Tag: Agora! Anarchy! Action!

Mi Lernas Esperanton

Last week I mentioned that I had started using Duolingo to learn German and Esperanto. That adventure has quickly morphed into an almost exclusive focus on the latter.

As I said in my previous post, I’ve never been terribly successful learning human languages. Part of my motivation for learning Esperanto is becoming familiar with various concepts found in human languages. Another motivator is the purpose and history of the language itself. Esperanto was created as an auxiliary language by Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof with the intent of enabling individuals around the world to converse with one another in the hopes of avoiding conflict creating misunderstandings. To that end he designed the language to be easy to learn and consistent in its rules. In addition to those two characteristics the language was also neutral in regards to nationality.

Esperanto actually enjoyed a good deal of success initially. In fact it was so successful that many tyrants tried to snuff it out. Nazi Germany sentenced Esperantists to death during the Holocaust due to Zamenhof being Jewish and the international nature of the language (because Nazis were national socialists they hate everything international socialists liked). In fact Hitler specifically mentioned Esperanto in Mein Kampf (and not in a good way).

Speaking of international socialists, they thought Esperanto was a really neat idea… for a while. The Soviet Union initially supported Esperanto. And why not? International socialists are supposed to spread the wonders and joys of socialism to all people so a common easy to learn language should be right up their alley! Joseph Stalin himself even studied Esperanto. Then the Great Purge came. Stalin did a complete 360 and threw Esperantists into gulags.

Being hated by those two bastards is quite an endorsement but the biggest endorsement, in my opinion, is the type of people who adopted it. Esperanto, due to its neutral nature, was embraced by anarchists. There were even plans to declare Esperanto the official language of Neutral Moresnet. Today the language is growing in popularity due to the international nature of the Internet and enjoys considerable support on Wikipedia.

It’s a fascinating language and I have been enjoying the learning process. According to Duolingo I’ve only spent 11 days learning Esperanto and I can already hold simple conversations in it. A handful of us anarchists in the area hope to see Esperanto picked up by more members of our circles because, like the early anarchists that fell in love with the language, we see it’s lack of national ties as an asset to our anational goals.

I urge all of you to check out Duolingo and try some of the early Esperanto courses. Even if you don’t know a second language you’ll likely find it easy to pick up. And it never hurts to have an additional language under your belt to throw on a resume.

Cell Phone Carrier Illegally Tapped Journalist’s Phone Proving Privacy Can’t Be Protected By Laws

Whenever a bill purporting to strengthen privacy protections enters the political field I receive numerous requests to support it. I always politely decline, which results in the advocate saying some variation of “I know you’re an anarchist but it doesn’t take any time to call your representatives.” It’s a false argument because it does take time to call the person who supposedly represents me (even though I never appointed him to represent me) in Congress. And since privacy laws are ineffective at protecting privacy it takes time that will gain me absolutely nothing, which is not a wise investment in my opinion.

Privacy laws are just like any other State decree. Those who are willing to tolerate the laws will follow them and those who find them burdensome will ignore them:

Telco giant Vodafone illegally ­accessed a journalist’s mobile phone records to discover the source of stories about the company, hid systemic privacy breaches from authorities and covered up fraud in its Brisbane office, according to ­internal documents.

An investigation into these allegations is currently under way. The outcome is irrelevant since the damage has already been done and it’s unlikely Vodafone will be made to pay compensation to the involved parties (usually whatever government agency oversees the regulation gets the winnings from any trail with maybe a pittance given to those actually harmed).

Protecting privacy can only be done by directly protecting it. Once privacy has been violated it’s too late to defend it. That’s why I push cryptography so heavily. Privacy laws are irrelevant if you have taken effective measure to protect your privacy. If you’ve failed to protect your privacy the laws are still irrelevant because the damage has already been done.

Begging the State to issue decrees is a waste of your time that can be better spent learning how to actually address the issue you’re petitioning the State about.

All Laws Are Backed By The Threat Of Death

A lot of people, either willfully or ignorantly, haven’t comprehended the fact that all laws are backed by the threat of force. I like to point this out whenever one of my statist friends advocates for a new law that seemingly carries minor consequences. Usually I’m rewarded for me efforts by being accused of making a hyperoblic statement or being ridiculous. But facts are facts and laws are violence:

On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law…..

The problem is actually broader. It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It’s every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right. I often tell my students that there will never be a perfect technology of law enforcement, and therefore it is unavoidable that there will be situations where police err on the side of too much violence rather than too little. Better training won’t lead to perfection. But fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence to get out of hand.

