Liberty – Page 9 – A Geek With Guns

Opposing the War on Immigrants

One of the issues anarchist and statist libertarians often butt heads is immigration. Us anarchist libertarians don’t believe the imaginary lines created by illegitimate entities should exist. Statist libertarians often cherish those imaginary lines to such a point that they demand fences, guard towers, and armed patrols to keep people on the other side out.

The problem with strong borders is that they necessarily require a strong enforcer. A strong enforcer in the hands of the state will always lead to the expansion of state power:

Libertarians should pay more attention to the ban on immigration. These regulations are big government at its worst: over-militarization, over-criminalization, over-regulation, anti-market, and anti-liberty. Nearly every aspect of American life is affected by them, yet many libertarians are still ambivalent.

Its consequences are devastating. Consider this fact: the number one reason for arrests under federal law last year was for unsanctioned entry into the United States. And it’s not even close. Half of all federal arrests in the United States are for immigration offenses — drugs are a distant second at just 15 percent.

If libertarians are focused on reducing government power and intrusion into the lives of peaceful people, immigration ought to receive at least as much attention as the drug war. But it’s almost like the liberty movement is stuck in the 1980s when illegal immigration, though common, was largely ignored.

Statist libertarians, and other opponents of freedom of movement that claim to support small government, cannot have both a small government and heavily defended borders. Anybody who follows a philosophy that advocates free markets should understand the problem here. The state is a monolithic entity that is slow to adapt to changes and relies on violence to accomplish all of its goals. Meanwhile immigrants are more akin to market actors. There are millions of them and when you have millions of people who can quickly adapt to changes going against a single entity that seldom adapts to changes the former group is going to win.

We see this today. When the state throws up border crossings on major highways immigrants use less traveled routes. When the state builds a wall immigrants climb over it, cut through it, or tunnel under it. When the state patrols the border immigrants watch their patrol patterns and learn how to avoid them. No matter what the state does immigrants adapt their strategies to compensate.

Furthermore immigrants seldom have a lot of money so they come up with cheap solutions. This harkens back to asymmetrical warfare. One side uses cheap tactics to take out the other side’s very expensive equipment. Eventually the size utilizing cheap tactics wins by simply bleeding the other side dry. Immigrants, likewise, use cheap tactics that the state tries to counter with extremely expensive equipment and tactics. A handful of immigrants crossing the border can cause the state to spend out police patrols to pull over anybody who has a bit too much melanin in their skin to check for their citizenship papers. Patrols like that cost a lot of money.

Libertarians, even those who believe those imaginary lines are important, should oppose the war on immigrant on the grounds that it’s incredibly inefficient and a detriment to liberty.

Giving Back to Society

It amuses me when people talk about the wealthy market actors needing to “give back to society” and then saying holding a political office is a public service.

Let’s consider the difference between a wealthy person who created a product that people wanted versus a politicians. Steve Jobs, for example, became an extremely wealthy man by producing computers, portable music players, and phones that people really wanted. People wanted these products so much that they were willing to give him money in exchange. How can one claim he needs to “give back to society” when he already gave people in society what they wanted?

Politicians are the polar opposite. Instead of fulfilling the wants of people in society politicians dictate what they want society to want. When a politician says a community needs a new school they don’t build one with their own money and see if members of the community want it. What they do is hold a meeting with their fellow politicians, vote to build a new school, then plunder more money from the community by issuing a tax increase to build it. Where a market actor gives to the community a politician takes from the community. How can holding political office be considered a public service when the job involves stealing from people?

If anybody needs to “give back to society” it’s the politicians and they can start by giving back all of the money they’ve plundered from me over the years. I chose to give Steve Jobs my money of my own volition. The only reason I give the politicians money is because the alternative involves a cop smashing my face in with a truncheon.

Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Results

On my wrist is a device for measuring the passage of time. It is made by Seiko, purely mechanical, and hopelessly outdated. Why do I say it’s outdated? Because it measures the passage of time by the oscillation of a balance wheel. It’s also powered by a mainspring that can keep the watch running for approximately 40 hours. The general workings of the movement are very similar to the general workings of a 100 year-old pocket watch. In the 1970s a new type of movement became popular. It used the oscillation of a quartz crystal to measure the passage of time. Not only is this more accurate than relying on the oscillation of a balance wheel but it’s also cheaper to manufacturer, immune to magnetism, can remain powered for five years on a single battery, and doesn’t need any lubrication. Wristwatches with quartz movements are superior in every way to their mechanical brethren. Why do I wear a mechanical wristwatch? Because I enjoy all of the gears, springs, and levers working together to measure the passage of time. What does this have to do with anything? Quite a lot, actually.

Yesterday I was involved in a discussion about the Tesla Model 3. I see the Tesla vehicle as a major leap in automobile technology. Not only does it decouple the power source from the vehicle it’s also mechanically simpler than a gasoline powered vehicle. Having a 200 mile range also makes it very useful to anybody living in an urban area that makes a fairly short commute every day. Since the Tesla car offers so much it was guaranteed that somebody would bitch about it.

Another person in the discussion wrote the Tesla off as worthless because it didn’t fit her use case. She needs to make periodic 350 mile trips, which is outside of the Tesla Model 3’s 200 mile range. I pointed out that the Tesla is still in its infancy and battery improvements would likely advance rapidly and give the car greater range. Her response was to claim battery technology advances only over decades.

This is a common fallacy people fall into. They use current trends to make predictions about the future. But technology doesn’t advance linearly. It advances exponentially. That’s because breakthroughs in one field can lead to improvements in other fields. My wristwatch is an example of that. For hundreds of years tools to measure the passage of time relied on mechanical parts. Their complexity made them expensive to manufacture. After hundreds of years of little improvement the quartz movement was released to the world and it was greeted with open arms. People snapped up quartz wristwatches at such a pace that designers of mechanical wristwatches began calling that period the Quartz Crisis. Advancements in electronics had propelled instruments of measuring the passage of time forward.

But that’s not the only example. Humans have been using the bow and arrow for thousands of years. By the 1900s it would be safe to say there wasn’t much left to learn about bows and arrows, right? Wrong. In the 1960s a revolutionary design called the compound bow was released. By utilizing cams a compound bow was able to not only store more energy but also allow the archer to hold the bowstring at full draw longer by reducing the weight to almost nothing. When you draw a compound bow there is a lot of weigh initially and then it tappers off. Even after thousands of years humanity found a way to revolutionize the bow and arrow.

I work in the computer field, which sees constant advancements. Few people stop to consider how far computers have advanced in a few years. In my pocket is a computer that is more powerful than my eight year-old desktop. Not only is it more powerful but it’s also more power efficient. And it’s has 24/7 Internet connectivity thanks to a high-speed wireless technology that was little more than an idea a decade ago.

Dismissing a technology because of past performance is idiotic. The phrase “past performance does not guarantee future results” is traditionally used to note that a previously successful person many not necessary be successful in the future. But it also applies to technological advancements. Just because it took decades to advance battery technology before doesn’t mean it’s going to take decades to advance it again. New materials could be developed tomorrow that allow for lighter batteries that can store more energy and survive more recharge cycles. Suddenly the Tesla Model 4 could have a range of 1,000 miles on a single charge and outlast any gasoline-powered vehicle.

As a general rule I don’t bet against technological advancements. That’s synonymous with saying I don’t bet against markets. The reason I’m so optimistic about market solutions is because markets are constantly advancing. Problems we don’t even know we have are being solved right now. Did you know that pulling your cellular phone out of your pocket is inconvenient? I bet you didn’t. But smart watches exist that allow you to keep your phone in your pocket for longer and enough people enjoy this solution that an entire market is being built around the technology. Markets are the opposite of government. Governments stagnate. Markets advance. When people claim markets can’t solve a solution they are making a sucker’s bet. Just because a market solution to a problem doesn’t currently exist doesn’t mean one won’t exist in the future. Even if a market solution hasn’t be developed over a thousand years doesn’t imply one won’t exist tomorrow.

