Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

This Week at Occupy Minneapolis Questions of Ownership Arise

Still finding this entire occupy movement very interesting I’ve continued visiting the Minneapolis occupation periodically. While little of interest has been happening this weekend the occupiers came up with a plan of action and decide to have a large number of their crew head down to a foreclosed home in southern Minneapolis and occupy it at the invitation of the owner. OK who owns the home is a rather murky question which I’ll explain in a bit.

As can be expected the police eventually arrived to evict the occupiers. I will commend the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) on their general willingness to provide occupiers a means of leaving without arrest and avoiding the use of violence to get their point across. The entire home occupation was being broadcast on Occupy Minneapolis’s LiveStream (I check it sometimes to see if they’re doing anything interesting that could be worth blogging about). As I brought up the LiveStream I noticed the police were in the house so I watched as the cops booted everybody out of the home. MPD allowed anybody who wanted to leave without being arrest to do so and only one person, going by the name Panda, remained in the home. Expectedly the police did arrest him although I’m not sure on what charges (it may be trespassing, it may be breaking and entering, it may be attempted burglary, I honestly am not sure).

Another occupier, named Devin, decided to stand in front of the police car that Panda was being held in. When I saw this I thought that the action was a nice gesture but as nobody was standing behind the police car they’re just going to throw it in reverse, back out of there, and laugh at the Devin. I was wrong:

Judging by comments and attitudes towards the occupy movements I can guess that most of you reading this are likely against the whole idea. I’ve stated before that I’m glad people realize that they’re being fucked over and have finally stood up and screamed about it but also feel as though many of the occupiers don’t understand how they’re being fucked over. There are many members of Occupy who are protesting the existence of the Federal Reserve, a message I completely support and there are occupiers who are protesting the existence of capitalism, a message I completely oppose (although I realize most of them don’t actually understand what capitalism is and instead believe what we have in the United States qualifies therefore I see them as misguided).

Still I feel whether you support the occupiers or not you can agree the police driving their car into Devin was an unnecessary flexing of their muscles. Devin was actually arrested because, apparently, it’s a crime to get pushed around by a police cruiser. As the police had an unobstructed means of leaving (backing out) I feel the act of driving into Devin was excessive. It would have been one thing had the police arrested Devin before driving into him for obstruction of justice, while I wouldn’t have agreed with that either at least it would have been involved some decency. Instead MPD officers decided it would be a jolly good time to push him around on a snow-slick road to show off the fact a police cruiser can move a man without difficulty.

After these events concluded I ventured down to the home. By the time I arrived many of the occupiers had moved back into the dwelling, an act I found bold considering what just went down (I believed it would be unlikely that those in the home would avoid being arrested a second time). I had no such desire to face possible arrest so I stayed on the public sidewalk for the duration of my vist. This is when things got truly interesting in my opinion.

While the area was surrounded more or less by police cruisers none of the officers ever made a move for the house. One police cruiser finally drove down the street, stopped, and a couple of officers conversed with one of the occupiers. Parts of the conversation were overheard by me and I caught enough to learn that the owner of the building was in question. U.S. Bank performed the foreclosure but it seems they were unable to provide a title or promissory note demonstrating their ownership. This is a far more common occurrence in recent foreclosures than most people realize and it should be brought to light. Due to the number of people involved in the mortgage business and the constant shifting around of said mortgages the owner of many properties is in dispute. This lead to a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that effectively nullified some foreclosures.

Many foreclosures are being performed without any actual proof of ownership on behalf of the loaning agencies. People are being kicked out of dwellings by people who claim ownership but have no means of backing such claims. This practice is quite disgusting in my never humble opinion. From a libertarian perspective proof of ownership is crucial before actions can be taken to enforce property rights. If you find a discarded watch and somebody later claims that they are the rightful owners of the watch their statement should be taken with a gain of salt unless they can produce proof of ownership. The same goes for property foreclosures: if a loaning agency claims ownership of a home and wishes to kick the person(s) living there out because payments have not been made then the police should first demand proof of ownership from the agency before going through with the eviction. Proof of ownership has often not been required before evictions have been served and that needs to stop.