If a person I’m debating is especially touchy they will usually reply with a variation of, “So you don’t support any laws? You’re fine with people murdering other people?”

Anarchism isn’t the opposition to all laws but the full comprehension of the fact that laws are backed by the threat of force. Therefore we put it on individuals to decide what they’re willing to enforce. Historically stateless societies had laws against initiations of force such as assault, murder, rape, theft, and other situations where one person was clearly harming another. These laws existed not as decrees written by men in marble buildings but by the actions of individuals.

Consider murder. Most individuals are will defend themselves if somebody tries to murder them and will go so far as to kill their attacker. The same goes for assault. Somebody being assaulted is typically willing to defend themselves to the point of escalating to deadly force is their attacker continues to escalate matters. Rape is another crime where victims are generally willing to escalate matters to deadly force if necessary. Theft, although seldom reaching such a drastic point, can result in somebody killing a thief, usually if the thief attempts to interfere when the rightful owner arrives to retrieve their property.

But very few people are willing to post a sign on a road with an arbitrarily selected limit and kill anybody who exceeds it. They may be willing to support a speed limit if somebody else is willing to enforce it but that is different than being willing to take the responsibility upon themselves.

The other factor in stateless law is whether members of a community will tolerate it. Let’s return to murder. If somebody was attacked and circumstances escalated to the point where the intended victim killed the aggressor would members of the community support it? Historically most communities were fine with that by the fact members didn’t see it as necessary to punish the would-be victim. The same could not usually be said for individuals who attempted to enforce victimless “crimes.” If you murdered somebody who exceeded your arbitrarily posted speed limit it is likely other members of the community would view you as a murdered and retaliate. In stateless societies each individual was a lawmaker and the community was the check and balance.

Laws are threats of force. The question is whether you’re willing to use that force to prevent a certain action. If you’re not then you have no business asking somebody else to do. If you are then you have no need to have others write it down and vote on it. That is the basis of anarchist law and that is why stateless societies tended to be far more peaceful than their statist neighbors and why the number of laws were very few.

New Wealth Is Constantly Being Created So Take Advantage Of It

Neoliberals, communists, and socialists focus primarily on wealth distribution. Much of their rhetoric revolves around the top one percent holding a majority of the world’s wealth. In their eyes there is only so much pie to go around and the top one percent have a vast majority of it while everybody else has to fight over scraps. The error of this viewpoint is that wealth isn’t fixed, it’s constantly being created.

I think part of the problem is people often mistake fiat currency for wealth. Fiat currency, as the name implies, indicates nothing more than a number some oligarch commanded to be created. Wealth, on the other hand, is the abundance of valuable resources and material possessions.

Throughout the entire history of our species wealth has continued to increase. As our agricultural knowledge increased food became more plentiful. As our metallurgical knowledge increased tools became more plentiful. As our mining knowledge increased raw materials became more plentiful. Human history is the history of more knowledge leading to more wealth. Today electricity, running water, and a plethora of home appliances are common in first world household. Internet access, automobiles, pocketable computers, 3D printers, and an almost uncountable number of other products that didn’t even exist merely a generation ago are now widely available. Their isn’t a single pie we all eat from, new pies of constantly being baked at an every increasing rate.

If you only believe there is a fixed amount of pie you focus on taking pie from others. This, in my opinion, is one of the biggest flaws in neoliberalism, communism, and socialism. Instead of trying to take pie by seizing the means of production and increasing taxes a more effective strategy is to start baking pies.

This is where agorism shines. Agorists aren’t trying to seize means of production or increase taxes. They’re focused on creating more wealth. Whether via creating more efficient means of production, preventing the State from taking a cut of everybody’s wealth, or simply creating wealth that has been forbidden by the State agorists are focused on creating more for everybody instead of redistributing what is already there.

The fact that more pie is constantly being created should be taken advantage of by everybody. Why relegate yourself to taking what already exists when you can create something better? There’s no reason to limit yourself like that.

3D Printers and Mesh Networks And Rockets. Oh my!

As some of you are probably aware I’m one of the organizers for AgoraFest. Most of us who organize the event are huge fans of technology and science fiction. That’s the reason we’re focusing a lot of technology at AgoraFest this year. We’ll have 3D printers, drone races, model rocketry, and a mesh network there. Some are probably curious what all of those have to do with AgoraFest. I decided to do a quick write up explaining how those things, well everything besides the drones (I’ll explain that later), relate to agorism as a whole. Feel free to head over to the link and read it in lieu of an actual article here.

