Tag: Agora! Anarchy! Action!

Anarchism, the Opposition of Invasion

I’ve been reading some works by Benjamin Tucker, one of the last individualist anarchists from the 19th century. One of his quotes does a better job of explaining anarchism than any other definition I’ve come across. According to Tucker:

This distinction between invasion and resistance, between government and defence, is vital. Without it there can be no valid philosophy of politics. Upon this distinction and the other considerations just outlined, the Anarchists frame the desired definitions. This, then, is the Anarchistic definition of government: the subjection of the non-invasive individual to an external will. And this is the Anarchistic definition of the State: the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an individual, or a band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area.

The state really is the embodiment of invasion for it is a gang of individuals who call themselves masters inflicting their will at the point of a gun onto those who live in its claimed territory. Anarchism, being a philosophy of anti-statism, is the opposition of invasion. Those of us who oppose statism don’t do so because we desire to see the person with the most guns ruling, we oppose statism because we desire the opposite. When you boil it down the state is the embodiment of the person with the most guns ruling. Without a doubt the state has the most guns and it uses those guns to inflict its will onto the general population. It is an invasive force that works to trample individual liberty.

DEFCAD for Your Firearm Related 3D Printing Needs

Late last year it was announced that design files for firearm related objects would no longer be allowed on Thingverse. This decision came after 3D printer designs for AR-15 lowers were posted. In response Defense Distributed has launched DEFCAD, a site to host 3D printer designs for firearm related items. As of this writing designs for a shotshell holder, an AR-15 pistol grip, an AR-15 lower, and many other items are available.

The best thing about the Internet is the fact that no information posted to it can ever be completely killed. Despite Thingverse’s attempt to censor firearm related 3D printer designs they are still available.

Smashing the Surveillance State

Here in Minnesota the goons commonly referred to as politicians are looking to increase their rate of expropriation by reintroducing red light cameras:

A group of lawmakers is proposing a bill that would allow cities to use cameras to catch drivers who run red lights. The bill, which was introduced yesterday in the House and Senate, would also allow law enforcement personnel to use cameras to catch people who are speeding.

In 2007 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that red light cameras are unconstitutional because the tickets were linked to a driver’s license, not to the motorist who committed the violation. Minneapolis city officials were forced to refund millions of dollars after the court ruled the law unconstitutional.

Supporters of the new bill say they think technology will address those concerns because the cameras will capture pictures of both the license plate and the motorist.

Were this to pass the constitutionality of the law would likely come into question again. Unfortunately challenging the constitutionality of a law takes a great deal of time and money and there are no guarantees that the results will be favorable. On the other hand there are extralegal options available. With the rampant use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in the United Kingdom (UK) a new movement has sprung up called Camover:

It started in Berlin: Anarchists, donning black bloc attire, hit the streets at night in pairs, small groups or alone to smash and dismantle the CCTV surveillance cameras adorning the city streets.

Since the use of surveillance technology is becoming widespread throughout the world it’s not surprising that the movement has spread beyond the UK:

The anti-surveillance project quickly spread throughout Germany, to Finland, Greece and hit the U.S. West Coast this month. A group identifying itself as “the Barefoot Bandit Brigade” released a statement claiming to have “removed and destroyed 17 security cameras throughout the Puget Sound region,” with ostensible photo evidence published alongside. “This act is concrete sabotage against the system of surveillance and control,” wrote the group’s statement, adding that the Camover contribution was also intended in solidarity with anarchists in the Pacific Northwest currently in federal custody without charges for refusing to cooperate with a federal grand jury.

While I shun the destruction of property I also don’t believe the state can legitimately acquire property. The state acquires property through taxation and taxation is nothing more than theft. If you don’t pay your taxes you’ll likely be kidnapped and put into a cage or have a portion of your paycheck stolen each pay period. Because of this I believe it’s the right of the state’s victims (tax payers) to do as they please with the state’s property. My feelings regarding this are even stronger when the state’s property is used to further expropriate wealth from the populace, which is what red light cameras do. Were this law to pass I suspect, and hope, Camover would become prevalent in Minnesota. Minnesota, and the United States in general, needs more actively civil disobedience. We’re living with the results of using the political process to preserve liberties and, as you can see, no meaningful increase of liberties has occurred since the founding of this country.