Once again I find the Occupy movement pointing out a fact of crucial importance without actually pointing it out. In the shouts of housing being a human right (in the argument of positive vs. negative rights I’m a firm believer in negative rights) many occupiers claim foreclosures should be illegal. What they usually don’t say is that these foreclosures are often illegal because the foreclosing agency can’t provide proof that they own the property. It would be far more beneficial if the occupiers presented this fact first and foremost instead of presenting arguments claiming home ownership is a human right. The former is a legal procedure which should be abided by in courts while the latter is a belief that directly conflicts with the founding principles of this country and thus is a difficult argument to make.

How Government Environmental Protection Works

When many of my friends find out Ron Paul wants to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) they flip out. These friends believe the EPA actually protects the environment when in fact they do no such thing. If the EPA was actually interested in protecting the environment they would allow lawsuits against polluters by individuals whose land and body the polluters have contaminated. Instead the EPA states entities that only emit arbitrarily selected amounts of pollution are basically immune from civil suits and issues waivers to favored corporations so they aren’t hindered by legislation while their competitors have to deal with the additional expenses of complying with those regulations.

Such corruption isn’t exclusive to the federal government though, state governments like getting in on the action as well:

A BP (BP) refinery in Indiana will be allowed to continue to dump mercury into Lake Michigan under a permit issued by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

The permit exempts the BP plant at Whiting, Ind., 3 miles southeast of Chicago, from a 1995 federal regulation limiting mercury discharges into the Great Lakes to 1.3 ounces per year.

If you have the money government environmental protection agencies will grants you special privileges so you don’t have to deal with those nasty and expensive regulations. While your company reaps the benefits of these immunities your competitors will be forced to pass on the expense of complying with those regulations to their customers, making their product more expensive than yours.

Indiana officials said the amount of mercury released by BP was minor.

“The permitted levels will not affect drinking water, recreation or aquatic life,” Indiana Department of Environmental Management Commissioner Thomas Easterly told the Chicago Tribune.

Than why did British Petroleum (BP) have to get a special permit? If the amount of mercury they’re dumping is insignificant shouldn’t all companies be allowed to dump the same amount without special permission? Shouldn’t everybody be treated equally under the law? Why can companies will huge bank accounts buy special privileges?

The same answer applies to all of these questions, it’s not about environmental protection it’s about extortion. By declaring rule over environmental issues the government has created a new revenue stream for themselves in the form of permits and waivers. Large polluters support these regulations under the veil of environmental concern when in fact their support stems from the fact that they can afford to deal with these measures while their competitors can’t. Expensive environmental regulations further distort the market by favoring wealthy established companies and making the barrier of entry into many markets so high that no upstart can’t afford it.

People who want to protect the environment should be demanding the abolition of state controlled environmental protection agencies and the establishment of strict property rights. If a company is dumping pollutants that are contaminating land or water owned by individuals those individuals should be able to sue based on the fact their property rights have been violated. You can rest assured that everybody living on the shore of Lake Michigan suing BP would cost them a pretty penny and urge them to find some other way of dealing with their mercury.

Something I Don’t Get About Zuccotti Park

Earlier this week members of the Occupy Wall Street movement were evicted by the New York Police Department (NYPD) from Zuccotti Park. Protesters have been allowed to return to the park but with several restrictions put into place:

Hundreds of protesters returned to the park as night fell on Tuesday, but they will now not be allowed to pitch tents or use generators in the plaza.

[…]

Police said there was no official curfew, but that protesters would not be allowed to sleep at the park. Protesters with backpacks and large bags were not allowed inside.

Many of the occupiers are claiming these new restrictions are a violation of their First Amendment rights. Once again I find myself scratching my head as this issue doesn’t seem to be one involving the right of free speech by the right of property ownership.

