This is What You Pay Bureaucrats to Do

Bureaucrats exist for one reason and one reason only; they exist to suck money out of the economy that could have otherwise been put to productive use. For instance a bunch of bureaucrats decided that an umbrella is simply a mechanism to keep one’s self dry during a rain storm… unless you put it on the ground and sit under it, then your umbrella is a structure:

This evening, Seattle police notified the 70 or so hearty souls sleeping downtown that if they weren’t actually holding their umbrellas then they couldn’t lay or sit underneath them.

Because to the city, an unattended umbrella is technically a “structure.” And structures, like the tents that were taken down earlier in the week, aren’t allowed in city parks.

This type of absurd decision is similar to the one in Minneapolis that state you can seek shelter under a tarp during a rainstorm unless that tarp is tied to something or otherwise propped up, then it’s a structure. What’s most offensive about this decision though is that taxpayer money was used to pay these assholes while they debated this absolutely pointless topic.

Seriously, who the fuck even cares? I understand why many people don’t want tents being pitched in public areas but does it matter if somebody decides to sit under their umbrella? By Thor in Valhalla how have we allowed our society to degrade to such a point that we’re willing to pay some asshole in a suit large amounts of money to decide these minor and pointless things?

The Failure of Consensus

One of the common events taking place at the various occupations throughout the country are general assemblies. These general assemblies are basically a collectivist’s wet dream come true. As an individualist I look at them as completely unproductive wastes of time and after sitting through a couple I still hold that belief. Apparently I’m not the only one:

For the past three hours the crowd had been debating the creation of a new working group called Urban Youth. The process was laborious: While the facilitator had a microphone, it didn’t carry far, and each comment had to be repeated through Occupy’s elaborate Human Microphone system. The process was reminiscent of New England bureaucracy and legislative officialdom, procedures I’ve often panned as a local. Things were said like: “We need to see everyone’s hands in the air, because if we don’t have a quorum of people voting it won’t be considered consensus.”

At one point it looked like a decision was about to be reached. After hours of legislative meandering, the facilitator’s excitement was palpable. “Are there any points of information? No points of information. How about strong objections? I’m not seeing any strong objections. Are there any friendly amendments?” There was a long pause. An individual raised his hand, which indicated an amendment proposal. A moan rumbled through the crowd. The facilitator chuckled. “This is democracy,” he said. “Everyone has a voice.” The crowd began to cheer. “This is why we do this. Because we all have a voice!” You could feel the sense of frustration, of fatigue giving way to elation. I thought: Perhaps the essence of democracy is somehow entwined with the procedural humdrum of a Cambridge zoning board.

The biggest failures of general assemblies is the fact everything must be decided, and I mean everything. Each general assembly I viewed started with a discussion on how votes were going to be handled for that general assembly. I shit you not, an hour was spent discussing a vote on how voting was going to be done. These discussions usually revolved around whether or not 99% agreement was truly consensus or if 100% of the people present had to agree on everything.

Have you ever been in a meeting where 100% of the participants had to agree on something? If you have then you understand the impossibility of such a requirement. Have you ever stopped to wonder why a huge majority of businesses usually have a set hierarchy of power and why the military doesn’t both worrying about getting consensus of soldiers? It’s because getting such consensus takes for-fucking-ever.

Even apparently minor topics of discussion can take hours to debate before consensus within the group is reached. Ask a group of friends where you should go to eat sometimes, you won’t be out the door for an hour in all likelihood. The requirement of consensus is what ultimately paralyzes collectivist movements. Those of us who are individualists have it much easier because we simply say, “Hey I’m going to go do this, if you want to join me you’re welcome to and if you don’t that’s fine.” The only opinion an individualist worries about is his or her own and that’s why they can get things done (you can bet Albert Einstein, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and most other successful people never asked for consensus of those they were working with before doing their thing).

During the general assemblies I bore witness to you could see fatigue spreading throughout the attendees fairly quickly. Consensus was often reach simply because those who opposed whatever measure was being put forth were sick of debating and wanted to move on so they voted in favor. While the organizers and collectivists praised this democracy in action my friends and I simply stood there with small smiles as we watched the biggest failure of collectivism in action. After all if we wanted to do something we never worry about group consensus, we just go do whatever the Hell we want to go do.

Thankfully there is no way to make people abide by the decisions of those general assemblies. If everybody had to abide by the decisions of the entire group nothing would get done.

Social Contract

If I had a dollar for every time a statist brought up the term social contract I’d be filthy rich. The concept of a social contract has to be one of the dumbest ideas that has ever graced the mindes of men.

