Tag: Agora! Anarchy! Action!

The Libertarian “Fantasy”

Gods bless Mother Jones. Between Slate and itself there are enough criticisms about libertarianism based on entirely fabricated claims to fill an encyclopedia. Take the latest shot fired by Mother Jones aimed at the predominance of men in libertarianism:

Jeet Heer investigates a burning question today: why are most libertarians men? He offers several plausible explanations, but I think he misses the real one, perhaps because it’s pretty unflattering to libertarians.

So here’s the quick answer: Hardcore libertarianism is a fantasy. It’s a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that they are these folks. They believe they’ve been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they’d naturally rise to positions of power and influence.

The reason this is such a laughable criticism is because it’s being made by a statist publication. Advocates of statism suffer the biggest fantasy of all. Not only do they believe a handful of people who know best must be given ultimate power over the ignorant (their word) masses but they believe that their advocacy of statism qualifies them to hold one of those positions of power.

Libertarianism is the belief that nobody is qualified to hold power over another. It is the antithesis of power fantasies. Statism teaches that a handful of people know what’s best for everybody else and that the best society can be achieved by giving those people a truncheon with which to smash anybody who disobeys in the face. On the opposite side of the spectrum is libertarianism, which teaches that the best society can be achieved by individuals peacefully cooperating with one another. Under libertarianism there is no heap on which the “strongest and most self-reliant” can sit. Libertarianism doesn’t get suckered into the claim that the “rules and regulations” are designed to help the weak. Instead libertarianism recognizes that individuals given ultimate power will use that power for personal gain.

Even advocates of statism admit that the, according to them, shitty world we live in today is actually the product of their own philosophy. Critics of libertarianism often submit the fact that there isn’t a pure libertarian society as proof that it’s unworkable. But they fail to recognized that such a claim also admits that all of today’s social ills; including the overwhelming power held by corporations, unaccountable police, and the preference of military invasion of mutually beneficial trade; are the products of statism. I’m always amused by the simultaneous claim that libertarian doesn’t exist and it’s at fault for the world’s social ills but I digress. Statists are correct in their admission because these social ills require positions of power to manifest. They require a heap on which the “strongest and most self-reliant” can sit. And that heap only exists in a society with coercive hierarchy, i.e. a state.

One can argue why there are more men than women in libertarianism, which is something it shares with other social and political philosophies, but claiming it’s because it fulfills power fantasies of men isn’t a valid argument.

Verboten Drugs are Cheaper Than Ever

When I point out the failure of the war on drugs to stop drug usages a fairly common rebuttal is that the prohibition keeps the costs of drugs high and therefore prevents many people who would be using them from using them. My observations have indicated that claim is bullshit because I know dirt poor people who use cannabis. But now there’s research refuting that claim:

Cocaine, heroin and marijuana have become cheaper and stronger over the past two decades, despite increases in drug seizures by authorities fighting the global illegal drug market, a new study found.

The researchers looked at seven international drug surveillance databases to examine how the purity and price of illegal drugs changed between 1990 and 2009.

In the United States, the average purity of heroin, cocaine and marijuana increased by 60, 11, and 160 percent respectively, between 1990 and 2007, while the prices of these drugs, adjusted for inflation and purity, fell about 80 percent.

How can this be? Those drugs are illegal! Here we see another conflict between political dreams and reality. Political dreamers like to believe legally prohibiting something will make it go away. Reality dictates that people have wants and will seek to fulfill those wants. Creating prohibitions just makes people adjust their behavior in order to fulfill their wants.

For example, the severity of many drugs laws are based on the volume or weight of drugs a person possesses. A small amount of cannabis can net you a fine whereas a large amount can land your ass in prison on charges of intent to distribute. Drug consumers don’t want to end up in prison and drug producers don’t want their customers lock up in prison. To that end drug producers have been busy making a more potent products so their customers can enjoy the same effects in a small package. Instead of risking charges of intent to distribute cannabis users can now face a fine and still have the same potency as before.

Reducing costs makes sense. If you’re a drug producer you want as wide of a customer base as possible. Poorer people are often unable to enjoy more expensive forms of entertainment so they opt for cheaper forms. By making drugs cheaper the producers are able to access the poorer markets and therefore enjoy a larger customer base.

Once again we see markets overcoming state hurdles. The continuous pattern of markets triumphing over statism is why I firmly believe agorism, which utilizes markets, is the most tactic most likely to bring us real freedom.

Markets Versus the State

States throughout the world try to restrict markets. These attempts never succeed because the handful of individuals that comprise the state are up against the creativity of very person living under it. This is what so-called “black” markets exist.

Russia decided to place an embargo on foods from the European Union and United States in response to sanctions created against it by those regions. The embargo hasn’t stopped the importation of food from either region. But the embargo makes it risky for importers of these now illicit goods to openly advertise. In the past “black” market actors have relied on limited forms of advertising such as word of mouth. One advertisement agency has come up with a solution that allows “black” market providers to advertise their goods more widely and protects them from state agents:

Last summer, Russia imposed a full embargo on food imports from the European Union (as well as the U.S.) in retaliation for sanctions over Ukraine. This left authentic European food merchants in Moscow in a bit of a bind.

