Taken from the Bastiat Institute’s Facebook Page
Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals
It’s Officially Official, I’m a Domestic Terrorist According to the FBI
No longer relegated to the back corner of the bar of state enemies, I’m not officially an official domestic terrorist according to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI):
The FBI considers sovereign-citizen extremists as comprising a domestic terrorist movement, which, scattered across the United States, has existed for decades, with well-known members, such as Terry Nichols, who helped plan the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, bombing. Sovereign citizens do not represent an anarchist group, nor are they a militia, although they sometimes use or buy illegal weapons. Rather, they operate as individuals without established leadership and only come together in loosely affiliated groups to train, help each other with paperwork, or socialize and talk about their ideology.
Holy shit my head hurts after reading that. First I’m going to, again, bring up the fact that sovereign citizen is an oxymoron:
Sovereign citizen is a contradiction of terms. A sovereign is a supreme ruler while a citizen is a subject of a state. You can not be a supreme ruler and a subject at the same time. On the other hand a sovereign individual is a supreme ruler of an individual, him or herself. If you’re going to make us appear as a threat please get the terminology right at the very least.
Beyond that let me focus on the, “Sovereign citizens do not represent an anarchist group… Rather, they operate as individuals without established leadership…” Huh? Sovereign individuals aren’t anarchists but operate as leaderless individuals? I would love to know what the FBI’s definition of anarchist is because there are various forms of individualist anarchist philosophies. If anybody working for the FBI is reading this post (let me use a Department of Homeland Security keyword to ensure you are, drill) please take a few seconds to read my post that explains different schools of anarchism.
A person who considers themselves a sovereign individual very well could be an anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist, or a mutualist (which can actually be seen as an individualist or collectivist form of anarchism depending on how you look at it). Unless the FBI is using an extremely narrow definition of anarchist the statement on their own page is contradictory. Furthermore they state Terry Nichols as an example of a sovereign individual but fail to mention any others. Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, and Jeffery Tucker would all consider themselves sovereign individuals but, like myself, advocate strict adherence to the non-aggression principle.
Blatant undefined generalizations are one of the biggest problems with the United States government. They will say all sovereign individuals are violent and thus label anybody who consideres themselves a sovereign a domestic terrorist. What this does is group non-violent individuals such as myself with the rare violent individuals, which makes both groups appear the same in the eyes of law enforcement.
I’m sure those reading the FBI’s article are wondering, “How can I identify a sovereign individual?” Easy, the FBI has a list of identifying factors:
Sovereign citizens often produce documents that contain peculiar or out-of-place language. In some cases, they speak their own language or will write only in certain colors, such as in red crayon. Several indicators can help identify these individuals.
- References to the Bible, The Constitution of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or treaties with foreign governments
- Personal names spelled in all capital letters or interspersed with colons (e.g., JOHN SMITH or Smith: John)
- Signatures followed by the words “under duress,” “Sovereign Living Soul” (SLS), or a copyright symbol (©)
- Personal seals, stamps, or thumb prints in red ink
- The words “accepted for value”
They also carry fraudulent drivers’ licenses to indicate their view that law enforcement does not have the authority to stop their vehicle or may write “No Liability Accepted” above their signature on a driver’s license to signify that they do not accept it as a legitimate identification document.
What? Writes in red crayons? I’m not sure where they came up with that one. Oh, referencing “The Constitution of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or treaties with foreign governments” makes one a sovereign individual and thus a terrorist? Damn… that basically covered every lawyer, law professor, and libertarian in the country. I guess I’ve been wondering how long it would take the FBI to label the United States Constitution a terrorist document, now I know.
Environmentalists Should be Advocating Strict Property Rights
Self-proclaimed environmentalists seem to always advocate stricter environmental regulations. Every time I turn around I see another self-proclaimed environmentalist demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) further decrease the level of [whatever pollutant is the enemy of the week] that individuals and/or companies can emit into the atmosphere/water supply. I’ve explained, multiple times, why asking the EPA for environmental protection is a fool’s journey. The only way to solve environmental issues is through strict enforcement of property rights. Hell if Dr. Seuss would have taken property rights into consideration his famous work The Lorax would have ended on an entirely different not:
If the Once-ler does have the right to cut down the trees, would we imagine that he would clear-cut the forest? Assuming he believes he will have those rights into the indefinite future, his own self-interest should prevent him from clear-cutting. We know from the end of the book – spoiler alert! – that the trees are a renewable resource – they can be replanted. Why would the Once-ler throw away years and years of profits he could obtain by replanting just to make a few dollars now? The future stream of profits is so large as to make clear-cutting a really bad choice, which is why lumber companies cut only a portion of their forests and replant where they do cut. And even if the trees were not a renewable resource, clear-cutting only makes sense as a profit-maximizing strategy under the most unusual of circumstances.