Professionally Built Illicit Firearms

As an advocate of self-defense and an agorist I always enjoy stories that involve both. Opponents of self-defense have worked hard to put laws in place that restrict access to firearms. But laws are mere words on pieces of paper and cannot stop human action. We’ve seen countless examples of illicitly manufactured firearms but they generally appear to be rather crude. Now a mystery manufacturer appears to be illegally producing professionally built firearms and distributing them in Europe:

Pictured is an unknown 9mm machine pistol which has been seized in the Netherlands and more recently in the UK. ‘R9-Arms Corp USA’ appears to be a fictional company, suggesting it has been manufactured illicitly. The model is made to a very professional standard with a milled receiver and slide, perhaps even produced in a former legitimate arms factory in a country such as Croatia. It appears to accept an Uzi type magazine and can fire semi or fully automatically.

The ATF in the USA were consulted on its origin and apparently had no matches on record.

Manufacturing a firearm isn’t rocket science. Firearms are pretty simple mechanical devices and the tooling needed to manufacture one is already fairly affordable and only becoming more so every day. But manufacturing them on a large scale without getting caught still requires skill and it appears Europe has somebody with the necessary skills.

In addition to providing a means of self-defense outside of the state’s control the act of illegally manufacturing and distributing firearms also ensures taxes aren’t siphoned to the very beast that attempts to hinder people’s access to self-defense tools. It’s a win-win. Hopefully we will see more mystery firearm manufacturers in the coming years.

Don’t Return To The Caves

Robert Anton Wilson popularized the words neophiles and neophobes to describe people who enjoy and can adapt to rapid changes and those who fear and oppose change respectively. Whenever neophiles create and adopt a technological advancement neophobes step in to try and retard it. Strong cryptography allows individuals to securely communicate between one another. Neophobes, who are fearful by nature, cannot accept the idea of people having conversations that cannot be spied on. Advancements in automation require less human labor to produce more goods and services. Neophobes fear automation because they cannot conceive of a world where laborers don’t have to work as much or can find meaningful employment after being displaced by machines. Genetically modified crops can dramatically increase our species food production and feed more people with less resource expenditure. Neophobes want to halt production of genetically modified crops because they fear tampering with nature will have frightening and currently unrealized consequences.

The biggest difference between neophiles and neophobes is the former understands risks are inherent in change and accepts those risks while the latter fears change because it involves unknown risks.

Would you enjoy living a much shorter and hard life as a hunter gatherer in a cave? Because that’s what we’d all being doing if everybody listened to the neophobes. Advancement is scary because we don’t know how they will change the world. But advancement is far less scary than stagnation. This is why I don’t give any weight to arguments against technological advancement.

Are there risks in widespread availability to strong cryptography? Yes. Are there risks in allowing machines to do more and more of our labor? Yes. Are there risks in creating and cultivating genetically modified crops? Again, yes. However there are risks in enabling widespread surveillance, relying on manual labor, and refusing to advance agriculture. Those risks are powerful police states, injuries and deaths on jobs, and starvation.

Since the industrial revolution we’ve enjoyed a world where neophilia has surpassed neophobia. Even though we’re enjoying a standard of living unheard of only a generation ago the neophobes are still pounding their drums and trying to scare people into returning to the caves. Do you want to live in a world where we’re relegated to subsistence agriculture or one where robots produce more food than our species can possibly consume? If you, like me, desire the latter then you should work to ensure technological advancement isn’t hindered by neophobes. That means not supporting any efforts to stop the advancement of technology. Don’t support attempts to control the exportation of strong cryptography. Don’t support attempts to stop the adoption of automation. Don’t support prohibitions against genetically modified crops. Try to help technological advancements to flourish so more people can enjoy their benefits. Refute the neophobic fear mongering by pointing out how not adopting new technologies is also risky and how the fears of neophobia have seldom, if ever, been realized. Don’t help those who would return us to the caves.

There Shouldn’t Be A Law

If I received a dime every time somebody said, “There ought to be a law,” I would be sitting on my mega yacht in some tropical location drinking expensive booze and watching the world lose its collective shit from my overpriced satellite Internet connection. But I don’t so it’s an entirely worthless phrase. I know somebody is out there right now saying that phrase in the sincere hope some political body will pass some law in a futile attempt to fix some perceived problem and it pisses me off. Why? Because legislation doesn’t accomplish anything other than wasting time and resources that could be put towards far better things.