Strong Leaders

One phrase that is beginning to piss me of is, “We need to elect strong leaders.” Why is everybody looking for something to lead them? Whey is everybody obsessed with finding the best master to serve? Why are children taught that the best thing they can do is go to college and work for somebody else? Why do people run to politicians to solve their problems? Why do people believe politicians have a right to rule over the people? From our earliest years in school we’re taught to obey those who claim authority and to follow those who lead. Litte, if any, time is spent encouraging children to become entrepreneurs. Teachers never tell their students to disobey those who claim authority. In fact they’re told that those who claim authority have a legitimate claim and that that claim should be recognized.

Truth be told we don’t need leaders, we are leaders. We don’t need to elect strong leaders, we can lead ourselves. If I could only give one piece of advice it would be this: stop seeking masters to serve, become your own and refuse to comply with anybody who tries to make themselves your master.

Digitizing Books for Fun and Preservation

With the introduction of e-readers such as the Amazon Kindle and Barnes and Nobel Nook e-books have finally gained a foothold. In fact it’s been almost one and a half year since Amazon announced that they sold more e-books than hardcover books. It’s easy to see why e-books have taken off, it’s far more convenient to have every book you own on a single device instead of lugging around a handful of books wherever you go. Unfortunately there are some books that still aren’t in electronic format, many of which are very rare. For example, I have a copy of The Black Flag of Anarchy Corinne Jacker. It’s a very interesting title that covers anarchism in the United States but, as far as I can see, no electronic copy exists and no electronic copy is likely to be made. That is, at least, until I follow these instructions for building a do-it-yourself book scanners:

Daniel Reetz, founder of DIYBookScanner.org, had been making kits available for those looking to build their own device. Finding a need for a scanner himself, Reetz built his first book scanner from the trash he found from dumpster diving. He created an Instructable to share his experiences and discovered a diverse group of individuals who also had the need for a book scanner. The group ranged from a man from Indonesia hoping to preserve books from flood damage to a group of engineers looking for a new and interesting project to spark their interests. The DIY Book Scanner had modest beginnings, but over a period of two years it evolved into a movement of individuals using readily available resources to create solutions.

The article primarily discusses the trials and tribulations faced by the ArsTechnica writers who built one of the do-it-yourself scanners. It’s not easy but it is possible and the technology is guarantee to improve and become more accessible. Digitizing books is the most effective way to make rare titles available for everybody’s enjoyment and is currently the most effective way of preventing such titles from disappearing entirely. It is my hope that every piece of written literature will someday be available in electronic format.

Fighting Against the State’s War on the Homeless

The state is at war with the homeless. City governments, especially in large cities, have been working hard to make the lives of homeless individuals miserable in the hopes that they’ll leave and, effectively, become another city’s problem. Fortunately there are people who are trying to fight the state. One of the ways people in London are fighting back is through a tactic called guerrilla benching. If you live in a large city you’ve likely noticed an increasing number of divided or otherwise oddly shaped benches. Although it seems like these odd benches are so shaped for artistic reasons the truth is that they are designed that way to prevent homeless people from sleeping on the benches. Guerrilla benching is the act of clandestinely installing benches that individual can sleep on in public spaces.

It’s a rather clever tactic that is difficult to fight. Who is going to pay any attention to a newly installed bench? Who is going to call the police to report a bench that homeless individuals can sleep on? Who is even aware that oddly shaped benches are so shaped to prevent homeless people form sleeping on them? The tactic is brilliant because it exploits the ignorance of the average person. Even city officials are likely to pay little attention to the newly installed bench since they aren’t aware of the day-to-day operations of the city they purport to run.

I would like to see this kind of thing grow. There is little reason to actively prevent homeless individuals from sleeping on public benches. In fact I think it speaks quite ill of our society that resources are being actively invested in making the lives of individuals who have nothing even more miserable. Why not invest those resources in helping those in need instead of hindering them?