Of all the problems surrounding the concept of a social contract the biggest has to be the fact that nobody on this fucking planet can tell me what the exact terms of that contract are. Contracts are voluntary agreements between two entities that are enforceable by law. My biggest problems with the so-called social contract are the fact I never voluntarily agreed to any such contract and I have no idea what terms are in the contract.

In order to enforce a contract it must be known when somebody violates one of the contract’s terms. For instance let’s say we signed a contract stating you would install electrical wiring in my home for $100.00 and that wiring either had to be to code or you wouldn’t get paid. The terms are clear, you get paid if the city inspector says your job meets required electrical code or you don’t get paid. If you wire the house and it doesn’t meet electrical code then you have violated the contract, if you wire the house properly and I don’t pay you then I’ve violated the contract. Whether you violated the contract or I did is irrelevant insofar as there will be a court case in all likeliness.

As no definite terms exist in the social contract it is unenforceable because no party knows when they’re violating one of the terms. While some claim paying your taxes is part of the social contract they’ve been unable to point to where in this hypothetical contract the term exists. Somehow I was so ignorant that I agreed to a contract that obligates me to pay an undefined amount of money to the king. I’m usually smart enough to read a contract and strike out any term that says I have to pay money without defining exactly what that amount of money is.

What the social contract really boils down to is a decree. It states, “You will do whatever I say, whenever I say, and in return I’ll guarantee you nothing.” If statists wish to continue using the argument of a social contract they better get it written up so we know what the terms are. As far as I’m concerned you can’t enforce a contract unless a defined term within has been violated.

One Voluntaryist’s Take on the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act

Earlier this week I got into a very interesting conversation with another libertarian regarding the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. I’ll not reprint the entire conversation here but in summary I stated that, although holding some reservations, in general support the bill. My opponent holds a completely different opinion believing that it’s not for Congress to pass laws based on their interpretation of the Constitution and determining interpretations of the Constitution lies solely with the Supreme Court. Basically he believes Congress is overstepping its Constitutionally authorized powers by presenting this bill.

How can two libertarians come to completely different stances regarding this one bill? Simple, there are different categories of libertarians. My opponent is a strict constitutionalist while I am a voluntaryist. While both categories follow the non-aggression principle which constructs the foundation of libertarian philosophy and both categories believe in the rule of law there is a difference in belief of what constitutes aggression and what qualifies as law.

A strict constitutionalist does not believe a state operating under a country’s constitution is committing aggression as the constitution is considered a socially agreed upon document that those living within a country either must agree to or leave. Voluntaryists on the other hand believe that a state is necessarily violence as the definition of state is an entity that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a geographic area. Likewise a state can only be maintained through taxation which constitutes an act of agression against those being taxed.

Rest assured that I haven not wasted your time explaining the difference between the two as it is important knowledge to have in hand in order to understand the view I’m about to present regarding this bill.

As I stated in the beginning of this post I support the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act even though I hold some reservations about granting more power to the federal government. My support for this bill stems from my belief in absolute property rights which extents from my belief in the absolute right of self-ownership. There are only two legitimate means of obtaining property; homesteading and mutually agree to terms of trade between a prospective buyer and a person who either homesteaded the property or obtained it through a mutually agree upon trade. The act of homesteading necessarily requires that you mix your labor with the property (in other words make some kind of improvement to the property) in order to claim it as your own.

Unfortunately absolute property rights can not exist under a state. This fact can be demonstrated through two points; all land is claimed by the state as its own and the state maintains the power of eminent domain over all property within its geographic area. Being a state does not obtain its property through either of the two legitimate means of property attainment the state can not be said to legitimately own any property. What the state does have, however, is an incredible capacity for violence which its willing use in order to maintain its claim of property ownership.

Thus we have a conundrum, while the state should not be able to make rules regarding the actions of people on unowned property they do so through the threat and use of violence. Violence is an incredible tool for maintaining illegitimate claims and thus it’s often much easier to work within the state’s rules than to violate them. Thus it is in the best interests of those living under the state to acquire any liberties they can get away with. If acquiring these liberties can be done by obtaining permission from the state through a state approved legislative process then it might as well be used. A tool is a tool after all.

So we stand at a crossroad. In one direction the state claims the right to create arbitrary rules dictating the actions of those living within its borders. In the other direction we have the fact that the state has no legitimate claim to the property within its borders and thus has no legitimate grounds for dictating the actions of those living within. Meanwhile many of us wish to maintain our right to self-defense wherever we travel within the borders of the state (a right derived from self-ownership). I believe those of us wishing to maintain our right to self-defense should travel the road supporting the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.

