Agora! Anarchy! Action! – Page 10

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.

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.

Metal and Antistatism

Anarchism and metal are like fish and water. Metal has a long history of counterculture and antistatism. In fact in many areas of the world metal is illegal but bands exist anyways (proving once again that laws can’t control behavior). Vice recently did an interview with members of Al-Namrood. Al-Namrood, for those who are unfamiliar with Middle Eastern metal, is a Saudi Arabian black metal band. They’re worth nothing not only for their music but also for the fact that they stand the real chance of being executed for playing their music:

Black metal bands have never been keen on religion. However, in parts of the world where religion can actually be oppressive, bands inspired by Bathory and Mayhem and Burzum are few and far between.

That’s presumably because it’s a lot easier to be in an anti-Christian metal band in the US, than in an anti-Islamic metal band in Saudi Arabia. In America, your obstacles extend to overhearing your mom tell a friend you’re just “going through a phase.” In Saudi Arabia, you face social ostracism and the possibility of imprisonment or death.

With that in mind, you’ve got to give it to Saudi Arabia’s only black metal band, Al-Namrood, whose lyrics include all sorts of things that could get them executed. I got in touch with guitarist and bassist Mephisto for a chat.

It’s an interesting interview. Al-Namrood is one of those bands that I look up to for its willingness to give a giant middle finger to the state. It also gives me hope because even the oppressive Saudi government can’t find the members of Al-Namrood. If an oppressive regime such as Saudi Arabia can’t find a single band that sells physical merchandise then there’s hope for all of us agorists.

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.

It Prints Money

It’s not very often that a politician who supports gun control proposes a gun related bill that I support. The planets must have aligned though because Rosa DeLauro, some politicians from Connecticut, is putting forth a bill that is meant to eliminating semi-automatic rifles with aesthetically offensive features. Instead of banning them outright though DeLauro’s bill would give gun owners who turned in their aesthetically offensive rifles a sizable tax credit:

The Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our (SAFER) Streets Act expected to be reintroduced next week by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) would provide gun owners with an incentive to turn in their firearms to local police departments.

“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense,” DeLauro said. “There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”

Though DeLauro is in favor of stronger guns laws that would completely ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, she emphasized this bill would not force gun owners to turn in their firearms.

The legislation would provide up to $2,000 in tax credits for gun owners who voluntarily hand over assault weapons to their local police departments.

I wonder how long it took her staffers to come up with that title. Setting aside her absolutely idiotic view about aesthetically offensive rifles this bill is actually a good idea. Why? Because it allows anybody who can legally possess a firearm to print money:

Wilson’s latest radically libertarian project is a PC-connected milling machine he calls the Ghost Gunner. Like any computer-numerically-controlled (or CNC) mill, the one-foot-cubed black box uses a drill bit mounted on a head that moves in three dimensions to automatically carve digitally-modeled shapes into polymer, wood or aluminum. But this CNC mill, sold by Wilson’s organization known as Defense Distributed for $1,200, is designed to create one object in particular: the component of an AR-15 rifle known as its lower receiver.

For the initial investment of $1,200 plus some additional money for blocks of aluminum you can net yourself a potential $2,000 tax credit every year! Or you could invest in a 3D printer and manufacture plastic lowers for even greater profit! The possibilities are limitless. You could then use the money you saved on your taxes to buy yourself a nice AR-15, SCAR, Tavor, or other modern rifle.

Sounds too good to be true? If you read the legislation there are no exceptions for home manufactured firearms. It merely says the weapon must be legally possessed and it is legal for anybody who can possess a firearm to manufacture one so long as they don’t transfer it to another person. The bill then lists what it considers an “assault weapon” to be and AR-15s are prominently on the list. Furthermore the lower is the piece legally considered a firearm on an AR-15 so you don’t need to surrender a fully assembled rifle. Unless I missed something, which is always a possibility, there is nothing in this bill that would bar somebody from manufacturing a cheap AR-15 lower and turning it in for a tax credit every year (sadly the bill does limit a person to only one tax credit per year).