The Best Summary of the RonPaul.com Fiasco

What started as a seemingly innocent argument over the control of the domain name ronpaul.com is turning out to be one of the best dramas the liberty movement has seen since Jesse Benton screwed over his grandfather-in-law last year. Lew Rockwell, a personal friend of Ron Paul and a champion of anarcho-capitalism, came to the Paul’s defense by claiming that Paul is legitimately using the mechanism put forth by the private Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and therefore is in the right. What is yet to be seen is Rockwell’s justification for considering ICANN, a government create corporation, legitimate while he considers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two other government created organizations, illegitimate, and fascist, creations. Either way Lew Rockwell’s post has lead the owners of RonPaul.com to believe Lew Rockwell is actually behind the attempted seizure of their domain. I expect the plot to thicken over the next week or so.

Through all of this drama I’ve found one summary that explains the entire situation succinctly:

So, we must ask what it means to “own” your name. Can “the” Ron Paul use his name to identify himself? Certainly. No one has interfered with that.

Can “the” Ron Paul control the use of his name so that others may not use it? Certainly not! Ron Paul has no right to tell other parents surnamed Paul that they may not name their child “Ron.” And he has no right to sue the other 100+ Ron Pauls in the United States, telling them that they may not use that name.

Here in a nutshell is the distinction between “use” and “control,” a distinction which many “intellectual property” advocates tend to blur. Ron Paul owns his name in the sense that he may use it as he sees fit — for his medical practice, for his political campaigns, or even to market the Ron Paul Supercharged Dildo if that is his fancy. And no other Ron Paul has the right to stop him, as embarassing as it might be for them.

McElroy’s use of the term Ron Paul Supercharged Dildo ended this argument and, quite successfully, destroyed any argument that Ron Paul has a legitimate monopoly claim to his name.

Prohibitions Are Business Opportunities

In the state’s war on obesity public schools around the country are either severely restricting or outright banning soda. Statists still believe they can control behavior through prohibitions but history reminds us that isn’t the case. During Prohibition entrepreneurs setup businesses where individuals could purchase alcohol in a social environment. These businesses eventually became known as speakeasies, as individuals discussed them quietly in public in order to avoid tipping off the police. Although the public school system has tried to beat all forms of creativity and historical knowledge out of American children they continue to overcome their oppressors and bypass school prohibitions:

A School is believed to be the first in London to become “water only” and ban fizzy drinks for pupils.

[…]

Some entrepreneurial teenagers have spotted the “business potential” of smuggling in contraband cola, lemonade, orangeade and other soft drinks to sell at inflated prices. The ban was announced in a newsletter to parents. No food was banned, with sweets and chocolate cleared for consumption in the grounds.

Pupil Jake Phillips, 15, said that “speakeasies” are starting up selling the prohibited drinks. “There is business potential now there’s a gap in the market,” he said.

“Gangsters sold alcohol in America when that was banned. Prohibition always leads to supply and demand. That means anyone who sneaks it in can make a lot of money.” Pupils under 16 are not allowed out at lunchtimes so they cannot buy drinks elsewhere.

It’s good to see students learning from history and ignoring draconian mandates. Perhaps, someday, these children will be the destroyers of the state.

Ye of Little Faith

Although I generally avoid discussing topics involving religion on this blog there are times that I come across an article that I feel warrants discussion here. I came across this article that argues for Christians to continue participating in the political process:

When Jesus walked the Earth and performed miracles, He required humans to trust Him and do the part they were told to do. Then the miracle came. For instance, at the wedding feast in Cana, Jesus required men to fill pots with water before He would provide more wine for the wedding party. If those men had not done their duty, it is unlikely Jesus would have added His part, the miracle.

What about the miracle of feeding 5,000 people with five loaves and two fishes? If the little boy had refused to share his lunch with Jesus, there would have been no miracle. There is no doubt that the Son of God could have created the loaves and fishes out of nothing if He wanted. But what He wanted was a person who would make the sacrifice that invites the miracle.

Before Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, He told some men to roll away the huge stone closing the grave. No doubt if He could raise to life someone who had been dead four days, He could move a stone, no matter how large. But Jesus required human agents to be involved. No matter how mi­nute a part a human being plays in God’s miracles, God chooses to make us an essential part of His greater plan.