When a statist predicts anarchism will fail they are making future predictions based on current trends (i.e. the world is currently a statist shithole so it will always be a statist shithole). This is why I don’t take them seriously and never accept their predictions of doom and gloom if the world ever frees itself from the statism.

Freedom of Speech Doesn’t Imply Freedom from Criticism

The freedom of speech has received a lot of press lately. Between people stomping on American flags and religious bigots painting the entirety of Islam in bad colors a lot of people have been either defending freedom of speech or condemning it. What’s especially interesting to me though are the people who are labeling anybody who criticizes acts of free speech as opponents of free speech. It seems that many people have forgotten that the freedom of speech doesn’t imply freedom from criticism.

Case in point, Pamela Geller. Neocons and other bigots are holding her up as a paragon of free speech for her Islamophobic tirades. Anybody who calls Geller an asshole is accused of infringing on her freedom of speech. I think Geller is an asshole because she is blaming an entire religion for the actions of a few. With that said, I also believe she has every right to say what she’s saying. Why? Because I believe everybody has the right to say what they wish. But part of that right is that I am free to criticize anybody I disagree with for what they say.

Freedom of speech is a two-way street. If you are free to say something I disagree with then I am free to say that I disagree with you. Doing so doesn’t mean I’m infringing on your freedom of speech. Infringement would only occur if I used force to silence you. If somebody says, “All Muslims are evil.” and I respond by saying, “You’re an ignorant asshole.” I haven’t infringed the first person’s freedom of speech. However, if I were to pull a gun on the first person and say, “Shut your mouth or I’ll kill you!” then I have infringed on their freedom of speech.

What about flag stomping or burning? Is that an exercise of free speech? That depends entirely on whether or not the person who owns the flag is doing or has authorized such actions. Somebody purchasing a flag for the sole purpose of stomping or burning it is exercising their right as a property owner. When something belongs to me I have every right to do with it as I please. If somebody steals another person’s flag to stomp or burn then they are thieves. In my opinion free speech isn’t the important question in regards to flag desecration, ownership is. Threatening somebody who is stomping or burning their own flag is an infringement of property rights. You have every right to disagree with their choice in how they use their property but you have no right to use force to stop them unless their use is an initiation of force.

The line between criticism and infringement isn’t a fine one that is easily missed. So long as force isn’t on the table no infringement exists. This is true of free speech and property rights.

Agorism and Decentralized Power

One of the major news items this week was Elon Musk unveiling the Powerwall, a battery pack aimed at making renewable energy sources more useful. The idea isn’t a new one. People, especially those living in remote areas, have been making homemade energy storage mechanisms, usually out of car or marine batteries, charged by solar panels for some time now. What the Powerwall brings to the table is an affordable prepackaged solution that you can have professionally installed. Advocates of renewable energy have been cheering this announcement while detractors have been pointing out the return on investment:

But as of right now, the ROI still takes too long to reach break-even for people to view it as an economic benefit.

Why? Basically, it boils down to how much you pay per kWh put into the battery, which is then retrieved later. And if you don’t already have a big enough photovoltaic system to get off the grid, paying the estimated $0.30/kWh for electricity through the Powerwall may not make much sense. On average, grid prices for electricity in the US are about $0.12/kWh. Rooftop solar PV is estimated to reach grid parity in most places by 2016, but it’s not quite there yet.

The author of this statement makes a common economic mistake by assuming the only return one gains from an investment is monetary. Value is subjective and there are many advantages to a product such as the Powerwall other than saving money on the power bill. For agorists the biggest advantage may be decentralization.

