Category: Liberty

Absolute Property Rights

I often talk about the idea of absolute, or inviolable, property rights. Theft is wrong, whether it is a pickpocket on the street taking your wallet or the state taking your home under the guise of eminent domain. Funny enough many people will criticize the idea of absolute property rights because they lead to cases like this:

A property owner has ended living in the middle of a new main road after she refused to move out when developers started construction.

Hong Chunqin, 75, and her husband Kung, who live in the two dilapidated buildings with their two sons, had initially agreed to sell the property in Taizhou, in east China’s Zhejiang province and accepted £8,000 in compensation.

But then she changed her mind and refunded the money once work on the road had started.

She and her family are insisting they be allowed to choose where they are relocated to and have installed CCTV cameras to stop the developers from trying to demolish the building illegally.

In the People’s Republic of China, during most of the Communist era, private ownership of property was abolished, making it easy for residents to be moved on – but now the laws have been tightened up and it is illegal to demolish property by force without an agreement.

Property owners in China that refuse to move to make way for development are known as ‘Nail Householders’ referring to a stubborn nail that is not easy to remove from a piece of old wood and cannot be pulled out with a hammer.

What critics of absolute property rights see as wrong I see as a beautiful thing. Is it ironic that such a thing is now occurring in a communist country while property is often scarfed up by the state in the United States under eminent domain? Regardless, not only is this happening but it’s happening frequently enough that there’s a term for it. Some may think of these “nail householders” as annoying individuals who stand in the way of “progress” but I see them as heros who are refusing to bow down to the will of large development firms.

If you want my property you can have it, for a price. That price is my choosing and if you don’t believe it is worth the price then you can go without. Likewise, minus any contractual agreement, if I change my mind before we trade the goods I am well within my rights. It’s great to see some kind of acknowledgement of such rights in the world and it’s funny that those rights aren’t being recognized in a “free” name such as the United States but in a “communist” nation like China.

Brining Hope and Change Again

Obama is running on his hope and change platform again. He hopes that people will just forget about his last four years of stomping the gas pedal to tyranny and accept him as a freedom loving president who supports the rights of individuals. When his campaign is having protesters arrested that message becomes a bit more difficult to swallow:

Though the NATO summit won’t officially begin until later this week, police have already ramped up their presence in downtown Chicago and, on Monday morning, they made a number of arrests at President Obama’s campaign headquarters.

After a group of demonstrators rushed into Prudential Plaza, the building where Obama’s re-election campaign is based, eight protesters were led away in handcuffs when they refused to leave the building’s lobby, the Chicago Tribune reports. Police said the arrested demonstrators would likely be charged with criminal trespass.

The group was organized by the Catholic Worker movement and, according to Fox Chicago, was attempting to open up a dialogue around ending the U.S. occupation in Afghanistan. The action is part of what activists are calling a “week without capitalism.”

While those protesters may never get their wish of ending the occupation of Afghanistan at least they’re getting their goal of a week without capitalism. As I’ve explains the only alternative to capitalism is force. Instead of mutually beneficial relationships built upon voluntary trade those protesters are getting a taste of the alternative, the force of the state, and they don’t seem to be enjoying it.

Capitalism is a beautiful system that achieves mutual benefit by relying on self-interest. People are compelled to help each other because by doing so they are also helping themselves. If you make shoes and you need bread then you and the baker can make a mutually beneficial trade, shoes for bread. Those who perform the job of satisfying fellow individuals are rewarded so they may expand their operations and satisfy even more individuals’ needs. Capitalism stands as a stark opposition to the state’s violence where mutual benefit doesn’t arise because one party, the state, steals from the other party. Instead of mutual cooperation you have threats and acts of violence.

You want a world without capitalism? Good news, we already have it and it’s called the state. There is no need to protest or demonstrate because that goal has already been achieved. Instead of entering voluntary agreements with your fellow people you now have great portions of your wealth stolen from you so that it may be redistributed to those in the state’s favor. No need to trade for the people of Afghanistan exists because the United States government is there forcefully taking the desirable natural resources. Do you know what the best part is? You don’t have to limit yourself to a week without capitalism, you get to suffer your entire life without capitalism. Congratulations, your deepest desires have been fulfilled.