In the case of a nonrenewable resource, “greedy” producers still have reason not to extract the full quantity. Owners of oil wells do not suck out every last drop once they start extracting. Why not? They face a tradeoff: They can extract a lot, or even all, and sell it at the market price and invest the proceeds to earn interest, or they can leave much or all of it in the ground and wait for the price to rise, earning higher profits in the future.
If one has possession of a valuable resource it is in their best interest to manage the extraction and sale of that resource in a way that maximizes profits. Why would somebody extract all the iron ore on their property and sell it immediately? Iron ore, being a non-renewable resource, becomes more valuable over time as it becomes more scarce. Another aspect to look at is the temporary nature property in most places:
Then why do we see clear-cutting or its equivalent in the real world? Usually it’s because the property rights of the owner are tenuous, substantially reducing the expectation of future profits and making it more rational to extract all the value now. This normally happens when governments threaten to nationalize resources or where the property claims are uncertain and one party wishes to grab all the value before another party enters the competition.
Property rights in most countries aren’t absolute and one can never be sure when their property will be seized through eminent domain laws. If you’re only likely to hold a property for a temporary amount of time it then becomes your best interest to extract all the value from it immediately. When you’re not sure if regulations or ore extraction are going to remain stable or change in a manner that makes extraction more expensive it becomes your best interest to extract it all immediately.
EPA regulations and weak property rights actually encourage environmental destruction. Like most government bodies the EPA effectively accomplishes the exact opposite of what its chartered mission claims. Environmentalists should be demanding the EPA be eliminated and property rights be recognized as absolute.
How To Create an Anti-Statist
How does one go about creating an anti-statist? Make him pay taxes. I was amused to see the following post by one of my friends:
Back to the quote: No taxation without representation.
What does this mean? Loosely, the Colonists did not think it was fair to be taxed by the British Parliament without also having a say in what went on. This makes sense: If someone is going to rob you of your hard-earned money, then you should get something in return.
I don’t think it’s a fair trade. ~23% of every paycheck I make goes right to the government. That’s almost one-fourth. That’s several nice dinners. That’s auto insurance. That’s a chunk of my vacation savings. That’s a lot.
And what do I get in return? I get to check some boxes and hope that my piece of paper changes something.
I say fuck that.
Let it be known on this day, March 7, 2012, that I, azelfrath of azelfrath.wordpress.com, will willingly and knowingly give up my right to vote in all local, state, and federal governmental elections, under the condition that I no longer am forced to pay local, state, or federal taxes. This includes income tax, sales tax, those gift taxes that nobody pays anyway, stamps on letters, and anything else of the sort.
It’s nice holding a philosophical position where the state does all my work for me. I don’t have to perform any crazy mental gymnastics to convince people that taxation is theft, they usually figure it out when they realize only two choices are available to them: pay your taxes or get kidnapped, held in a cage, and have your property stolen from you.
To the state I only ask that you continue doing what you’re already doing because through those actions you’ll create your own worst enemies and bolster the cause of liberty.
You’re All a Bunch of Socialists
Meme obtained from Facebook
Ludwig von Mises was the man when it came to economics. At a time everybody was preaching the great new planned economy Mises stood, at time, entirely alone in his advocacy of the free market. The Austrian tradition of economics is named so because Mises and his cohorts met at a bar in Austria called The Green Anchor to discuss topics related to economics.
Mises was a total bad ass who wrote large volumes about his theories in his spare time. He also didn’t take shit from anybody and the meme at the start of this post relates to an event where he got fed up talking about distributing income and stormed out of the meeting while calling the other attendees, “a bunch of socialists.” Here’s a short clip explaining Mises’s hijinks:
The man was right, knew he was right, and refused to submit to argumentum ad populum . Refusing to submit to ideas simply because a majority believe them to be true is something we can all learn from the late great Mises.
It’s Not a Lack of Intelligence
A recent study showing that people are “too stupid” for democracy to flourish has been circulating:
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.
The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people’s ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.
Where do I even begin to start with this? First let’s begin with the assumption that people are generally unable to recognize the “best political candidate” or “best policy idea.” This beginning premises is flawed because what constitutes the “best political candidate” or the “best policy idea” is entirely subjective to the individual making the decision. This is an idea collectivists have a very hard time understanding.
Case in point, some people believe that the best policy with regards to taxes is to entirely abolish taxation, which others believe we need to tax more. These two groups oppose one another because the former believes services currently provided by the government should be voluntarily provided by individuals while the second group believes it is just to forcefully take the produce of each person’s labor in order to distribute it for the “greater good” (can you guess which camp I’m in). Another example is that some people believe the best method of preventing violent crime is to make the tools used by violent criminals illegal while other people believe individuals should have access to those tools to counter the violent criminals. The former believes that criminals will actually obey prohibitions while the latter holds no such delusions.
