement in the United States has nothing to do with protecting copyright holders or restitution, it has everything to do with punishment. Tenebaum isn’t being made to make amends for his infraction, he’s being made an example of because he dared to challenge the state’s cronies. The state doesn’t like it when you challenge it or its cronies and will usually bring down the biggest hammer possible as a demonstration of its power.

Under a just system what would Tenebaum be made to pay? I would argue nothing because I don’t believe infinitely plentiful resources should be protected with violence but let’s assume copyright laws are somehow just, what should Tenebaum be made to pay? He should be made to pay restitution, that is the value he took. Assuming each song can be purchased for $0.99 on the iTunes store the grand total of Tenebaum’s fine should be $30.69 plus all fees paid by the copyright holder to recover the money. Instead Tenebaum is being forced to pay 21,994.134897 times the value he “stole.” How the hell is this just? It’s not, but it is legal:

(c) Statutory Damages. —

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

Looking at the law the fact that it was written to punish instead of deliver justice is obvious by the fact that the minimum fine for infringing a copyrighted work is $750.00. This was actually an increase from what the fine once was:

The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 amended section 504(c) as follows: 1) in paragraph (1), by inserting “$500” in lieu of “$250” and by inserting “$20,000” in lieu of “$10,000” and 2) in paragraph (2), by inserting “$100,000” in lieu of “$50,000” and by inserting “$200” in lieu of “$100.” Pub. L. No. 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853, 2860. The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 amended section 504(c), in paragraph (1), by substituting “$750” for “$500” and “$30,000” for “$20,000” and, in paragraph (2), by substituting “$150,000” for “$100,000.” Pub. L. No. 106-160, 113 Stat. 1774.

Apparently a $500.00 fine for “stealing” a $0.99 song wasn’t enough and thus it had to be increased to $750.00. I find this to be ridiculous. How the hell is this legal? Oh, I almost forgot, Disney and the Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA) are politically well-connected and therefore get special protection from the mob state.

Let’s consider what copyright infringement is for a minute. When you steal a car from somebody you have effectively taken away another person’s right to said car. Two people cannot be in possession of the car at the same time so in order for one person to use it another must go without. If you steal a $30,000 car I would argue that anywhere between $30,000 and $60,000 restitution, plus recovery fees, would be just compensation. The reason I would set an upper limit of $60,000 is because stealing the car really took away the owner’s right to the car and therefore a just punishment would be to have the thief lose his right to a car. Copyright is different since no actual theft takes place.

If I download a song via BitTorrent I’m not depriving another human being of that song. No theft has occurred because theft implies taking another’s right to something, copyright infringement merely implies you violated a state granted monopoly over an infinitely reproducible good. Of course many followers of Ayn Rand have argued that by downloading said song you’re taking away the copyright holder’s “right to a sale” but that implies that the downloader was actually planning to buy the song if it wasn’t available freely, an assumption that is often false. Either way you’re not denying anybody the copyrighted work when downloading a digital copy and thus should not be made to pay double the “damages” incurred.

Justice is supposed to imply righting a wrong, not enriching politically well-connected favorites of the state. Unfortunately our “justice” system is really a punishment system. It’s not about righting wrongs, it’s about making examples out of those who dare disobey the decrees of the state. Courts aren’t used primarily for mediation in disputes but for striking fear into the people.

More Kids Should Defy Teachers

Once in a great while I’m amazed by the intelligence of children. Even though most are forced to attend indoctrination camps known as public schools they are often able to see through the bullshit that is being shoved down their throats:

“Stop, no, because there is no comparison,” she says. Romney, she says, is “running for president. Obama is the president.”

When the student says they’re both “just men,” the teacher continues to argue that Romney, as a candidate for president, is not to be afforded the same respect as the president.

“Listen, let me tell you something, you will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom,” she says.

The student replies that he’ll say what he wants.