Relying on a centralized power infrastructure has several downsides. First, if the complex centralized system goes down you have no power. This is becoming a bigger deal as we come to rely on our electrically powered appliances and devices more heavily. By having your own solar array and battery to storage energy for cloudy days and nights you can keep your gear running even if the centralized power grid goes down.

Second, and this is a big one for agorists, a centralized power system is more easy for a state to tax. One of the reasons states prefer big businesses over small ones is that they reduce the costs of enforcing a tax scheme. It’s easier for a state to keep tabs on a handful of large businesses than thousands of little ones. Since businesses act as tax collectors themselves by withholding payroll taxes for the state having a handful of large employers further reduces the state’s overhead. Power is the same. By having everybody hooked into a centralized system the state can collect power-related taxes easily by putting the power provider in charge of collecting. Even if the state declared a tax on power generated by personally owned solar panels it would be a nightmare to enforce. The more decentralized the power infrastructure is the more difficult it is for the state to use it as a tax collecting mechanism.

Third, and this is probably even more important for agorists, the state can more readily utilize a centralized power infrastructure to enforce its decrees. It’s possible for the state to utilized power usage to detect cannabis growers. With a centralized system it’s trivial to convince the power company to report large spikes in customer power usage by either offering a reward or through coercive means. Any prohibited activity that requires a large amount of power could be caught by monitoring the centralized power system. By relying on your own solar panels you can more readily conceal you power usage since you don’t have nosy power providers checking how much you’ve used every month.

By making solar power more accessible the Powerwall stands to be a good product for agorists because it allows one to further decouple themselves from the state. Because of that it stands to have a much quicker return on investment that most people are giving it credit for. I know the value of being able to further separate myself from the state is enormous, especially if the means of separating myself open up additional revenue sources that were otherwise too risky.

Entrepreneurship is the Best Defense Against Hierarchy

G. K. Chesterton once wrote, “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.” The concern that a handful of capitalists will eventually become so wealthy and powerful that they will wield complete power over the rest of society is one often raised by socialists. It’s a common criticism against libertarianism (especially anarcho-capitalism). And it’s not without merit. Employees are naturally at a disadvantage when compared to employers.

What’s to stop an employer, for example, from demanding an employee either provide sexual favors or face termination? Statists will point out that this is the reason a state is necessary but then ignore that agents of the state could, and periodically do, demand exactly that. Libertarians will point out that the employee is free to find employment elsewhere but then ignores the difficulty, especially if the employee is providing for their family, often involved in doing so. Communists will point out that such demands are irrelevant when everybody is economically equal but then ignore the necessity of a hierarchy to enforce that equality.

All three approaches to the problem result in hierarchy. In the case of statism the state wields power that is even greater than that of the employer. Under libertarianism the employer wields power over the employee. Communism, although its advocates often pretend it’s not so, requires a power over all members of society to enforce economic equality. So what’s the solution? Easy. Become an entrepreneur.

OK, it’s not necessarily easy but nothing worth doing ever is. Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK3), in A New Libertarian Manifesto [PDF], expressed his belief that the employer-employee relationship is a holdover from feudal times and would likely disappear in a free society. Although I’m not sure if the employer-employee relationship would disappear entirely in a free society I do believe eliminating this relationship as much as possible is the most effective means of creating and maintaining a free society. The failure of statism and communism is that they look at the problems inherent in hierarchy on a societal level. Libertarianism understands that the problems inherent in hierarchy must be looked at on an individual level. Where many libertarians fall short is assuming everything stops at the non-aggression principle.

The non-aggression principle certainly allows for employer-employee relationships. But the non-aggression principle only asks if something is ethical. Just because something is ethical doesn’t mean it’s optimal. Consider a meth addict. There’s nothing unethical under the non-aggression principle in using meth. That doesn’t mean slowly killing yourself with meth is a great idea though (although that determination, ultimately, lies with the meth user). Likewise, there’s nothing wrong with being an employee but it may not necessarily be an optimal situation.

