Category: Politics

The Party Of Fascism

I believe that getting into bed with social conservatives was one of the worst things to happen to libertarianism. Now that election season is upon us I’m reminded of this every day. Self-proclaimed libertarians are openly declaring their support for Republican frontrunners that continue to remind us that their interests aligned with fascism, not libertarianism.

The recent kerfuffle between Apple and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is yet another demonstration of this. Using the All Writs Act, a federal court is trying to make literal slaves out of Apple’s iOS developers. Anybody who subscribed to even very basic libertarian principles would oppose this order. But a fascist, whose loyalty is to the State above all else, would support. So where does Donald Trump stand?

GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump is insisting that Apple unlock the iPhone of one of the shooters in the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist attack.

[…]

Trump disagreed stridently on Wednesday, calling it a matter of “common sense.”

“I agree 100 percent with the courts,” the business mogul said. “In that case, we should open it up. I think security over all — we have to open it up, and we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense.”

Donald believes Apple’s software developers are property of the State and should be compelled to write software. Let’s look at the current favorite amongst so-called libertarians, Ted Cruz (and we’ll throw in his buddy Carson as an added bonus):

Cruz said, “Apple has a serious argument” in protecting users’ privacy but said resisting the FBI’s request for help amounted to defying a search warrant. Carson said that Apple should find a way to get over mistrust of the government, but then added that might have to wait until President Obama leaves office, allowing for a delay that the FBI would probably oppose.

As if defying a terrible court order is a bad thing. My “libertarian” friends that support Cruz keep telling me he’s for small government and individual liberty but I can’t fathom how a man who thinks a court has a right to enslave software developers is for small government. Carson also demonstrates his love of government by criticizing Apple for being mistrustful of it.

Finally, just for fun, I’m going to throw in Tom “I Hate Due Process” Cotton for giggles:

“As a society, we don’t allow phone companies to design their systems to avoid lawful, court-ordered searches,” Cotton said in the statement. “If we apply a different legal standard to companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook, we can expect them to become the preferred messaging services of child pornographers, drug traffickers, and terrorists alike — which neither these companies nor law enforcement want.”

Whereas the other Republicans at least tried to sound kind of reasonable, Cotton went straight for the “messaging service of child pornographers, drug traffickers, and terrorists” line.

The Republican Party really is the party of fascism (as opposed to their close rival, the Democratic Party, which prefers its socialism be international). Not only are the policies put forth by Republican lawmakers generally fascist in nature but its members can’t help themselves when an opportunity to go on television and public declare their fascist policies presents itself. How this is supposed to be the party libertarians can prevail with is beyond me.

We’re Closer To A Pony Based Economy And Time Travel Technology Than Ever Before

I try to avoid politics but I’m a sucker for free ponies and time travel technology, both of which are platforms for the only presidential candidate that matters, Vermin Supreme. It brings me great joy to say that we’re closer to free ponies and time travel than ever before! Vermin Supreme was in 4th place for the Democratic Party in New Hampshire!

While other politicians were looking for photo opportunities the future overlord of Earth was busy debating one of the lesser presidential candidates:

But that’s exactly what happened to Ted Cruz, whose pit stop was interrupted by his fellow presidential candidate Vermin Supreme, who had some choice words for Cruz that he delivered with a megaphone.

For starters Supreme, who has pledged to give every American a pony, grilled Cruz on whether waterboarding water should be fluoridated and demanded that the candidate come out with his “hands up” and his “pants down.”

Supreme also asked Cruz “Why do you hate America?” before posing perhaps the most salient question of all to prospective voters:

“Will Ted Cruz give you a pony?”

Here Vermin pointed out one of the things that annoys me about the lesser presidential candidates, their unwillingness to discuss important issues. Not one of the other candidates has stated their position on fluoridating water used in waterboarding. Do they believe prisoners have a right to strong teeth or not? We have no idea because none of them have stated their position on their critical matter.

Ted Cruz has also never stated a willingness to transition the United States to a pony based economy, which leads to wonder why he does hate America so much. Fortunately Vermin Supreme is willing to fight the good fight and address the matters that actually impact our everyday lives.

Fascist France

France appears to have learned all the wrong lessons from World War II. Instead of recognizing fascism as a bad idea France seems to be adopting the idea that their conquerer must have had the right idea. No longer satisfied with merely having emergency powers as law the parliament of France has decided to make emergency powers part of the nation’s constitution:

Paris (AFP) – The lower house of the French parliament voted Monday in favour of enshrining in the constitution the process of declaring a state of national emergency, one of a series of controversial amendments the government proposed after November’s Paris attacks.

The measure — which gives the state increased security powers — was voted through by 103 to 26, although it met opposition from some leftwing lawmakers and some deputies from the right.