Let’s consider what a law is. Unlike physics, where the term refers to an immutable rule, a law in regards to American politics is nothing more than words that have been written and voted on by a body of politicians. That’s it. And that’s the problem.

Laws are usually written and passed in response to a perceived problem. But that very fact creates a major problem in of itself. People believe laws fix problems but in reality they do nothing of the sort. Words written on paper are impotent. That goes double for words that have been voted on. Even after a law is passed the perceived problem still exists. The only difference is a large number of people no longer believe the problem exists.

Laws create a false sense of security. Consider the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). It was passed in 1984 when people first started realizing how important computer security is. The bill criminalized unauthorized access to protected systems. After the passage was everybody able to sleep soundly? Did unauthorized access to protected systems suddenly stop? No. Computers considered protected systems still had to be secured. The only difference between the time before the law was passed and after was that a bunch of politicians received paychecks and benefits for writing, debating, and ultimately passing the CFAA. Besides that it was business as usual and everybody had to continue implementing, maintaining, and improving security strategies.

And therein lies the problem. Laws are worthless. They don’t actually solve anything. People still have to operate under the assumption somebody will break the law. Assault is illegal but people still need to have a means of defending themselves because somebody may assault them. Theft is illegal but people still need to secure their property because somebody may try to steal it. Hacking into a bank computer is illegal but information technology employees still have to secure computers at every bank because somebody may try to hack into them.

When there’s a problem don’t say, “There ought to be a law.” Say, “We need to solve this problem.” Those two phrases have entirely different meanings. The first means a problem exists, needs to be solved, and involves politicians not solving it. The second means a problem exists, needs to be solved, and implores individuals to act directly towards solving it. Don’t write to some politician asking them to solve a problem with legislation. Roll up your sleeves and start working to actually solve the problem. Doing the former still requires you to do the latter but wastes resources, especially time, by involving middleman who don’t actually do anything.

The “Black” Market Has Your Back

When people hear the term “black” market their thoughts usually jump to human trafficking, violent drug gangs, and other violent endeavors. In reality those aren’t even examples of markets because markets are based on the voluntary exchange of goods and services between individuals. The real “black” market is nothing more than the exchange of goods and services the state has declared illegal. Oftentimes this involves drugs like cannabis and cocaine but other times it involves goods or services that are extremely expensive in “legitimate” markets due to regulations. Healthcare is one of those markets where regulations have made almost everything prohibitively expensive. Fortunately there’s the “black” market ready to provide healthcare goods for far less:

Several months ago, Jackie found that her maintenance inhaler was running low. We had just obtained health insurance through Kentucky’s health care exchange and, while it wasn’t the most expensive plan, it certainly wasn’t cheap. Our monthly bill was high, but we thought the coverage was worth it.

I should mention that Jackie specifically picked a plan with low prescription co-pays.

Imagine our surprise when the total for her inhaler, with insurance applied, turned out to be around $300.

Money was very tight at that time; we just couldn’t afford the inhaler without falling behind on other necessities like utilities and groceries.

It was Jackie’s idea to check on the dark net.

[…]

It hadn’t occurred to me to look for an inhaler on the dark net until Jackie suggested it. She doesn’t really know much about the markets beyond things I’ve told her, but she asked me one night if you could buy inhalers on them. I got online, opened the Tor browser that is the gateway to the darknet, and pretty soon I found exactly the same maintenance inhaler—same brand, completely identical—that we needed to replace. The price was $30 with shipping.

The exact same inhaler for one tenth the price was made possible by the “black” market. And thanks to the greatly reduced price Jackie didn’t have to suffer from foregoing other necessities due to lack of finances. This isn’t an isolated case either. Similar illegal trade exists for other medical necessities such as diabetes test strips.

“Black” markets are necessary in any society that suffers from a government that places regulations on free trade. Regulations always raise the costs of goods and services because they push out small providers place a barrier to entry for new providers. Fortunately there are many people out there willing to ignore the law and provide goods and services to those who want them. Instead of seeing them as dirty criminals we should acknowledge that they’re no different than individuals who provide goods and services in the “legitimate” market. If it wasn’t for them many people would have to make do without basic necessities.

In Regards To Hoppe’s Argument Against Open Borders

The imaginary lines on our maps are the subject of frequent debate. It’s not surprising to see statists argument about immigration policy since they believe those imaginary lines are very real and very important. What’s surprising to me is that various branches of anarchism argue about them as well.