When you work for an employer you necessarily have to abide by their terms. If you don’t they can fire you. Under a state you may have some protections from an employer but you must then abide by the state’s terms. Failing to do so will likely result in even more severe consequences since the state reserves for itself the right to kidnap, cage, and even murder you. Therefore the only means of achieving true liberty is to be self-sufficient.

Self-sufficiency often brings to mind recluses living in the woods, raising their own food, and building their own shelter. This doesn’t have to be the case though. Anybody who has the means of creating enough wealth to trade for their wants and needs is self-sufficient. You don’t need to raise your own food so long as you can trade with somebody who has a surplus of food and is willing to trade it with you. As an entrepreneur you cannot be fired by a boss and you’re not reliant on a state to protect you from an egregious employer.

One might ask, what if nobody is making what you want or need? That indicates an unfulfilled market demand, which is a great opportunity for entrepreneurship. In all likelihood if you want or need something then somebody else does as well. If you have a want or need that’s unfulfilled use the opportunity to practice a little entrepreneurship.

In a stateless society where everybody is an entrepreneur the amount of hierarchy is extremely limited. To return to Chesterton’s quote, capitalism maximizes individual liberty when everybody is a capitalist. This is something SEK3 understood. And while the universe doesn’t allow for perfect solutions being and entrepreneur is certainly a better option for individual liberty than being reliant on somebody else.

We need to move the conversation away from the employer-employee relationship and towards advocating entrepreneurship.

A New Nation is Born

While good patriotic Americans were getting their jingoism on and communists were deluding themselves into believing a world with completely economic equality is possible, a small group of people were declaring their independence. These people occupy a small 2.7 square mile plot of land on the border between Croatian and Serbia:

A group of Czechs and self-styled founding fathers of a “micro-nation” on the bank of the Danube River held their own version of Independence Day Friday, christening “Liberland” as a 2.7-square-mile country where taxes are optional and freedom reigns.

Vít Jedlička, a Czech libertarian politician who claims to have found a plot of land left unclaimed in the 1990s border settlement between Croatia and Serbia, told FoxNews.com dozens of would-be citizens traveled by boat to Liberland to toast its birth.

[…]

Jedlička, who is a member of the Conservative Party of Free Citizens in the Czech Republic, recently appointed himself president of the new free republic of Liberland, on the tiny patch of land that sits on the Croatian-Serbia Border. Jedlička claims international law allows his claim over the terra nullius—or literally “No Man’s Land.”

Libertarians are cheering this declaration while statists are scoffing. To libertarians the declaration of independence is just as legitimate as any other country’s declaration of independence. Meanwhile statists cannot comprehend the idea that a nation can exist unless it has the permission, err, recognition of other states.

I’m glad to see the people of Liberland declaring themselves independent of neighboring states. My only hope is that this trend will continue in the tiny 2.7 square mile nation. Hopefully a group of Liberland’s people will declare Jedlička’s presidency illegitimate and secede. From there I hope the secession continues until each individual living there no longer recognizes themselves as members of a nation but sovereign individuals.

I’ve heard several statists point out that this declaration won’t last because the neighboring states; who, in their opinion, are the rightful owners of that little chunk of land; will reclaim it. Perhaps that will happen. Yet there’s a chance that their declaration will be considered so ludicrous that neither Croatia or Serbia will acknowledge the declaration as something that needs to be dealt with. That is similar to the story of Emperor Norton. Because of his perceived insanity the federal government never challenged his declaration of being emperor yet the money he issued was accepted at local establishments and his declarations were often adhered to, which made him just as much of an emperor as any other.

Liberland, in the same way, could become an independent nation by function if not recognition. If, for instance, taxes remain voluntary due to Croatia and Serbia simply not bothering to enforce tax laws on that chunk of land then it would functionally be an independent land much in the same way Neutral Moresnet was independent of its surrounding powers.

Liberland will be fun to follow. Even if it doesn’t manage to maintain its independence it could be fun watching Croatia and Serbia bicker about who really owns the land.