Truthfully this doesn’t change anything. Since emergency powers have already been declared and were being used it’s obvious the nation’s constitution did nothing to stop them. What this vote amounts to is the statist equivalent of a religious ritual. Within the religion of statism ritual is what determines whether a governmental decree is holy or heresy.

What What, In The Butt? Government.

What is the biggest concern facing Michigan? Some may say it’s the poisoned water in Flint. Others may say it’s the devastated economy in Detroit. The Michigan Senate has decided it’s butt sex:

Those who violate bans on anal sex in the US state of Michigan now face up to 15 years prison time, after the Michigan Senate passed a controversial bill last Thursday (February 4), and despite the US Supreme Court ruling the legislation to be unconstitutional.

I’m of the opinion that where one man sticks his dick is none of my concern so long as everybody involved has consented. That’s why the puritans’ fascination with male genitalia baffles me. But this doesn’t surprise me. Since humanity first developed the really bad idea of letting a handful of us rule everybody else the State has been very interested in what people do in their bedrooms. And bathrooms. And living rooms.

Basically the State is very interested in everything that happens in your home. That way it can tax, fine, or otherwise extort wealth from people. Do you want to remodel your a room? You need to buy a permit! Do you want to enjoy anal sex with your partner(s)? That’s a finable and jailable offense! Do you want to grow a plant that you use for medicinal properties? Excellent! Not only is that a finable and jailable offense but civil forfeiture can come into play as well!

The reason there are so many laws on the books is because the State wants a cut from every activity humanly possible. This is just another example of the State trying to get a piece of some action.

The State, Like Any Other Thief, Is An Opportunist

The State is no different than any other thief. It’s an opportunist that preys on the most vulnerable. An incredible example of this is Denmark’s parliament:

The Danish parliament has backed a controversial proposal to confiscate asylum seekers’ valuables to pay for their upkeep.

[…]

Under the new law, refugees entering the country will only be allowed to keep possessions up to a value of about 10,000 kroner (1,340 euros; £1,000) – a figure raised from 3,000 kroner following objections.

Seldom is the State this brazen in its theft. Usually it wraps its actions in euphemisms such as taxes, citations, and civil forfeiture. The State also avoids openly targeting the vulnerable but in this case it is making an exception.

What makes this blatant theft worse is that many people seem to support it. Supporters of this crime claim that it’s a legitimate way for the refugees to offset their burden on society. This, like any other claim justified by nonsensical collectivism, is bullshit.

Let’s address the very premise that there is a burden on society. Why would people living in Denmark have to foot the bill for refugees entering the country? Because the State has a gun to their heads demanding they do so. Taxes aren’t increased because refugees are entering the country. Taxes are increased because the State has yet another means to justify increasing its rate of theft. The refugees aren’t the problem, they’re merely the excuse used by the problem.

Refugees are entirely without fault in this mess. They have every right to cross the imaginary line claimed by the biggest gang in Denmark as its territory. That gang has no legitimate claim to the land so nobody is in the wrong for crossing into it. None of the refugees are stealing wealth from the people already living in Denmark. All of the theft is being performed by the Danish government.

The Inevitable Outcome

Here we are in election season. As with the last election and the election before that one this election is most notable for having the worst candidates imaginable. Cock us, err, caucus season is upon us. Right now the headliners of this political mascaraed are a fascist and a socialist:

Senator Bernie Sanders and Donald J. Trump have opened up solid leads in Iowa less than two weeks before the state’s caucuses kick off the 2016 presidential nominating contests, according to a poll released Thursday.

The survey from CNN/ORC shows Mr. Sanders, who was trailing Mrs. Clinton significantly in early December, erasing her lead and overtaking her. Likely Democratic caucusgoers now back the Vermont senator over Mrs. Clinton by eight percentage points, 51 percent to 43 percent. Last month she was ahead of him by 18 percentage points.

Because I know I have intelligent readers I’m sure many of you are wanting to point out that fascism is a form of socialism so the competition is really between two socialists and you would be right. And that brings us to the point of this post (yes, there is a point, I wasn’t going to waste your time with meaningless politicking): the United States has reached its inevitable outcome.

When the Revolutionary War was over and the colonists decided to replace one king with another they put the people of the United States on a collision course with collectivism. Statism in any form is collectivist in nature. It deemphasizes the individual in favor of an abstraction we often use for convenience: the people. The State, we’re told, reflects the will of the people. But the people don’t have a will, only individuals do, and each individual has a unique will. There is no way to reflect the will of the people by the simple fact that every individual living in a country doesn’t share a common will. To get around this inconvenience the very human desire to fit in is exploited by means of statistics.