Democracy fails not because people are too stupid but because people have different desires, beliefs, and goals. What is good for one person isn’t necessary good for another. I’ve gone into detail about why democracy isn’t legitimate, nor should it be seen as a desired societal goal. Individuals must be allowed to pursue their own goals and not be beholden to the whims and desires of others. If my goals align with the goals of another then we can certainly work together but nobody should force such cooperation. Democracy is an attempt to force cooperation but claiming a majority agreement justifies an action. Such a belief is a type of logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum and its falsehood can be easily proven by the following fact: early in human history the common belief was that Earth was flat and through scientific research we learned that Earth is actually spherical. Even though the majority of people believed Earth was flat it wasn’t true.
When a group democratically agrees on something it means some majority agreed to that thing. That majority will almost always use the threat or application of force to make others comply with the demands of the majority. People are too stupid for democracy, democracy is incompatible with species composed of individual creatures capable of reasoning.
The primary failure of this study can be found in the statement that there are best politicians and policy ideas. Such a statement is a gross display of the self-centered nature of those conducting the study. They assume that they know what is best for everybody and based on that false assumption have arrived at an equally false conclusion. Their conclusion is based on other individuals failing to agree with the study conductor’s definition of what is best. It is the epitome of arrogance to believe that you know what is best for another person and any study based on such a premises is doomed to failure. A more accurate title for this story would have been Arrogant Scientists Demonstrate their Arrogance .
Rights Versus the State
So Dayton vetoed HR 1467, and yes I’m still irked by that. Being I rarely like to let a situation go entirely to waste I believe it’s time again for Christopher Burg Explains Why the State is Bad.
Let’s consider a few things. First the state has declare itself the sole proprietor on deciding what rights we individuals hold. The state has decided that we don’t have a constitutional right to police protection as decided by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Warren v. District of Columbia and the Supreme Court cases Castle Rock v. Gonzales. Being we have no right to police protection we must resort to taking the responsibility of self-defense into our own hands. There is a slight difficulty with this though, the state has also issued numerous prohibitions against self-defense. No right to carry a firearm exists outside of Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming (every other state requires a permit or offers no legal means of carrying a firearm). Many states, including Minnesota, still hold the common law requirement that one attempt to flee a situation before enacting defensive measures. While such a requirement may seem sensible it’s not since deciding whether or not you made best effort to flee is entirely subjective. Needless to say the state places numerous barriers between individuals and their legal ability to defend themselves.
Where does that leave we the people? Nowhere good. The state has restricted our right to self-defense while offering no guarantee that defense will be provided. We’ve allowed the state to infringe on our rights as self-owners by allowing them to decree that we hold no right to defend ourselves. Because of this we’re required to beg like dogs for laws that protect lawful self-defense and turn a potential bankrupting court case into a legally recognized right of preservation of self. This is why the state should never be given authority over individuals, once that authority is recognized it’s almost impossible to seize it back.
The state is also a masturbatory entity that indulges itself. As I posted last night Dayton’s decision to veto was, supposedly, based on recommendations he received from other state agents:
Dayton made his veto by letter without commenting publicly.
In his veto letter, Dayton said, he had to honor the opposition of law enforcement.
“The MN Police and Peace Officers Association, the MN Chiefs of Police and the MN Sheriffs Association represent the men and woman who risk their lives every day and night to protect the rest of us. When they strongly oppose a measure, because they believe it will increase the dangers to them in the performance of their duties, I cannot support it,” Dayton wrote.
Instead of listening to the people he relied on other agents of the state. Our voice as individuals who are supposedly represented by the governorship was entirely ignored because, according to state agents like the governor, we don’t matter. I can point to numerous cased of this, and have many times on this very site, but for demonstration purposes I’ll bring out the White House’s response to the We The People petitions:
According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health– the world’s largest source of drug abuse research – marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has almost tripled over the past 20 years, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health – especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20’s. Simply put, it is not a benign drug.
For those unaware the National Institute of Health (NIH) is a government agency. In the case of marijuana prohibition the White House based its decision on the statements of another state agency. The vast amount of research that exists countering the findings of the NIH aren’t even mentioned nor were they likely considered.
Letting the state make decisions for us is not only bad because they will strip us of our rights but also because the only authoritative source of knowledge according to the state is the state. When you control the policy and the justification you can make anything appear justifiable.
The bottom line is that your government doesn’t love you. If you’re put at a severe disadvantage to further cement the state’s power so be it, according to the state. You and me don’t matter to the politicians, the only people who matter to them are each other and whatever cronies offer them the best deals. Politicians are only interested in power and share many traits of serial killers, which is why they likely ran for political office in the first place.