An Introduction to OpenBazaar

In addition to writing this blog I also give presentations from time to time. A bunch of Libertarians got together on April 25^th and played politics. Hoping to save some wretched souls from the Hell of politics a friend and I ran an agorist hospitality suite. While the Libertarians discussed bylaws and other such shenanigans we were giving presentations on peaceful parenting, agorism, literature recommendations, and OpenBazaar. The last presentation was given by yours truly and for some reason the good folks over at AnarchyinAction.TV recorded it. If you want to hear me babbling on for 22 minutes and 57 sections (I don’t know why you would) about OpenBazaar this is your chance.

Yes, I almost always dress like a casual mall ninja and regret nothing about it.

I don’t know if it made it into the video (and I’m not vane enough to watch myself speak) but I did clarify to the audience that I had not had time to look through all of the technical specifications of OpenBazaar. Some of the information I gave, such as how the notary system works, was inaccurate and for that I apologize. But the presentation seems to have been generally well received by the people over at the Bitcoin subreddit so I don’t think I failed completely.

Central Banks aren’t Radical or Revolutionary

Radical, according to Google, means “advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party.” Revolutionary, according to Google again, means “involving or causing a complete or dramatic change.” I theorize that a majority of people who use these words haven’t looked up either in a dictionary.

Iceland made headlines recently by entertaining the idea of a, according to many, radical policy of giving a central bank the authority to print money. Many have even declared the proposal revolutionary:

Who knew that the revolution would start with those radical Icelanders? It does, though. One Frosti Sigurjonsson, a lawmaker from the ruling Progress Party, issued a report today that suggests taking the power to create money away from commercial banks, and hand it to the central bank and, ultimately, Parliament.

What in the gods’ names is revolutionary about giving the power to print money to a government controlled central bank? That’s a page out of the playbook of basically every other major nation on Earth. This is why I’m left to believe people who use the terms radical and revolutionary are entirely ignorant of their meanings.

A radical or revolutionary move would be to take the power of making money away from any central authority and allow markets to handle it. Markets are another concept that people are almost entirely ignorant of today. People often mistakenly believe that granting power to commercial banks to print money is a market solution. But markets are what happens in the absence of any coercive authority. In other words markets are the result of individuals making choices themselves.

If you want an example of a market solution to money you need only look to Emperor Norton:

Norton also issued his own money to pay for his debts, and it became an accepted local currency in San Francisco. These notes came in denominations between fifty cents and ten dollars; the few surviving notes are collector’s items.

Norton didn’t coerce anybody into accepting his currency. He merely created it and offered it in payment of his debts. His creditors accepted it of their own volition. A market solution to money is simple. Each individual is free to propose their own currency. Success is determined by whether or not people are willing to accept a currency in exchange for goods and services. No coercion is necessary.

Statists will come up with any number of excuses as to why money creation must be monopolized by the state. Most of them will then turn around and bitch that the state doesn’t print enough or prints too much. They demand control and they get pissed when that control isn’t used in the manner they prefer.

There are only two real options when it comes to choices. You can either give power to somebody else to make choices for you or you can make them yourself. In this era of statism the radical or revolutionary option is to make choices for yourself.

How You Know You Don’t Care About Politics Anymore

The man who started me on the path that eventually lead me to anarchism is Ron Paul. He’s a good man and I generally like what he says. I’ve also attended several of his speeches. Last night he came to the University of Minnesota to give a speech. Several of my friends and I manned the AgoraFest table because somebody has to advocate actual liberty at these events that somehow get heavily attended by Republican groups. Those of us manning tables received free admission to the event so I’m going to give you the rundown of what he said.

Just kidding. Instead of attending the speech a friend and I did something else.

When you decide to go drinking at a nearby bar instead of attend a speech by a man who you still respect but enjoys talking about politics even today you know you’ve stopped caring about politics. This really was one of my shining moments in freeing myself from the clutches of political bullshit.