Did you note that in each of these examples, Jesus did not expect people to work miracles? America needs a miracle! God is in the miracle-working business. The first ingredient of miracles is for man to invite the miracle and assist in the receiving of the miracle by hopefully and dutifully doing his part. If America’s enemies succeed in discouraging America’s patriots, if they can trick us into giving up hope and walking off the battlefield, how can we expect a miracle from God?

James A. Garfield as a young minister had an aversion to politics. But being a truth-seeker, he eventually saw in his Bible God’s instructions for civil government. He became convinced that a Christian’s duty was to participate in public affairs. Before becoming president in 1881, he wrote on the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence the following insightful and prophetic message: “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerated ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. If the next centennial [1976] does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation did not aid in controlling the political forces.”

What I find interesting is that the author cites works of Jesus mentioned in the Bible to argue in favor of Christians involving themselves in the political process. The reason I find this interesting is because there is one thing never attributed to Jesus in the Bible, politics. Nowhere is it mentioned that Jesus ran for office in the Roman empire or campaigned for certain Roman politicians. I’m sure you’ve seen the bracelets inscribed with the phrase “What would Jesus do?” In fact the phrase has become so popular that it now has its own widely known acronym, WWJD. Answering that question generally relies on analyzing what Jesus was credited with doing in the Bible. Notice the miracles mentioned in the linked article. One miracle involved Jesus working to ensure a wedding celebration continued by turning water into wine. The second mentioned miracle involved Jesus feeding people by regenerating the remains of fish and bread. Miracle three involved Jesus raising a man from the dead. What all three of these stories have in common is that Jesus took direct action to fix a bad situation.

When the wedding party consumed all of the wine Jesus didn’t demand the state redistribute wine from those who had it to the wedding party. Sure, the wedding party could be argued to need wine more than other individuals in the area but no such argument was even brought up. Jesus never demanded the state provide more food for the hungry, he worked with what he had to feed who he could. In the story of Lazarus Jesus was urged to address the ailing Lazarus. When Jesus arrived Lazarus was already dead. Instead of demanding the Roman state invest money into researching a cure for Lazarus’s ailment Jesus took matters into his own hands. What would Jesus do? He wouldn’t use the political process to get the state to correct a bad situation, he would take direct action to help fix a bad situation.

In fact much of Jesus’s time was spent discussing charity in the form of helping those in need. Politics is the most ineffective method to help those in need. If you want to help feed the hungry you can run for office, demand your fellow politicians support a piece of legislation you wrote addressing the issue of the hungry, wait for the bill to be debated and passed, wait for a new bureau to be established that purports to help the hungry or an exiting bureau to be expanded to deal with the additional workload involved with feeding the hungry, and watch as a majority tax money collected under the guise of feeding the hungry is redirected to fund the new or expanded bureau and other state programs. In the end a great deal of time and money will be invested in creating a state organ to address the hungry and a majority of collected funds will be used to keep that organ alive instead of feeding the hungry.

The other option is to directly work to feed the hungry, which is the path chosen by organizations such as the Catholic Worker Movement. For those who haven’t heard of the Catholic Worker Movement it is an organization founded by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin. The Catholic Worker Movement establishes, what it refers to as, Houses of Hospitality for the poor. Their Houses of Hospitality are aimed at offering immediate relief for those in need. What I find most interesting about the organization is that one of its founders, Dorothy Day, happened to be an anarchist (of the communist persuasion). Because of this it’s not surprising that she worked to establish an organization to directly help those in need instead of running for office or campaigning for a politician that claimed to support her desires. Anarchists, after all, focus on offering direct aid to those in need instead of relying on a nebulous bureaucracy to do it. Furthermore it’s not surprising to see that the Catholic Worker Movement is a radical organization that has tasked itself with creating a new society within the shell of the current society that focuses on ensuring everybody gets what they need to survive. While communism isn’t my thing I have no issue with those who wish to established voluntary communism and, in fact, support them (as I support any movement that aims to directly help those in need using voluntary methods).

How effective has the Catholic Worker Movement been? Considering the number of established Houses of Hospitality I’d say they’ve been pretty successful. And their success wasn’t due to the state, it was due to directly helping those in need just as Jesus was said to have.