This post serves not only to bring this awesome kid to your attention but to unveil a new award: the Christopher Burg Award for Noncompliance in the Face of False Authority. This award is bestowed by this blog to those who refuse to comply with those who hold a fasle sense of authority. One cannot win this award by mouthing off to their boss or other person whom they voluntarily agreed to work under, one can only win this award but giving a big middle finger to some prick who has decided to lord power over you without your consent.

This student stood up to his teacher and called her on her bullshit. While she demanded the student respect the president like some kind of devine king the student refused.

Along with the unveiling of this award I also want to bring up something that annoys me, the idea that you must respect somebody because of a position they hold. Many people claim you must respect the president and even if you don’t like the man you must respect the office. This isn’t true, there is no reason that I have to respect the office. Technically the president is supposed to be a civil servant, he’s suppose to respect us because we’re supposed to be his bosses. Obviously this has been turned around, the president is now saw as the one deserving of respect and we’re supposed to bow down and kiss his ring. I’m not buying that, I don’t give my respect to offices, titles, etc.; I give my respect to individuals that I feel have earned it.

I respect my father not because of the fact he’s my father but because of the fact he’s a damned good man. He managed to start his own business with basically nothing, help raise three children, and not only ensured we had food on the table but also did everything possible to make his business expand so we could all enjoy a comfortable life. He’s never once ripped a customer off or attempted to make a quick buck, he came by his money by performing honest voluntary transactions. That is deserving of my respect, merely winning a popularity contest is not. One of the few politicians I respect is Ron Paul and that’s because he advocates voluntary association, opposes war, and believes in individual liberty. Instead of using his office to gain personal wealth by dealing with cronies under the table he has opposed such political maneuvers. If he were president I would still respect him, not the office, him.

Holding to Higher Legal Standards

In a conversation relating to the Zimmerman case one of my friends made a statement that really bugged me. I’m paraphrasing but he basically said, “Concealed carry holders should be held to a higher standard just like cops and soliders.” The belief that some people should be held to a “higher standard” has always bothered me, especially when discussing legal matters. I firmly believe that all should be equal under the law. Whether you hold a carry permit, are a police officer, or are a soldier should be irrelevant if you’ve harmed another person outside of self-defense.

Of the three categories he listed I will point out that only one of them receives no state protection. Both police officers and soldiers are actually exempted from various laws. If anybody is held to a “higher standard” it’s the average person who actually faces prison sentences, fines, or both for breaking the state’s decrees. When a police officer breaks a law or decree they are usually given administrative leave until the public forgets about the officer’s transgression at which point he’s put back on the force and the whole ordeal is forgotten. Those who believe some groups of people should be held to “higher standards” than the average person need to stop using state agents as their examples.

One of the failures of our legal system in the United States is the creation of numerous protected groups. Corporations, by definition, are granted limited legal liability by the state. Agents of the state are often given the ability to break some laws in order to enforce other laws. The wealthy and politically well-connected are often able to get special privileges from our legal system and are always favored in political matters. Individuals convicted of felonies, not just violent felonies mind you, become a separate class and are stripped of several so-called rights. The list goes on but you get the point. Equality under the law doesn’t exist in the United States (or anywhere else that I’m aware of). The state sees fit to hold some groups to a “lower standard” while it holds other, usually the average individual, to a “higher standard.”

The legal system should not hold some to a “higher standard.” All should be equal under the law. If you’ve harmed another person or their property it should be irrelevant what your profession or status in life is. Murder is murder. Theft is theft. The only reason to establish “higher legal standards” for some groups is to allow discrimination. When somebody says they want carry permit holders held to a higher legal standard what they’re really saying is, “I don’t like the fact you carry a gun. Guns are scary and I want to discourage people from carrying them. Since I can’t prohibit you from carrying a gun I’ll do the next best thing, I’ll make sure your every action in life is placed under a microscope and if you screwup, even in the most minor of ways, you’ll spend the rest of your life rotting in a prison cell. Meanwhile I demand the law take it easy on me because I don’t carry a gun and therefore I’m not a blood thirsty ravenous monster like you.”