Imagine if every person who could legally possess an aesthetically offensive rifle turned in a cheap chunk of plastic every year to enjoy a $2,000 tax credit. It would really help bleed the state dry. For that reason alone I support this bill and hope others will join me in my quest to utilize it to its maximum potential.

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.

Anarchist Freedom

Religious freedom has been in the been the political hot potato as of late. According to Republicans people should be free to discriminate against others so long as they’re doing it for religious reasons. I’ve decided to take a page from their book and will begin preaching about anarchist freedom.

What is anarchist freedom? It’s like religious freedom but for anarchists. The people currently beating the religious freedom drum have been pointing out that a person shouldn’t have to go against their deep religious beliefs by associating with sinners. As a devout anarchist it is my belief that agents of the state are wicked extortionists. Being forced to associate with them goes against my strongly held conviction that extortionists should be kept at arm’s reach.

Since Republicans seem to be a fan of discriminatory freedom I’m sure they will support my freedom to not associate with state agents. This means that I should be free to not pay taxes (disassociating with tax collectors, who were considered the lowest of the low even in Jesus’ time), be pulled over by police officers (disassociating with murderers, thieves, and general aggressors), or follow laws passed by politicians (disassociating with people who believe themselves to be owners of other human beings). It’s really that simple. Once Republicans support my anarchist freedoms I will acknowledge that they are sincere about this whole religious freedom thing.

Voluntary Association Versus Selective Discrimination

There seems to be some confusion amongst libertarian circles over the difference between voluntary association and selective discrimination. Don’t worry though, Padre Chris is here to clear things up.

Voluntary association is the principle that everybody is free to choose who they want to associate with and who they don’t want to associate with. Period. This means a bigoted asshole can choose not to associate with Muslims and decent human beings can choose to not associate with that bigoted asshole. Selective discrimination differs in that individuals can only choose to disassociate with somebody if their reason is on an approved list. In this case the bigoted asshole can only choose to not associate with Muslims if the people who create the list of criteria put “being Muslim” as an approved reason to discriminate. Other people may also only choose to not associate with a bigoted asshole if the list contains “being a bigoted asshole”.

Libertarianism, due to the non-aggression principle (the only way you can prevent somebody from voluntarily associating with another is to put a gun to their heads and make them associate), mandates voluntary association. However many libertarians mistakenly believe that cases of selective discrimination are forms of voluntary association. That’s what happened with libertarians who supported Indiana’s SB 101. They heralded the law as a good piece of legislation because it allows businesses to not associate with people based on religious reasons. But the legislation contains a clause that lets the state decide whether or not to prosecute somebody for discriminating even if it’s based on religious reasons.

Herein lies the problem. Under the state there can only be selective discrimination. Nobody, for example, is free to not associate with state agents. Furthermore the state periodically either prohibits or mandates certain types of discrimination. In the South many states mandated racial discrimination under Jim Crow laws. Today racial discrimination is mostly prohibited for non-state actors but many states are enabling, and sometimes mandating through marriage and bathroom usage laws, discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender individuals. The only thing that has really changed between then and now is that race has been removed from the list of acceptable reasons to discriminate and religion has been moved up the list (I would say added but it’s almost always been there).

Libertarianism, at least the anarchist branch of it, advocates equality under the law. Nobody can have privileges others do not enjoy. In the case of discrimination equality under the law would require that everybody be free to voluntary associate or disassociate with anybody else or nobody be free to do so. None of these “religious freedom” laws accomplish that. They merely grant people of certain religions privileges that others do not enjoy. Libertarians shouldn’t involve themselves in the political discrimination battle unless the result would create equality under the law. In the case of religious freedom a libertarian should only involve themselves if the bill would allow anybody of any religion, or lack of religion in the case of atheists, the freedom to discriminate based on their beliefs and left not exception for the state to intervene.

People should be free to choose who they want to associate and disassociate with. That freedom can only exist under anarchy. But we currently suffer under a state so libertarians must not get suckered into supporting legislation that appears to enable voluntary association but really only allows discrimination in a manner approved by the state.