Voting, like the people, is an abstraction. When you go to your polling place you’re not voicing your opinion, you’re participating in a statistical survey. One, I might add, that reinforces the State by providing you a curated list of candidates. In this statistical survey the decision is based on the majority. Whichever name on the curated list gets the most responses from the sample gets to be in office. Everybody who either wanted somebody else in the office, to abolish the office, or something else entirely different is ignored. Their wills are set aside.

The problem with collectivism is that it’s self-reinforcing. It tricks individuals into thinking about the good of the people (i.e. the State) through propaganda. We’re told to think of the greater good and that acting on our personal wants is selfish. Voting is used to reinforce the propaganda. The statistics show that the people wants X so anybody demanding Y is selfish. Since a great many humans desire to fit in they would rather be with the majority (a statistical majority in this case) than be selfish.

It’s no surprise that the greater good is whatever is best for the State. And nothing is better for the State than socialism. Under the ultimate ends of socialism everything is collectivized under the State. There is no need to steal through taxation, citations, civil forfeiture, etc. The State declares ownership over everything and doles out what rations is believes necessary to individuals.

So here we are. Through more than two centuries of collectivism reinforced by statistics individuals have played their part in their own executions. Individuals have been conned into considering the greater good, which is whatever is good for the State, over their own. In so doing they’ve handed the State increasingly more power. Now the United States is at a point where the State is so powerful the biggest election in the country is between two socialists. Even if one or both of the two candidates don’t receive their party’s nomination the other eligible nominees are all socialists as well. No matter who wins individualism loses and with it goes freedom.

Be Careful Posting About Bernie Sander’s Campaign

Although I suspect most of my readers aren’t feeling the Bern I could be wrong. Just in case some of you are Bernie supporters I’m going to do you a huge favor and warn you about posting material from his campaign online. It seems the campaign does not appreciate such things. Wikipedia received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice from the Bernie Sanders campaign because it displayed publicly available campaign material:

A lawyer representing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has demanded that several of the campaign’s logos be removed from Wikipedia, saying that reproducing the logos violate copyright law. The Wikimedia Foundation has complied with the DMCA takedown notice and removed the notices.

If you’ve been posting information from Sanders’ campaign you should consider removing it immediately less you receive your own DMCA takedown notices.

It is funny, from my vantage point of an anarchist, that a political campaign would decide to enforce its copyright like this. Most people are away that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. This is especially true for political campaigns. Even if people were using campaign material for mockery it will both amuse opponents and stir up supporters. There’s really no way a campaign can lose by letting people use its materials since such use is almost certainly not going to convince anybody to change their viewpoint.

Oh well, some people want a master. I guess it’s good for them to get a feel for the new yoke before they have to wear it.

News From The Crypto War Frontline In New York

I continue to be amused by politicians’ efforts to prohibit math. A bill has been introduce in New York that would require manufacturers to implement backdoors in their mobile devices or face… some kind of consequence, I guess:

A New York assemblyman has reintroduced a new bill that aims to essentially disable strong encryption on all smartphones sold in the Empire State.

Among other restrictions, the proposed law states that “any smartphone that is manufactured on or after January 1, 2016 and sold or least in New York, shall be capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider.”

If it passes both houses of the state legislature and is signed by the governor, the bill would likely be the first state law that would impose new restrictions on mobile-based cryptography. Undoubtedly, if it makes it that far, the law would likely face legal challenges from Apple and Google, among others.

One of the great things about democracy is if a vote doesn’t go the way you want you can reintroduce the vote and waste everybody’s time again.

One question you have to ask is how this bill could be enforced. As written, it would punish sellers who sold phones that couldn’t be decrypted by law enforcers. But New York isn’t that big of a landmass and Ars Technia points out the rather obvious flaw in Assemblyman Titone’s clever plan:

UPDATE 3:49pm ET: Also, it’s worth pointing out that even if this bill does pass, it wouldn’t be terribly difficult for New Yorkers to cross a state line to buy a smartphone.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientists to see what would happen if this bill was signed into law. Sellers in New York may go under but sellers in neighboring states would see a jump in sales. In addition to sellers in neighboring states, the sales of online stores would likely increase as well since, you know, you can just order a cell phone online and have it delivered to your home.

Part of me is amused by the idea of strong cryptography being outlawed. Imagine millions of Android users flashing customer firmware just so they could remove government mandated backdoors. Such a prohibition would almost certainly create a sizable black market for flashing customer firmware.

The Voice Of The People Will Not Be Tolerated

Democracy is supposedly our species’ greatest invention since sliced bread. It’s sold as way for the voice of the people to be heard. In reality democracy, at best, enforces the will of the majority (which is why democracy has never been an effective tool for defending the rights of minorities). But when you boil it down the State is an institution of violence and it’s will is always guided by those with the largest capacity for force.