The Game

People often ask me, “Chris, if you don’t believe we can change things politically why do you even talk about politics?” The answer is simple, politics is my sick form of amusement. Politics is nothing more than a sport in my opinion and in this sport there are spectators, commentators, players, and coaches. The spectators are your average people who merely watch the game and cheer by otherwise have no power to change the outcome. Commentators are the people who talk about what is happening, explain the players’ strategies, and otherwise help the spectators understand what’s happening. Politicians are the players and lobbyists are the coaches.

I play the part of commentator. Beyond explaining how the game is player I also explain what is or has recently happened. Like the spectators I have no actual power to affect the game but enjoy observing it and talking about it.

The spectators generally know the rules of the game by heart but know nothing of the nuances. They know that a bill must pass the Senate and House then be signed by the president but don’t understand all the lobbying and cronyism that goes on behind closed doors instead relying on commentators to explain those parts. While there are a vast number of teams playing this sport spectators generally have a very binary view of things. They only see the game as “their team” versus “the other team.” “Their team” is one the left or right side of the field while “the other team” is on the opposite side of the field. What about the other fields? Entirely forgotten unless “their team” is playing an away game there. Most of these spectators hold a great deal of superstition regarding games and believe their performance of certain rituals, like voting, can actually change the outcome of the game. No matter how many times you explain their wearing a specific red hat or jersey has no affect on the outcome of the game they refuse to believe you.

Coaches are the ones who call the shots. They train the players and develop the strategies but don’t physically play the game. Lobbyists and other cronies are the ones who tell the politicians what “the spectators” want and give them the strategies to achieve those desires. When an automobile manufacturer crony approaches a politician with a bill designed to shut out the manufacturer’s competition they will tell the politician how to sell it to the public. The crony will explain that the bill is for improving the environment and ignores the fact that implementing the bill’s demands is extremely expensive and therefore will cause smaller competitors to go out of business. Taking the crony’s advice the politicians being to play the actual game, selling the spectators what they want to see.

Each team promises to deliver its fans what they want. Fans of the “left” generally want the “right” to fail. When a player for the “left” says the fans want higher taxes on the wealth the “left’s” fans begin demanding higher taxes on the wealth. The “right” tells its fans to oppose higher taxes on the wealthy so the “right’s” fans begin vehemently opposing higher taxes on the wealthy. Whether the “left” wins or the “right” wins is irrelevant because nothing will negatively affect the wealthy, yet the spectators will feel as though they received a glorious victory or a horrendous defeat. Either way the spectators keep buying tickets and watching the game while the coaches and players become insanely wealthy.

That’s what politics is, a game. You can play any part if you really want to but ultimately the only people who matter are the players and coaches. That is until you realize that the game can no longer be played if the spectators stop showing up and giving the game legitimacy. Nothing will change regardless of what team wins, the only winning move is not to play.

Regarding the Supreme Court

With the upcoming election the most common scare tactic being used by those who advocate gun owners support Romney are possible upcoming Supreme Court nominations. For those who don’t know the president of the United States gets the privilege of nominating Supreme Court justices and those justices serve a lifelong term. Currently Romney’s camp are trying to scare people into voting for Romney by saying Obama will likely nominate Eric Holder as a Supreme Court justice. Honestly, if possible Supreme Court nominations weren’t on the horizon these people would likely come up with some of justification of why you should vote for Romney.

I’m not going to sit here and tell you who to vote for, that’s your business if you even bother to vote at all. What I want to consider is the Supreme Court itself and its implications for liberty. Many of the same people encouraging gun owners to vote for Romney are also individuals who think the Constitution is some kind of biblical document that was brought down by Moses from Mount Sinai. I hold a different view, I don’t actually like the Constitution all that much. Yes, it is better than most constitutions but I find the Article of Confederation far more desirable than the United States Constitution. Part of the reason I dislike the Constitution involves the judicial branch and the Supreme Court itself. The United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch in Article III:

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

From this single article of the Constitution has arisen a court that has the power to rule what rights individuals do and do not have. For example, the Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” To laymen that wording seems very straightforward, everybody enjoys the right to own and use firearms without any infringement agains that right. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, allowing restrictions against this supposed right.