The state has no right to demand that we travel through unowned property disarmed. If the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act is passed it will remove an arbitrary restriction placed upon the people in the United States. That is to say we will gain an additional liberty and remove one more rule that is enforced through violence. Likewise this bill will maintain the rights of legitimate property owners as nowhere within the bill’s text is there a decree that private property owners must allow armed individuals onto their property.

Albeit I usually do not support the federal government granting itself additional powers over the individual states I still support this law overall as it grants an additional liberty to those living in the United States. I still find the claims of my opponent dubious as the Bill of Rights clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Most libertarians in the strict constitutionalist camp seem to agree that this bill is an overall good thing but I understand the view of those who oppose it on the grounds that any additional powers claimed by the federal government are generally dangerous.

Preemptive War

Much of the United State’s foreign policy revolves around the concept of preemptive war. Although the concept seems simple on paper, take out potential enemies before they have a chance to be an actual threat, it becomes ethically dubious once you start thinking about the concept.

As with most concepts we need to break this one down to the lowest level which is the individual. Let us consider the concept of preemptive war but replace countries with individual people. In our hypothetical scenario we’re going to say you live next to Ishmael whom you believe to be not quite right in the head. Ishmael often talks about his belief that the apocalypse is coming and that it is his duty to destroy the enemies of his god, Loki. You’ve been watching Ishmael stock up on enough firepower to arm a small militia but suddenly you hear whispers that he’s found somebody willing to sell him a grenade launcher. After hearing this news you realize that Ishmael with a grenade launcher may not be the best thing in the world for your life expectancy and thus feel as though you need to stop him before he does something stupid and ends up killing you. Of course you have no actual proof that Ishmael means you harm or would actually be dangerous with a grenade launcher in his possession but it’s a possibility.

Using the concept of preemptive war you would then go over to Ishmael’s house, knock on his door, and shoot him in the face when he opened it. Congratulations, you’ve just enacted United States foreign policy in your own neighborhood.

This is the problem with preemptive war, it can’t legitimately be considered an act of self-defense because there is no fear of immediate and tangible danger. Self-defense necessarily requires the defender to feel as though there is an immediate and tangible threat to their life. You can’t shoot a teenage boy on the street and later justify your action by claiming he may have mugged you if given the change.

Preemptive war isn’t a form of self-defense no matter how many times our government claims it to be. It is the initiation of violence plain and simple and that is why libertarians oppose it.

That’s Called Charity

There was a recent story in the Red Star about Comcast’s new program that allowed students to get online access at a greatly reduced rate. As usual somebody is complaining:

I see that Comcast is making a big splash on your editorial pages (“Comcast helps poor get online,” Short Takes, Sept. 15).

Why don’t you give the credit where it is due — to the other Comcast customers who pay full price every month?

The ones who receive their bills and say, “Hey, hon, Comcast raised the rates again.”

Lower access fees, no equipment rental fees, computer vouchers for the poor– full-paying customers are the ones who gave away all these niceties.

Are we really to believe that Comcast is not passing the costs along?

EDWARD MCHUGH, East Bethel

What Edward doesn’t seem to understand is that this concept is known as charity. Personally I’m all for Comcast’s new service so long as they aren’t receiving any government subsidy to provide it and I’m a paying Comcast customer. I realize that programs such as this aren’t free and customers such as myself are likely paying for the offset but as it’s a means of giving voluntarily I’m all for it.

Unlike the government Comcast hasn’t put a gun to my head and said that I will pay more money to provide subsidized service to those who can’t afford the standard Comcast service. Comcast has said they will provide this subsidized service and I’m more than welcome to either continue using Comcast or find another Internet provider. If Mr. McHugh is unhappy with the possibility that some of his money may be going to provide cheaper Internet access to families who can’t afford Comcast’s standard service then he can demonstrate his unhappiness by using a different service provider.

Unless there is a government subsidy involved anytime a company gives money or subsidized products or services it comes from the profits they obtain through their customers. When Glock writes a big check to veteran associations that money originated from paying customers. When Apple matches employee donations to charities that money also originates from paying customers. If you believe you’re paying too high of a price for your good or service due to the manufacturer’s or provider’s charitable donations then you can simply stop doing business with that company.

I’m a huge fan of voluntary charity and it may surprise many to learn that I donate money to various causes that I support. The problem I have is when an entity like the government puts a gun to my head and forces me to give money to causes regardless of my opinion.