The Only Prison for Libertarians is On the Right

As a libertarian one of the things that greatly amuses me is how elements on both the “left” and “right” sides of the political spectrum attempt to court us. One minute we’re an ineffective minority of extremists and the next we’re supposed to have a lot of common ground with whatever side is trying to appeal to us.

One of the more entertaining articles that tries to court libertarians to the “right” is this fine piece. You know the article is going to be a doozy when it starts with “The talented National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke…” If there’s are two things that don’t go together it’s talent and the National Review. The laughs don’t stop there. The author, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, claims:

The political calculus for libertarians is relatively straightforward: They are a small minority — albeit an influential one — and are not completely at home in either party, but can get a lot done if they ally with one in particular.

See, when we’re being courted we’re influential! Gobry’s assertion that libertarians could get a lot done if they allied with one of the two major parties is particularly funny. A lot of libertarians decided to do exactly this and jumped onto the Republican Party ship only to get kicked off and boarded by many unsavory scoundrels. During this libertarian expedition they were told how valuable their views were and how they were welcomed with open arms. Then the Republican National Convention started getting closer and it appeared the libertarians captured a sizable number of seats in several states. This forced the Republican Party to show its true nature and it threatened to banish Nevada’s delegates if too many were going to vote for Ron Paul, had Ron Paul supporters arrested in Louisiana, and prohibited Ron Paul supporters in Maine from participation by forcing them to sign an oath of loyalty to Romney. As a final blow the Republican Party moved to change the rules to dissuade libertarians within the party from participating and even went so far as to hold up one state’s delegates to prevent them from hindering the rule change. Needless to say participating in the Republican Party didn’t do jack shit for libertarianism.

The article then makes the best argument against libertarians participating in either major party’s political process:

And self-delusion it was: On every issue of importance, the left has betrayed libertarians (if “betrayed” is the right word, given that they never actually bothered to promise them anything). Obama’s treatment of the Constitution has been as roughshod as any of his predecessor’s.

Saying Obama’s treatment of the Constitution, which libertarians are supposedly upholders of according to the author, was as roughshod as Bush’s really drives the point home that both parties give no fucks about any supposed restrictions to their powers. If both Republicans and Democrats are doing the same thing then why should libertarians support either of them? Here’s where the real laughs come in:

The reason why liberaltarianism was always doomed to fail is because, at the end of the day, progressivism is an all-encompassing ideology. And while libertarians won’t agree with conservatives on everything, the two can certainly agree on a lot, because of a key bedrock principle of libertarianism that is shared with conservatives but not progressives: the importance of localism.

Holy hell, that’s rich! Conservatives recognize the importance of localism? Is that whey the Republican Party is always pushing for national laws prohibiting same-sex marriages? Is that why they’re looking to replace the Affordable Care Act with another national healthcare scheme? Is that why they’re constantly supporting drug prohibitions on a national level? Is that why they’re always arguing that we need to keep “illegals” out of this country instead of allowing each border state to decide what it wants to do for itself? Conservatives lost the right to claim they supported local politics long ago. But the best laugh was saved for last:

It is exactly this sort of ideological, moralistic progressive urge that makes progressivism and libertarianism like oil and water and makes the conservative movement the natural home of libertarians. At the end of the day, an alliance with the conservative movement is the only plausible way for libertarians to effect meaningful political change in America.

According to Gobry the natural home for libertarians is an abusive one because, as I pointed out above, libertarians were living in that home and were beaten harshly for it. I think the biggest joke of this article though is implying libertarians want to effect political change. While some libertarians certainly do I am not one of them. I am part of the branch of libertarianism that wants to eliminate the state entirely. My goal, and those who share my goal, don’t want to put the right people in power, we want to remove everybody from power. In my opinion libertarianism’s natural home is in counter-economics. That’s because counter-economics allow individuals to act on their own accord and not as part of some political collective. Individualism is at the core of libertarianism so any collectivist strategy is going to be a poor fit.