Now that I’ve bitched for a while I should present a solution. Many people firmly believe that we merely need to get the right people into office or return to a constitutional government for all to be well again. Both objectives are steps in the right direction but ultimately I believe the only solution is the elimination of the coercive entity we call the state. If my study in Austrian Economics has taught me one thing it is this: the only person qualified to make decisions that affect an individual is the individual the decision will affect. Everybody should have the same attitude as Ron Paul which is, “I don’t want to run your life, I don’t know how to run your life, I don’t have the authority to run your life, and the Constitution doesn’t permit me to run your life!” None of us have the knowledge to run each other’s lives and we shouldn’t be going around acting like we do. Likewise we shouldn’t delegate our rights as self-owners to outside entities as they don’t have the knowledge required to run our lives. The fact that we allow the state to decide whether or not it’s legal for ur to act in self-defense is absurd, we have a right to protect ourselves by the very fact that we are self-owners.
How the Patent System Works
Patents are a state granted monopoly on an idea and, as with any state institution, they protect the wealthy while preventing new innovators from entering the field. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) put together an excellent chart that explains how the patent system work:
Only the wealthy can afford to file for and defend a patent. This is even worse when it comes to software patents as they requires no physical invention. Instead software patents requires only an idea, something as simple as a double-tap on a screen.
Intellectual property is anything but intellectual.
Mutual Aid: Gunny Edition
Most of you have probably figured out the extent of my anti-statist tendencies. I hate the state with as much passion as anybody could really muster. This hatred drives me to oppose the state in whatever manner I can without initiating violence and therefore I’m a huge fan of mutual aid and like to practice it when opportunities arise. Low and behold I’ve found a gunny in need via Walls of the City.
A gun blogger I’ve not previously heard of (but likely gets more hits on her page and I do), Erin, is looking to purchase a handgun for carry. Unfortunately she’s strapped for cash and has asked for help. She’s looking for donations to help in her quest to obtain a Glock 19 and a carry permit in her home state of Florida.
Fortunately for her gunnies are generally generous individuals as she’s witnessed. So if you have some spare change lying around I’d say you could certainly do well in sending it her away. Arming a person in need is as good of a cause as any other around in my opinion.
They Keystone Pipeline
A rather controversial topic I’ve not chimed in on so far is the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. For those unaware, the Keystone Pipeline is a large pipeline that would transport oil from the tar sands of Canada to refineries in the United States. The environmentalists oppose it and those hoping for cheaper case support it. Sadly a fact that seems to get less air time is the fact that this pipeline requires the theft of private property through eminent domain:
In 2007 TransCanada’s agents at Universal Field Services approached Randy Thompson, 64, of Martell, NE, asking to survey his farm land. Thompson assented at first, under the assumption that he’d have final say over whether a Canadian company would be allowed to build anything on his property.
“Once I found out a little bit more about what was going on, I rescinded that permission,” Thompson told TPM by phone on Sunday. “[W]e did meet with them once, maybe a couple times. We told them, you don’t have a permit yet, so we absolutely do not want this thing on our property. So until you actually get a permit we have no reason to have any further discussion about this. They continually called me, like once a month or whenever they felt like it. Kept the pressure on us. Made us an offer, $9000. Whatever the offer was, we just don’t want the damn thing on our property.”
That’s when TransCanada really stepped up the pressure.
“In July 2010, we got a written letter from TransCanada, they told us if you don’t accept this within 30 days, we’re going to immediately start eminent domain proceedings against you,” Thompson said. “They didn’t say anything about a permit. I tried to contact the Governor’s office. All I got back was a form letter talking about the pipeline.”
And there lies to true problem with this pipeline, as currently planned it can only be built by using the government’s gun to forcefully steal land from rightful property owners. Eminent domain is a terrible concept that states nobody within the United States (or any of the other nations that have the same laws, which is most of them) can actually own property, instead you may only lease it from the state for as much time as they deem appropriate.
When I bring this up people will often state that eminent domain is OK because the state is required to pay you “just compensation” for any seized property. This argument forgets the fact that value is a subjective term. While a piece of property may only be valued at $100,000 by surveyors it may command a far higher value to a person whose family has been in possession of the property for multiple generations. Determination of value requires two parties: one who is attempting to buy the property and one who is selling the property. The value of the property is that which is agreeable to both parties. This is true of any voluntary transaction, but the state doesn’t deal in voluntary transactions.
If the state wants your land they declare a value, cut you a check for the value they determine, and forcefully remove you from the property if you don’t agree with the states assessment. Eminent domain is theft, period. TransCanada has no right to use the state to forcefully take what isn’t theirs, they need to either give the current owner what is being demanded or go with another plan.
Sadly the state is all too happy to loan it’s capacity for violence to a high bidder like TransCanada and that fact demonstrates the lack of property rights in this country. Without absolute property rights no true freedom can exist.
This pipeline should be condemned to the depths of Hel.