Everything Will Be a Felony

One of the arguments I make against prohibiting anybody with a felony from owning firearms is the fact that most felony crimes aren’t violent in nature. While an argument can be made to prohibit a murderer from owing a firearm as they have a history of violence there is no logical argument for preventing people charged with tax evasion from owning firearms. On top of that more crimes are being pushed up to felony level every day including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:

In order to step up the prosecution of hackers and scary cybercriminals, the feds are changing a law to make unauthorized access to a computer system a felony rather than just a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor. That means making a change to something called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The article mentions an amendment being proposed to exempt violations of websites’ terms of services from the law but that’s not the point of this particular post. The point is that the government is constantly increasing the severity of crimes and those increases may leave you barred from exercising your rights even though you’ve never done anything violent.

I’m a firm believer in making criminals pay proportional compensation to their victims. This means that punishments should fit and once that punishment is exacted no further punishment should be brought against you. Those who steal from somebody should be made to return the stolen property (or the property’s value if it’s no longer returnable) along with an amount equal to the value of the stolen property. Once that debt has been paid no further punishment should be brought against the criminal. There is nothing proportional about preventing somebody who evaded theft taxes or hacked a computer from owning firearms or voting.

A vast difference exists in violent and non-violent crimes. Many people who are willing to perform non-violent crimes such as speeding or fraud are not willing to perform violent crimes such as assault or murder. The idea that we should prohibit all felons from ever again owning firearms needs to go the way of the dodo. Too many crimes are listed as felonies to make any logical argument that all felons should have their rights removed. Under the current system the government could ban firearms simply by elevating more minor crimes such as speeding and jaywalking to felony status.

The Real Reason for the PATRIOT Act

Although our government claims that the PATRIOT Act is necessary to fight terrorism it’s more apparent every day that terrorism is the secondary consideration of this legislation:

So how has the Patriot Act fared as a defense against terrorism? The act has been used in 1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases.

So the PATRIOT Act has been used ~107 times more often to fight the war on drugs than the war on terror (I wonder if they can use it to fight the war on illiteracy or the war on poverty). This demonstrates that the PATRIOT Act isn’t seen as a last ditch piece of legislation to be used sparingly against only the most dangerous enemies of America. It’s obvious that this legislation was meant to be an all encompassing tool used to fight any and all crime.

In the eyes of the government civil rights too often get in the way of their agents enforcing laws against behaviors decreed illegal because some politician needed to manufacture something for the American people to fear in order to justify yet another expansion of government power.

USDA and FDA are Pointless Government Agencies

When I talk about wanting to dismantle government agencies people often claim that some regulatory agencies need to stay in place for our safety. One such agency that is often brought up is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). People will tell me that without regulatory agencies such as the FDA all our food would instantly become poisonous and we would all die of every food born pathogen ever. Another agency that seems to be loved is the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) who are in charge of various agriculture related regulations such as the process of certifying certain produce as organic. Neither of these agencies have proven themselves to be effective and, as this Mises Daily article explains, private certification entities would be far more effective:

Apparently, the FDA and the USDA have a stellar and unblemished track record of keeping the populace safe from tainted food and dangerous medicines.

Both lists are notable in length. What’s interesting when you think about it is the fact that neither agency received any form of punishment for failing to keep Americans safe. An utter lack of accountability is the biggest problem with government agencies. When a government agencie fails to fulfill its mandate they are usually given more power, more money, and more enforcement agents which creates an interesting conflict of interest as failures lead to rewards while success leads to more of the same. The reason for this inverse reward system is because government agencies usually receive funding based on the amount of fear they can generate and major failures generate a great deal of fear. As the article explains the same is not true for private agencies:

Private, third-party certifiers could inspect livestock and produce and affix their seal of approval only when certain standards are met. That the reputations of the inspectors and the farmers are truly on the line would preclude much of the graft and inefficiency that is a constant feature of the current system.

When a private ratings or certification agency screws up it’s their reputation that’s on the line and in such markets reputation is everything. If your agency is in charge of ensuring food safety and tainted foods certified by your agency get out in the open then it’s likely people will lose trust in your agency and thus you’ll not be in business for much longer. Thus private agencies receive rewards for performing well as more people will want that agency’s certification as it becomes trusted by more buyers. The accountability that is nonexistent in government agencies flourishes in the private sector.

The other problem with government agencies is that they’re overly bloated and extremely inefficient in providing their services. These inefficiencies lead to higher levels of expense as people who deal with the FDA and USDA know all too well:

There is a general consensus among those who are deeply devoted to such things that the USDA Certified Organic sticker is, at best, a limited indicator of the agricultural practices involved in the production of various foodstuffs. The USDA program is, like any government agency, bloated, inefficient, and inconsistent. It is rife with corruption and requires expenditures of time and money that preclude many small farmers from participating.