When the Supreme Court makes a ruling it becomes the law of the land. If the Supreme Court ruled that the state held the right to confiscate any firearm at any time would people role over and submit to the state agents going from house to house taking arms? Those who subscribe to the idea that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority of the matter of individual rights should, less they be hypocrites. To individuals like myself, who believe in the absolute right of self-ownership, the idea that nine men wearing robes can determine what my rights are is comical.

What if the Supreme Court did rule that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right that could be violated by the state? It’s an interesting thing to consider. If you don’t recognize the state’s authority the ruling of the Supreme Court becomes irrelevant outside of the fact violence will be brought against your person if you should violated their decree. If you do recognize the state’s authority then you must also accept their ruling and comply with it believing it is right.

Those who recognize the absolute authority of the Supreme Court must then admit that they believe rights are not rights but state granted privileges. At any point these privileges could be taken away by the ruling of a mere five people (since Supreme Court rulings are always based on the majority out of nine). If one judge had ruled against incorporation of the Second Amendment every state would have the right to prohibit the ownership of firearms. If that had been the case then the Second Amendment, which states the right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed, would have been a temporary right stripped by a single Supreme Court ruling. In essence, the five judges who ruled in favor of incorporation each held the power to strip a supposed right from the people of the United States. Think about that for a minute, five people in this country held the power to determine whether or not those of us living in the United States had a right.

To me, the idea that five individual can legitimately determine what my rights are is absurd. Could the Supreme Court then rule that the First Amendment isn’t actually applicable? They did, in seven court cases. If the Supreme Court had rules opposing in any single mentioned case we would not enjoy the supposed rights we do today.

Believing that the Supreme Court holds some kind of authority necessarily means you believe rights are not only privileges but temporary privileges. Even though the Second Amendment has been incorporated by the Supreme Court people are afraid that one of Obama’s nominees may reverse that decision in another case. Stop and think about that for a moment. The Supreme Court holds the power to determine what rights you do and don’t have and that determination can be changed at any time. Why isn’t anybody pissed about that? Aren’t rights supposed to be absolute? Doesn’t the Constitution protect our rights? What happens when a clause in the Bill or Rights opposes a ruling by a court established by the Constitution?

I don’t think people spend enough time considering topics like this. Perhaps we should spend less time worrying about Supreme Court nominations and more time getting pissed off at the fact our rights are temporary privileges that can be granted to taken by the state whenever five individuals in robes decide so. Frankly I don’t give a shit who is on the Supreme Court because I find that entire court to be a sham. They no more hold a right to determine what my rights are than I have a right to determine what your rights are.

Before somebody posts a comment saying, “Yeah the situation sucks but it is what it is so you have to vote for Romney” let me just say this: no I don’t. The situation sucks because people kept voting for the “lesser” or two evils. Every time somebody justified voting for the “lesser” evil they have been responsible for the situation we face today. I’m not going to be part of the problem and I sure as the hell am not going to be the guy who has to explain to his children why their life sucks so much. Do you know what really sucks? People who cow to the state. Something isn’t so just because the state says it. If the state said you had to kill your neighbor would you kill your neighbor? What if the state decided to reverse its decision on abolishing slavery, would you help round up fellow human beings to be sold as slaves? How far are you willing to be pushed until you finally say “No?” I’ve already reached that point, I’m down cowing to the state, and I’m no longer going to be an obedient little dog whose only decision is whether I should put a checkmark next to the (R) or (D). I urge those of you reading this to join me. Whether you vote for the Libertarian Party, Constitution Part, Green Party, Independent Party, or don’t vote at all is irrelevant to me. My only request is that you think and stop relying on the state to do your thinking for you.

If the Supreme Court rules that I no longer have the right to keep and bear arms I will disregard that ruling just as I would disregard any ruling stating I no longer have the freedom of speech. Because of this I don’t care who the justices are nor will allow myself to be suckered into voting for Romney based on what amounts to a ghost story.