On the other hand supposed Christians working within the state appear to be focused on forcing “Christian” (quotes used because the definition of Christian usually differs from politician to politicians) morality on the entire population. Instead of working to house the homeless, feed the hungry, and cure the sick most self-proclaimed Christians in the state have spent a majority of their time trying to pass laws that tie the state to their religion. This brings up another characteristic missing from the description of Jesus found in the Bible, a reliance on force. While the self-proclaimed Christians in the state have spent a great deal of time trying to legislate morality Jesus is never mentioned using the state’s gun to force his teaching onto people. Once again if we ask “What would Jesus do?” we cannot urge Christians to participate in the state. If one wants to instill Christian morality into a population in a manner consistent with the methods of Jesus he or she should work to help those in need while advocating Christian morality to those who are willing to listen.

The article closes with a discussion about the “winning” strategy:

The aforementioned counseling principle also suggests the obvious first step to winning the battle to restore Americanism: Before we can expect consistent wins at the ballot box, we must win the battle in the minds of our friends and neighbors. Before we can win elections, we must win the electorate. We win the electorate by educating them about both what built up America and what is tearing down America, not by giving up or ignoring the problem.

The essential foundational victory will not be won in Washington or in our state capitals. It must be won first among our friends and neighbors in our houses, schools, churches, and towns. And remember, what we are “for” always has to be more important than what we are “against.” Our approach must always include the hillside view.

What’s interesting about the closing part of the article is that it is correct in stating that the key to victory for Christians is to work directly with other people. Where it falls flat is then claiming that working directly with other people will lead to the end goal of political victories. What need is there for political victories if one succeeds in the job of education? If people are working together to house the homeless, feed the hungry, and cure the sick why does one need the state to get involved in those matters? If people are following Christian morality why does one need the state to force it onto people? The only thing involving the state manages to do is redistribute a great deal of resources from the general population to agents of the state. On top of being a waste of resources the state is also subject to violent mood swings. For a time it may be working on forcing Christian morality only to change and begin persecuting Christians. The state, being violent by nature, knows no moral philosophy other than redistributing wealth from a populace to the politically connected.

How We Got Here

Feinstein introduced here new pet gun control bill, New York passed one of the most draconian gun control bills in the country, several gun control bills are being introduced in Maine, and the rest of the country seems to be following suit. One must ask how we, as gun owners, came to this point. Isn’t the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution? Isn’t self-defense the right of all sentient beings? Don’t gun control laws go against the idea that the United States is a land of laws? How did we get here?

We got here through obedience. When the state said they were going to mandate gun owners register certain firearms gun owners threw up a bit of a fuss but ultimately registered those firearms. When the state said it was going to completely prohibit the transfer of any machine guns not registered by May 19, 1986 gun owners throw up a bit of a fuss but ultimately ceased transferring machine guns registered after the cutoff date. When the state said it was going to prohibit the sale of newly manufactured magazines holding more than 10 rounds to civilians gun owners threw up a bit of a fuss but ultimately stopped selling newly manufactured magazines holding more than 10 rounds to civilians.

The reason we’re here today is because gun owners of the past have rolled over and complied with proposed gun control laws. When the first gun control law was passed in this country gun owners should have began an active campaign of civil disobedience to make it known that no gun control laws would be respected. Sadly a precedence was set when gun owners complied with the first, second, third, and every other gun control law that has been passed in this country. Now we’re at a point where gun control laws not only have legal precedence but are socially acceptable by a vast majority of the populace. What makes matters worse is that it’s happening all over again. Gun owners have responded to the above mentioned gun control proposals by marching to state capitols, giving speeches about the importance of gun rights, holding gun rights rallies where they urge everybody to contact politicians and beg them to oppose any new gun control legislation, and offered no sign that they will actively resist any new gun control laws. Compliance is the problem because so long as gun owners are willing to comply with new gun control laws the state will continue to pass and enforce them.

Once again I urge gun owners to consider civil disobedience instead of compliance. So long as gun owners are compliant they will find more and more of their guns, ammunition, and firearm accessories seized by the state. If you want to see the logical conclusion of compliance you need only look at Britain.