As a result, many small producers are eschewing the USDA label as simply not worth it.

The same is true of the FDA. Getting a drug or medical device approved by the FDA costs an exorbitant amount of money and takes many years. What this means is only large corporations (such as the much hated big pharmaceutical companies) can bring drugs and medical devices to market and the cost of those drugs and devices is extremely high in part to make up for the research and development costs of getting FDA approval. On top of that the years it takes to get FDA approval can cost lives when the drugs and medical devices are designed for use against life threatening ailments. Several years of approval time can literally means the difference between life and death for somebody who has been diagnosed with cancer.

In the case of USDA certification the free market is still allowed to operate and thus private certification agencies have sprung up that serve food growers who don’t want to deal with the expenses and headaches of getting USDA approvals:

The farm that runs the CSA (community-supported agriculture) to which I belong is explicit in their disclosure of their growing methods, all the while explaining that they have not received “official” organic certification. In short, there seems to be a general consensus among advocates of organic and sustainable agriculture that the government seal of approval is limited in its value.

[…]

In the absence of a reliable government organic-food regulatory agency, the market has provided several voluntary options. The Certified Naturally Grown program offers “a non-profit organization offering certification tailored for small-scale, direct-market farmers and beekeepers using natural methods.” They rely on voluntary participation and a peer-review system that is less expensive, less paperwork intensive, and more efficient than the USDA program.

Whole Foods Market has developed their own alternative for certifying certain production techniques for livestock and poultry, through a partnership with an animal-welfare nonprofit.

As I explained earlier these certification agencies has everything to lose which means motivation exists to ensure only those complying with their regulations receive their certification. Likewise these agencies do not have infinite funding and must ensure their operations run as efficiently as possible which lowers the cost of the services they provide. Though the best things about these agencies in my opinion is the fact that they’re voluntary and you only need to interact with them if you choose to do so.

Unfortunately the government has claimed a complete monopoly on the approval and certification of drugs and medical devices so no private competition to the FDA exists in the United States.

The next time somebody tells you that agencies like the USDA and FDA are absolutely critical to the safety of the American people remind them that the free market can not only provide the same services but can do a better job for less money.

Proof Once Again That It’s Not About Protection, It’s About Extortion

Numerous rants on this site can be found regarding the “justice” system in this country. Case in point we have the following court ruling in which a woman was prosecuted for selling counterfeit Cisco equipment:

A Virginia woman was sentenced Friday to five years in prison for leading a “sophisticated” conspiracy to import and sell counterfeit Cisco Systems networking equipment, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

I’m not going to complain about the charges or case itself but the punishment placed upon the perpetrator. This woman was nailed for selling counterfeit equipment which you can argue grants a legitimacy to Cisco’s claim of damages so I understand why she was made to pay restitution. What I don’t understand though is the rest of her punishment:

In addition to the prison time, Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia also ordered Chun-Yu Zhao, 43, of Chantilly, Virginia, to pay US$2.7 million restitution and a $17,500 fine.

The emphasized parts are the source of my confusion. As this woman wronged Cisco I can see why she would be made to pay restitution to the company but I see no reason why she should be thrown in prison and made to pay a fine to the government. In this case prison makes no sense since the supposed purpose of incarceration is to separate dangerous people from the rest of society. Somebody dealing in counterfeit goods is not a danger to society as no act of violence has been made. She didn’t assault or murder anybody, she simply committed acts of fraud.

Then there is the fine. Why should the government receive any money in this case? The courts are already paid for using tax dollars so a claim of funding can’t be legitimately made. The woman in no way wronged the government or “society” either so why the Hell do they get any cut from the ruling? It’s because our “justice” system is simply another funding mechanism for our government.

Some people may ask why this kind of thing bothers me. The reason it bothers me is because it creates a conflict of interest. Courts are argued to be impartial arbitrators whom can peacefully solve disputes between two entities. This impartiality is jeopardized when the government (who own the courts) receives money based on their ruling. In such cases a situation is created where the government gains if a guilty verdict is decided and therefore it’s in the best interest of the government to proclaim judgements of guilt.

When the government stands to receive $17,000 from a fine why would they entertain any idea of the accused being innocent? If the accused is ruled to be innocent the government receives nothing but if the accused is ruled to be guilty the government receives money. How can any claim of impartiality be made in such a system?