Why Libertarians Oppose Romney

With the likelihood of Romney’s ascension to presidential nominee becoming more likely by the day it’s not surprising that friction is developing between self-proclaimed conservatives and libertarians. We’re being bombarded with self-proclaimed conservatives demanding libertarians get behind Romney because the alternative is so much worse. When libertarians say they will only support Ron Paul they’re seen a whiners who are upset because they didn’t get their way. Truth be told libertarians refusal to support Romney has nothing to do with Ron Paul losing the nomination, it has everything to do with the very foundation libertarianism is based upon. There is such a vast difference between so-called conservatives and libertarians that they will likely never come together politically:

A simple way to demonstrate the chasm that separates libertarians from “conservatives” of the 21st century is to use news incidents and media images as Rorschach inkblots and consider how differently each would respond.

When a libertarian witnesses an emaciated destitute, confronted, seized, and roughly rifled by the constabulary under dubious pretenses on “reality” TV, he is not immediately elated. Most of us question the necessity of such an action even if a joint, crack pipe, or penknife is found. We are offended by the image of a man abject — on the ground and in the clutches of enormous, armored, and heavily armed men — without substantive evidence that he has harmed someone else. That these same public servants can bust into people’s homes, terrorize their children, kill their pets, shackle their persons, and destroy personal property on the flimsiest of pretexts is repellent to anyone placing even a modest value on the word liberty.

This debate is no more prevalent than in the gun community. Many gun owners are now backing Romney because they perceive Romney as “less” evil than Obama when it comes to gun rights. Other gun owners, such as myself, won’t back Romney because he opposes the vary foundation of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle.

First and foremost I’m not a libertarian because I support gun rights, I support gun rights because I’m a libertarian. Above all I strive to bring forth a world as free of coercion as possible. I don’t see gun rights as an isolated issue but as a right derived from self-ownership. As a self-owner I have the right to choose what I want to expend my labor to achieve and I also have a right to defend my person and property. If I want to purchase a firearm it is my right to labor to achieve that goal. Nobody has a right to prevent me from purchasing a firearm just as nobody has a right to prevent me from purchasing a car or television. The non-aggression principle opposes the initiation of force but not the return of force in self-defense, so ownership of firearms in no way violates the foundation of libertarianism. As a libertarian I also cannot justify coercing others into providing me security so I must provide my own and a firearm is a tool that allows me to do so.

When you boil it down all people are single-issue voters. If you’ve studied Austrian economics you’ve learned value is subjective and ranked. Each individual has a ranked list of things they value with more valued things appearing higher on the list than less valued things. At the very top of our list we have our most valued thing and, ultimately, that thing is our single issue that we will forsake all other issues for.

Here is where the main philosophical difference comes in between libertarians and those claiming we must support Romney if we have any hope of preserving gun rights. Libertarians’ single issue is the non-aggression principle whereas those demanding gun owners support Romney have gun ownership as their single issue. In order to support Romney I would have to forsake my single issue because Romney favors the use of force and coercion to control the actions of others. He supports war outside of self-defense, which is nothing more than forcing other countries to bow to the will of the United States. Romney also supports drug prohibition, which is a use of force to prevent individuals from deciding what manufacture, sell, and use. Let’s also not forget his support for the “assault” weapons ban, which is the use of force to prevent people from buying certain firearms. Asking a libertarian to support Romney is like asking a proponent of gun rights to support Sarah Brady.

Libertarians aren’t refusing to support Romney because we’re butt hurt over Paul not getting the nomination, we’re refusing to support Romney because Romney opposes the non-aggression principle. If you’re a proponent of gun rights who is angry at Paul supporters for not getting behind Romney you need to put yourself into our shoes and imagine yourself being asked to chose between Michael Bloomberg or Sarah Brady for president. Let’s further expand the situation and say you were supporting John Lott during the presidential nomination process but he lost to Bloomberg. Would you back Bloomberg because he is the “lesser” or two evils? I would certainly hope not. If you would then gun rights are not your most valued issue.