Zuccotti Park is privately owned by Brookfield Properties. As Zuccotti Park is owned by Brookfield Properties they should be able to set whatever restrictions they desire on the use of the property. If Brookfield Properties wish to allow camping on the property then camping is allowed, if they wish to prohibit camping on the property than camping isn’t allowed. This situation would be different were the land publicly owned as everybody can claim, rightfully, to be a partial owner and therefore a debate over the use of the property could ensure.

The occupiers in Minneapolis were smarter in my opinion than the New York group. Occupy Minneapolis chose publicly owned land to hold their occupation and thus the rules over who gets to determine what can and can’t happen on the property are incredibly muddy. While Hennepin County will claim that right as declared owners of the property the occupiers can rightfully claim that the tax dollars spent on the property were procured from Hennepin County residents and therefore everybody living in Hennepin County is a partial owner.

Department of Justice Deems Violating Website Terms of Service Illegal

We’ve all glossed over the Terms of Service (ToS) agreements of various websites and software packages. Most ToS agreements are composted of dense legalese that nobody without a law degree could possibly hope to translate. I view ToS agreements the same I view any broken contractual agreement where nothing of value has been lost, a non-issue. If you make an agreement with me to stand on one foot for an hour every Saturday morning in exchange for me agreeing to do a handstand at 21:00 every Thursday and one of us breaks the agreement neither party has actually lost anything. Even if there is a contractual agreement between the two of us as neither of us has actually suffered any loss of property no prosecutable offense has taken place.

If you signup for a Facebook account and use a fake name, something against Facebook’s ToS agreement, what is lost? Nothing, as the agreement stipulated no transfer of property and thus violation of the agreement is without consequence and therefore not a prosecutable offense. Unless, of course, you ask the Department of Justice (DoJ):

The U.S. Department of Justice is defending computer hacking laws that make it a crime to use a fake name on Facebook or lie about your weight in an online dating profile at a site like Match.com.

In a statement obtained by CNET that’s scheduled to be delivered tomorrow, the Justice Department argues that it must be able to prosecute violations of Web sites’ often-ignored, always-unintelligible “terms of service” policies.

The law must allow “prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider,” Richard Downing, the Justice Department’s deputy computer crime chief, will tell the U.S. Congress tomorrow.

What the DoJ stance doesn’t take into consideration is the fact contractual agreements between an employer and employee or service provider and customer often involved actual loss of property. If you make a contractual agreement with a cell phone service provider that states the provier will give you a phone at a reduced cost in exchange for your commitment to two years of service a loss of property, the subsidized value of the phone, is inflicted upon the provider if you break the contract. This is why ending such a contract before the two years is up entitles paying an early termination fee, to reclaim the subsidized value of the phone.

A website doesn’t actually lose any property when you decide to use a fake name. In fact I’m unaware of a single ToS agrement violation that could lead to a provider losing property if violated, considering most of these services are free to use. Therefore there is no legitimate reason to prosecute somebody for violating a ToS agreement.

Either way don’t fret about violating my ToS agreement.

When Ignorance is Prevalent Hilarity Ensues

I’ve stated several times both on this blog and elsewhere that I have mixed feelings about the various occupation movements. On one hand I’m positively gleeful that people are finally waking up to the fact that they’re being fucked over and are finally speaking up about that fact. Then I look on the other hand and realize that a large number of people at these occupation, while understanding that they’re being fucked over, don’t actually understand who is fucking them over or how. The lack of understanding has lead to numerous public displays of total ignorance and conflicting messages.

Recently students in a Harvard introductory economics class staged a walkout and sent the professor a letter explaining their reason. The problem with the letter is that it’s dripping with irony:

As Harvard undergraduates, we enrolled in Economics 10 hoping to gain a broad and introductory foundation of economic theory that would assist us in our various intellectual pursuits and diverse disciplines, which range from Economics, to Government, to Environmental Sciences and Public Policy, and beyond. Instead, we found a course that espouses a specific—and limited—view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today.