But one Italian grocery store there, Don Giulio Salumeria, kept selling its real Italian food—and came up with a bizarre out-of-home stunt to advertise to consumers without tipping off the police.

With help from agency The 23, the store developed a unique outdoor ad that could recognize police uniforms. Whenever the cops would appear, the ad would cycle out of its rotating display—in essence, physically hiding from the authorities.

Here’s a video showing the sign in action:

Obviously this solution isn’t perfect. Since it relies on recognizing police uniforms it won’t hide the advertisement from off-duty officers walking around in their regular clothes. However it is a demonstration of market innovation and could easily be expanded. In the next iteration they should have the sign store a facial picture of anybody recognized as an officer. Then have it compare faces of anybody passing by with known police officers and hide the advertisement if there’s a match. That way the sign would be able to hide its advertisement from off-duty and on-duty officers.

Innovative ideas such as this one are why the state will always fail when it attempts to restrict markets.

Go and Make It

This is effectively what us agorists have been advocating for decades:

What if we stopped attacking people for a cause and started attracting people to a cause? What if we became creators instead of mere critics and conquerors? Rather than waging war—either figuratively (in arguing) or literally — what if we channeled all of our passion and energy into disruptive acts of creation?

What if we bypassed electoral politics and established a more cooperative era…one in which the best ideas win?

In this new age, politicians would be replaced by innovators. Political capital would be replaced by creative capital.

Social change would not be planned by bureaucrats. It would emerge from the collective creativity of artists, scientists, and entrepreneurs working in cooperation.

Agorism utilizes counter-economics to provide goods and services in a manner that doesn’t feed the state. Permits are not acquired, taxes are not collected or paid, and regulations are not consciously adhered to. Instead goods and services that people want, not what the government says the ought to have, are created and sold for a lower price since all of the cost of bureaucratic overhead is absent.

We living in a world where solutions can be more easily created. “Go and make it,” is an excellent slogan for a new revolution. It encompasses the power of individuals to create solutions and the fact that the new revolution won’t be fought with the state’s tool of war but with markets.

Giving Back to Society

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

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

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

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

Political Solutions Versus Technical Solutions

When discussing pervasive surveillance I focus exclusively on technical solutions. People involved in political activism often ask me why I don’t also involve myself in political solutions. My reason is that I don’t like investing effort into worth that is unlikely to pay off when I can invest it in work that will pay off.

Consider the political solution. Say, in spite of everything we know about the state, Congress decides to ban the National Security Agency (NSA) from spying on American citizens and actually enforces that ban. What then? You’re still vulnerable to spying from the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) as well as the intelligence agency of every other major world government. In addition to that your Internet service provider (ISP) can still spy on you and inject malicious code into websites you visit. Political solutions are also temporary. Once the Congress that voted to prohibit the NSA from spying is replaced with a new Congress that ban could be reversed.

Technical solutions avoid those limitations. When you use security forms of communication that the NSA, GCHQ, and other intelligence agencies can’t crack then they are unable to spy on regardless of where the political winds blow. Furthermore ISPs are unable to surveil your traffic or inject malicious code into websites you visit. Technical solutions fix the holes needed to spy on you and therefore defends you against all surveillance and not only for temporary stretches of time (assuming the secure communication tools continue to be maintained so any discovered vulnerabilities are fixed).

I, like everybody else, only have a limited amount of time. Why would I invest some of that precious time into something that is, at best, temporary and only guards against a select few bad actors when I can focus on something that is more permanent and works against all bad actors? It just doesn’t make sense.

Why Political Activism Won’t Stop Mass Surveillance

Time and again people ask me why I don’t involve myself in political activism to stop mass surveillance. My answer is doing so is pointless because no matter how hard you beg the state it will never handicap itself. Case in point, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring (USA FREEDOM) Act (I hope a staffer was paid a nice bonus for coming up with that acronym). It has been hailed as a solution to the National Security Agency’s (NSA) mass surveillance practices. However the bill, as so often is the case, does the opposite of what its name implies and advocates claim. Instead of curtailing NSA surveillance the bill codifies it:

After only one hour of floor debate, and no allowed amendments, the House of Representatives today passed legislation that seeks to address the NSA’s controversial surveillance of American communications. However, opponents believe it may give brand new authorization to the U.S. government to conduct domestic dragnets.

[…]

However, the legislation may not end bulk surveillance and in fact could codify the ability of the government to conduct dragnet data collection.

“We’re taking something that was not permitted under regular section 215 … and now we’re creating a whole apparatus to provide for it,” Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said on Tuesday night during a House Rules Committee proceeding.

“The language does limit the amount of bulk collection, it doesn’t end bulk collection,” Rep. Amash said, arguing that the problematic “specific selection term” allows for “very large data collection, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of people, maybe even millions.”