Yesterday the Muh Borders Facebook page linked to an article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe posted by Lew Rockwell. Hoppe’s article argues against open border policies that are supported by, what he refers to as, left-libertarians. It’s true that I consider myself a dirty leftist but I came from what most people would consider right-libertarianism. Right-libertarianism believes in the Lockean principle of homesteading. That is to say initial property rights are established when one mixes their labor with unowned resources. From there property rights can be transferred through trade. Herein lies my quarrel with Hoppe’s article. In it he argues:

But on what grounds should there be a right to un-restricted, “free” immigration? No one has a right to move to a place already occupied by someone else, unless he has been invited by the present occupant. And if all places are already occupied, all migration is migration by invitation only. A right to “free” immigration exists only for virgin country, for the open frontier.

[…]

The second possible way out is to claim that all so-called public property – the property controlled by local, regional or central government – is akin to open frontier, with free and unrestricted access. Yet this is certainly erroneous. From the fact that government property is illegitimate because it is based on prior expropriations, it does not follow that it is un-owned and free-for-all. It has been funded through local, regional, national or federal tax payments, and it is the payers of these taxes, then, and no one else, who are the legitimate owners of all public property. They cannot exercise their right – that right has been arrogated by the State – but they are the legitimate owners.

On the surface this makes sense. Goods obtained with stolen wealth rightfully belong to those who the wealth was stolen from. But this raises a question, what exactly can be claimed to be owned by the state? Is it everything within the imaginary lines it has drawn on our maps? If that’s the case the principle of homesteading seems to be absent in Hoppe’s argument. Much of the land claimed by the United States government, for example, hasn’t been homesteaded, the state hasn’t mixed any labor with it. It just sits untouched.

If we were to divest the property of the United States to the people whose wealth has been stolen would we also include that untouched land? If so, why? Do states enjoy a special type of property right that allows it to just declare something its own in lieu of homesteading? If not, why is the land not open for homesteading and therefore why are open borders at odds with right-libertarianism?

Hoppe expands his argument further by asking a hypothetical question:

First off: What would immigration policies be like if the State would, as it is supposed to do, act as a trustee of the taxpayer-owners’ public property? What about immigration if the State acted like the manager of the community property jointly owned and funded by the members of a housing association or gated community?

At least in principle the answer is clear. A trustee’s guideline regarding immigration would be the “full cost” principle. That is, the immigrant or his inviting resident should pay the full cost of the immigrant’s use made of all public goods or facilities during his presence. The cost of the community property funded by resident taxpayers should not rise or its quality fall on account of the presence of immigrants. On the contrary, if possible the presence of an immigrant should yield the resident-owners a profit, either in the form of lower taxes or community-fees or a higher quality of community property (and hence all-around higher property values).

Again, this argument seems to make sense on the surface. Immigrants or the residents who invited them are expected to pay the full cost of the immigrants’ use of public goods and facilities. But it again fails to address land that hasn’t been homesteaded by either the state of its tax victims. If an immigrant decides to homestead a piece of land in the Nevada desert that hasn’t already been homesteaded the tax victims face no costs. The only way the trustee model justifies state enforced immigration controls is if it is exempted from the homesteading principle.

When I brought this up to some of my friends one of them had an interesting interpretation of what Hoppe wrote. He thought Hoppe implied that the state was only able to hold the territory it claimed by extorting wealth from the populace and therefore, under Hoppe’s argument, all of the territory should be divested amongst the tax victims. Even using this interpretation I find that the homesteading principle would have to be ignored.

It’s true that the state is only able to hold the territory it claims because it used some of the wealth it stole to create a military that can kill anybody who doesn’t acknowledge its claim. But I don’t believe that satisfies the homesteading principle because the state still didn’t mix any labor with the land.

Imagine if the United States claimed sole ownership over the moon and threatened war against any other nation that landed on it. It’s ability to make such a threat would certainly be made possible by its sizable military. However the stolen wealth was invested in creating the military, not homesteading the moon. Therefore this interpretation would be an argument for divesting military assets amongst the tax victims but not the moon itself. The same applies to the territory within the state’s borders that hasn’t been homesteaded.

At the start of the article Hoppe claims that left-libertarianism “serve as Viagra to the State.” I would argue that, if anything, his argument against open borders serves as Viagra to the state. His argument requires granting the state a special privilege to claim land without homesteading it. Right-libertarianism’s core argument against the state is that it enjoys a special privilege to legally initiate force. One of the ways it exercises that privilege is by enforcing its claims to land and resources it hasn’t homesteaded. By granting the state a special privilege you put it a step up on the hierarchy than everybody else and that is what allows it to maintain its power.