[…]

There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory.

It is my guess, although one based off of reason, that most, if not all, of these students do not support giving equal time to both the idea that the Earth is flat (yes, some people still believe this) and the fact that the Earth is a sphere in science classes. Yet they demand equal time be given to ideas that have been proven wrong (Keynesian economics) and ideas that have been proven correct (free market economics) in economics class.

The letter also espouses a complete ignorance on the topic of economics which is better explained in this article (although I wish the author wouldn’t have injected so much “us vs. them” attitude). What I find most disturbing and is pointed out in the article is the sheer unwillingness of some of these people to even listen to a dissenting opinion:

But that doesn’t matter to radical leftists. Logic in economics is irrelevant to them. As Mises explained, to defend their irrational theories they “attack logic and reason and substitute mystical intuition for ratiocination.”[2] That’s why they protest viewpoints they don’t like instead of engaging with and critiquing them. And that’s why they shout down dissenters in their creepy chanting assemblies. Independent thought is a threat to them.

[…]

It’s apparently not enough that these students will never encounter a conservative or libertarian viewpoint in any of their other classes. No, they must be shielded from any professor whatsoever who might challenge one of their prejudices against the free market. Even if that professor once wrote, as Mankiw did, “If you were going to turn to only one economist to understand the problems facing the economy, there is little doubt that the economist would be John Maynard Keynes.” If he holds any pro-market views at all, apparently, he must be boycotted.

This is known as confirmation bias and everybody suffers it to an extent. When I last visited the Occupy Minneapolis crew I tried entering a discussion with another about the right of jury’s to use nullification. He disagreed adamantly and stated juries must base their judgement on the letter of the law. When I tried explaining this wasn’t the fact and used historical examples such as Wisconsin’s use of nullification to avoid upholding the Fugitive Slaves Act and various state’s using nullification to avoid enacting the REAL ID Act he stormed off and told everybody else listening to our conversation not to listen to me. He presented no historical or legal precedent supporting his side of the argument, he simply refused to listen to what I was saying because it disagreed with what he believed.

I leave you once again with the wisdom of Murray Rothbard:

Go ahead and debate economics all you want but before doing so rid yourself of your ignorance so you don’t look the fool when you open your mouth. Nothing is served by ignoring what your opposition says as you can not learn or understand your opponent unless you first listen to them.

Private Police

When you bring up the idea of a private police force people generally cringe in disgust. For some reason our society has found healthy and ration self-interest, or making profits from your labor, to be a thing of disgust. Unlike those who cringe every time the idea of private police forces is brought up I actually want those tasked with protecting me to do so for selfish reasons like profit. Why? Because people do far better work when they know they will be rewarded for their effort.

Several towns, including one here in Minnesota, have started hiring private police to take on a majority of patrolling duties. Why would somebody consider doing that? Simple, private police are cheaper than the public ones:

Now, in an effort to save money, the city with a population of 2,600 is making a controversial move few others have done: Starting in January, it plans to employ a private security company to patrol its streets.
Foley is believed to be the first town in Minnesota to replace its police force with private guards, according to the Minnesota attorney general’s office.

Not only is the town likely to save money but there is another huge benefit:

Leoni said GSSC security officers go through extensive training comparable to police officers. They will carry firearms for their own protection and not to enforce laws, he said.

[…]

Swanson wrote that private security employees may carry a firearm but can use it only in self-defense. Private guards do not have the authority to make arrests other than citizens’ arrests, cannot pursue fleeing suspects, make DWI arrests or even traffic stops. There’s also the issue of whether self-incriminating statements or evidence taken from a suspect by a security officer could be used in court, she wrote.

The private security employees can carry firearms but can only use them under the same circumstances any other private individual can, in self-defense. One of the things that sickens me most about modern police forces is their apparent willingness to employ deadly force in situations where such violence isn’t justifiable and being granted immunity because they’re employees of the state. Private security employees have to obey the same laws as private individuals which is a huge step in the right direction in my book.