Venezuela’s latest election was cheer by many because the socialist party lost its majority in the National Assembly. Much to the chagrin of President Maduro, this was supposed to mean an end to the country’s failed socialist policies. But Maduro just won a trump card. The military of Venezuela has sworn undying allegiance to him:

Caracas (AFP) – Venezuela’s military pledged loyalty to President Nicolas Maduro on Thursday, ramping up a high-stakes standoff between his socialist government and a center-right opposition that has vowed to use its new legislative powers to oust him.

[…]

Venezuela’s defense minister and armed forces chief, General Vladimir Padrino, weighed in, saying the military was unwavering in its backing for Maduro — who has vowed to resist “with an iron hand.”

“The president is the highest authority of the state and we reiterate our absolute loyalty and unconditional support for him,” said Padrino, after the under-pressure government sued to stop the emboldened opposition using its newfound powers to kick out Maduro.

Which will win? The National Assembly and its votes or President Maduro and his guns? My money is on the latter. Government votes are powerless without guns to back them up. If, for example, there were no law enforcers in the United States nobody would care what Congress voted on because there would be no means to enforce its decrees. The reason people become so passionate about what Congress votes on is because they know, whether consciously or subconsciously, that those decrees will be ruthlessly enforced by law enforcers.

Even if the National Assembly votes to oust Maduro they have no way of actually ousting him. He, on the other hand, has the ability to round up all the “counter-revolutionaries” and either “reeducate” them or outright execute them.

Democracy is an illusion. It only offers the majority a voice so long as that voice is deemed acceptable by the State. The State, having the highest capacity for violence, can render the voice of the majority irrelevant rather quickly.

We’re All Libertarians Now

One of my friends came up with a phrase that has become quite popular amongst the circles I travel in: we’re all libertarians now. It brings to light the fact that many people call themselves libertarians without actually believing in the philosophy of libertarianism. Gary Johnson, who lost the last presidential election as the Libertarian Party candidate and announced his intentions to lose again this year, is an example. While many of his stated beliefs in the past have been fairly freedom oriented he is adopting a new strategy this year by going authoritarian:

Surprisingly for a libertarian, Johnson, who recently resigned as the CEO of Cannabis Sativa, a marijuana marketing form, said that he would sign a bill banning the wearing of burqas in America. Sharia, he insisted, was not an expression of religion but of “politics” and hence many of its practices could be banned or limited without running afoul of the Constitution.

“Under sharia law,” he argued, “women are not afforded the same rights as men.” Under a burqa, how do you know if a woman has been beaten?, he asked rhetorically. “Honor killings are allowed for under sharia law and so is deceiving non-Muslims.” Likening followers of sharia to members of the Ku Klux Klan, Johnson said that he wouldn’t censor the speech of people promoting sharia law but would mount a cultural campaign to counter its growth here. He said the Islamic terrorism proceeds directly from the same sources as the thinking behind sharia and that the United States government must make sure it is not inadvertently funding sharia overseas.

Libertarianism is a philosophy built around the non-aggression principle, which simply states that it’s wrong to initiate force. How can one claim they are opposed to the initiation of force when they’re openly supporting laws that threaten anybody wearing a burqa? They can’t. Two the are mutually exclusive.

I also find his opinions about sharia rather hypocritical since he’s running to become part of a government that operates under very similar principles.

While women are not afforded the same rights as men under sharia nobody is afforded any rights under United States law. Rights, by definition, cannot be taken away. But the United States government can legally take any so-called right away. When something can be taken away it’s called a privilege and to quote George Carlin, “That’s all we’ve ever had in this country; a bill of temporary privileges.” Because even the enumerated privileges in the Bill of Rights, which have all be violated by federal law, are a single constitutional convention away from being entirely removed.

Sharia allows honor killings? So does United States law. The terminology is different. Instead of honor killings United State law calls it war. But when somebody offends the honor of the United States they end up at the business end of the world’s largest military, which usually makes them very dead.

And United States law allows the government to deceive nongovernmental entities. Cops can lie to you (but you can’t lie to them because that’s a crime). Every politician can lie to you. Basically anybody employed by the government can lie to you. Hell, the government lies to its allies. In fact I’m not aware of a single entity the United States government doesn’t lie to.

By Gary Johnson’s own criticisms of sharia he should be working to abolish the State, not become part of it so he can do the very things he is criticizing Islam for doing.

This is a common problem amongst statist libertarians (a term I personally find oxymoronic). They aren’t interested in being a force of liberation for all and their acknowledgement of the non-aggression principle only extends as far as the people they like. I’m not sure why they desire to label themselves libertarians, it’s not like there are any cool points attached to the term, but they do and it has rendered the term nearly useless.