Free Market Currency

I read that Ron Paul introduced HR 1098, the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011. The bill is straightforward, if passed it would abolish current legal tender laws that are used by the state to enact tight economic control over the populace:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LEGAL TENDER LAWS.

(a) In General- Section 5103 of title 31, United States Code (relating to legal tender), is hereby repealed.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subchapter I of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 5103 and inserting the following new item:
‘5103. [Repealed].’.

SEC. 3. NO TAX ON CERTAIN COINS AND BULLION.

(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law–

(1) no tax may be imposed on (or with respect to the sale, exchange, or other disposition of) any coin, medal, token, or gold, silver, platinum, palladium, or rhodium bullion, whether issued by a State, the United States, a foreign government, or any other person; and

(2) no State may assess any tax or fee on any currency, or any other monetary instrument, which is used in the transaction of interstate commerce or commerce with a foreign country, and which is subject to the enjoyment of legal tender status under article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution.

(b) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on December 31, 2011, but shall not apply to taxes or fees imposed before such date.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF SUPERFLUOUS SECTIONS.

(a) In General- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking sections 486 (relating to uttering coins of gold, silver, or other metal) and 489 (making or possessing likeness of coins).

(b) Conforming Amendment to Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 25 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the items relating to the sections stricken by subsection (a).

(c) Special Rule Concerning Retroactive Effect- Any prosecution under the sections stricken by subsection (a) shall abate upon the taking effect of this section. Any previous conviction under those sections shall be null and void.

Money, in the true sense of the word, is nothing more than a good that facilitates trade. Barter is a pain in the ass because it’s very difficult to find the exact goods somebody else needs. If you want to buy a box of ammunition and the person selling ammunition needs a dozen eggs, half of a pound of ground beef, and a pair of socks you’re going to have to trade for all of those items first. To overcome this complexity the market eventually began using what we think of as money today.

Historically speaking gold and silver have been chosen as money as both commodities have several traits that are desirable in money. Gold and silver coins are easily divided for the performance of smaller transactions, durable (they won’t rust away on you), and portable. Both metals also have intrinsic value meaning they can actually be used to manufacture stuff if nobody is willing to take them as money anymore.

Most states now legally mandate a currency and that currency is always fait, that is to say it has no intrinsic value. Fiat currencies are the stuff of dreams to governments because it allows them to effectively dictate the value and print whatever quantity they need to pay for whatever exorbitantly expensive project their heart is currently set on. Unfortunately these traits that make fiat currency the cat’s meow to the state also make that very same currency toxic to individuals like you and me. The phenomenon known as inflation is a product of fiat currencies. When the state prints more money to pay off whatever project it deems desirable it decreases the purchasing power of everybody holding that currency.

Unfortunately one needs to hold United States dollars because the state mandates you pay all taxes in dollars and requires individuals to accept dollars as payments for debts:

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

Legal tender laws are downright evil. When the state demands all individuals accept Federal Reserve notes they are really saying, “OK serf listen up, you will trade any good or service you have for this piece of paper with a number and the picture of a dead president printed on it. This piece of paper will also constantly be in a state of devaluation.” The libertarian in me love this bill but the agorist in my doesn’t really see the point.

The only thing you need to do to accept an alternate currency is… accept an alternate currency. Do you want to be pain in silver bullion? Trade your goods or services for silver bullion. Want BitCoins? Only trade your goods and services for BitCoins. In fact one of the keystones of the agorist movement is alternative currencies. Let’s face it, the state derives a great deal of power from forcing people to use their currency. It is both the reason why agorists prefer dealing in alternate currencies and why this bill will never pass.

Libertarianism Outside the United States

Many people often claim that libertarianism is a phenomenon restricted to the United States. This is hogwash. Libertarianism is everywhere people are burdened by the state they live under. Take for example India:


Picture found on Reddit

The list he’s holding is just a sample of the monetary burdens imposed upon him by the Indian state. When you read through it you become aware of just how many different taxes, fines, and fees a business man ends up paying to the state. Everybody who claims some people aren’t paying their “fair share” can shove it because the “fair share,” according to the state, is everything you’ve got.