In a statement posted to Facebook ahead of the vote, Rep. Amash said the legislation “falls woefully short of reining in the mass collection of Americans’ data, and it takes us a step in the wrong direction by specifically authorizing such collection in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.”

Political activism can’t solve problems. At most is can be used to convince the state to rewrite its rules, and then only temporarily, so that it can continue doing the same thing but claim it isn’t. The only way widespread surveillance can be curtailed is if every one of us begins encrypting all of our communications. Even if some of us utilize weak cryptography it will still increase the overall cost of operating the system. Clear text requires no resources to read. Weak cryptography still requires some resources to identify the algorithm(s) used and to reverse them. Furthermore the text of any encrypted communication is unknown to the eavesdropper until it’s unencrypted. Strong cryptographic tools, on the other hand, are practically (as in the time required is longer than the information’s usefulness) impossible for spies to crack.

Stop begging the state to neuter its spying capabilities and take back your privacy. A good place to start is to begin utilizing tools that allow secure communications.

Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They’re Finally Getting the Right Idea

The economically ignorant have been demanding the minimum wage be set at $15.00 per hour. If you understand basic economics you know that minimum wage laws don’t guarantee a living wage but merely make it illegal to hire entire swaths of people. Nobody is going to hire a teenager with no skills if they have to pay them $15.00 per hour. And a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour makes no sense for a teenager because they usually live at home, are fed by their parents, and have few bills. They live for a lot less money than an adult raising three kids. And if a business owner does decide to hire them for less then $15.00 per hour they will get a visit from the gang in blue who will either issue a fine or kidnap the owner.

But my biggest criticisms of people advocating for the minimum wage to be raised is their lack of belief. Why only $15.00 per hour? Why not jack it up to $20.00 per hour or even $100.00 per hour? Thankfully the Freedom Socialist Party (an oxymoron if there ever was one) has stepped up to the plate and is demanding minimum wage be raised to $20.00 per hour:

But Doug Barnes, the party’s national secretary, told The Huffington Post on Saturday that the group relies heavily on donations from low-wage workers and could not afford to pay much to an inexperienced designer.

“We’re practicing what we’re preaching in terms of continuing to fight for the minimum wage,” Barnes said, making his first public comment on the controversy. “But we can’t pay a lot more than $13.”

He said the party’s revenues would increase if the minimum wage were raised to $20 — and he’d even prefer $22, at least in Seattle. The city will begin phasing in a $15 minimum wage in April.

“Our donor base would all be affected, and the low-wage workers who support us with $5 to $6 a month would be able to give more,” he said. “That would affect our ability to pay higher wages as well.”

I love his reasoning. Raising the minimum wage will result in more money for the Freedom Socialist Party. How capitalistic of him!

But I do give him credit for at least believing in what he preaches to the extent of demanding an even more absurd minimum wage. Maybe he could kick start the minimum wage inflation movement where minimum wage will be set to inflate by at least two percent every year! That way we could render almost everybody unemployable and the underground economy would flourish.

As an agorist the best feature of minimum wage laws is that they push people into the underground economy. People aren’t going to stand by and starve simply because it’s illegal for anybody to hire them. They’re going to offer their services illegally. That means they won’t pay taxes on their income and will starve the state of some resources. Anybody partaking in illegal services isn’t going to pay sales tax, obtain permits, or do anything else that might tip the authorities off. Part of the reason I want to see minimum wage jacked up is because it will cause the underground economy to expand at a rapid pace. Socialists may have funny economic ideas but that doesn’t mean their ideas are without merit.

How to Create an Anarchist

I, like many people, suffer from allergies this time of the year. Of all the allergy medications I’ve taken the only one that has demonstrated any effectiveness is Zyrtec-D. When you’re feeling like death warmed over the last thing you want to do is go through the process of buying Zyrtec-D.

Zyrtec-D is one of those wonderful drugs that contains pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine, in addition to being effective medication, happens to be an ingredient used to make meth. Because the state is determined to fight the unwinnable drug war any medication containing pseudoephedrine is now locked behind the pharmacy counter. In order to buy it you must go up to the counter, which often involves standing in line for some time, and ask for it specifically. Before the pharmacist can give you the medication you must show your ID so it can be logged and sign a waiver that is nothing more than a threat to fine you $250,000 and/or lock you in a cage if you don’t use the medication in a state approved manner. After submitting yourself to that monkey dance you will get a box of 12 measly pills, which means you will have to repeat the entire process in 12 days unless your symptoms vanish. And before you get the crazy idea of heading to another pharmacy to get another box of allergy medication be warned that doing so is against the law. That’s why your ID was logged, after all.

I’m not that old but I still remember a time when I could just walk into the pharmacy, grab several boxes of Zyrtec-D, and be set for the entire allergy season. It was a good time when I wasn’t being punished for “crimes” (quotes used because making meth doesn’t have a victim and is therefore not actually a crime) committed by other people (gotta love the Freest Goddamn Country on Earth’s® collective punishment system).

This entire process really makes me consider buying meth, which is readily available, and converting it back to pseudoephedrine. That would be a lot easier than going through this monkey dance every 12 days.