I’m looking forward to seeing the results of this experiment. My guess is the experiment will end with the town saving money and the rate of unnecessary police violence dropping. I also predict crime in general will be reduced as the private police must either do a job that satisfies their customers or face unemployment. The profit motivator is a great one as is directly connects a person’s performance to their reward so that better performance means more reward. Rational self-interest is healthy and one of the most powerful motivators that exists for any species.

People Killed by Socialism vs. People Killed by Capitalism

History shows us that socialism usually leads to body counts. Whenever I bring this up around those advocating socialism they’re usually quick to saying, “Yeah but how many people has capitalism killed?” While they believe this is a smart response in which their opponent can only answer with an absurdly high number the truth of the matter is capitalism hasn’t actually killed anybody.

An advocate of socialism is always quick to laugh at my answer and bring up all those die because they’re unable to afford medical care, housing, food, etc. The problem with their rebuttal lies in the fact inaction does not kill somebody. Capitalism is a form of voluntary trade where people in a free market are able to take the product of their labor and trade it to others for the product of their labor. If you don’t like the terms of a trade you can walk away and no harm will come to you. Unfortunately there will be those who can’t afford basic needs but they do have other options including charity and mutual aid societies. Still some people will inevitably die from exposure, disease, or hunger under capitalism as with any economic system.

Socialism is a different beast altogether as the product of your labor is not yours to keep. In order to provide for everybody a central state confiscates the product of peoples’ labor so it can be equally distributed. This is where the real difference between socialism and capitalism comes into play; under socialism if you refuse to turn over the product of your labor to the state they will use for to take it for “the greater good.” Thus socialism is not a voluntary economic system but one based on the act of theft. Another aspect of socialism that is necessary for this topic is the idea of a new “socialist man.” Proponents of socialism believe people must be educated in order for a socialism utopia to form and this education is often the source of violence in socialist countries. Those who refuse to cooperate and play but the state’s rules are usually shipped off to reeducation or labor camps (often both camps being the same thing in practice). On the other hand capitalism works with our current society without the need to education the populace.

Capitalism vs. socialism is really a debate between voluntary and forced society. Under capitalism all transactions are voluntary whereas transactions under socialism are performed through coercion. If you die because somebody failed to provide you with something we don’t claim the would-be provider killed you. A man with a carry permit who refused to intervene in a violent crime is not said to have murdered the victim. When a farmer fails to provide food to a starving man we don’t charge the farmer with murder. Thus the people socialists claim are killed by capitalism can not be said to have been killed by capitalism. Those people died because they were no provided with a need and that doesn’t fit the description of being killed.

The victims of socialism however are usually those who dissented against the state or tried to maintain the product of their labor by concealing it from the state’s agents. Many Ukrainian farmers were labeled enemies of the state and hauled away because they attempted to conceal grain for their sustenance. Those farmers were murdered by the state because they refused to turn over what was rightfully theirs; in other words the state played the part of the mugger in a robbery. When somebody kills another while performing an act of theft we call it murder. Therefore by definition socialism is said to kill people as the redistribution of resources necessitates theft which necessitates violence.

The people advocates of socialism claim are killed by capitalism die due to the lack of action whereas those killed by socialism are killed by purposeful action.

There is Something Seriously Wrong with Our Legal System

Let me just take a second to say our “justice” system is all sorts of messed up. When a person gets punished harsher for possessing child pornography than for actually molesting a child things need to get changed:

A jury convicted Vilca on 454 counts of possessing child pornography, one for each image found on his computer. Under Florida law, each count is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Sentencing guidelines indicated a minimum term of 152 years, although Collier Circuit Judge Fred Hardt had discretion to impose a lighter sentence if he concluded it was justified by factors such as constitutional infirmity or Vilca’s mental health. “Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child,” The New York Times notes, “he might well have received a lighter sentence.”

Emphasis mine. Cases like this aren’t isolated incidents. Our “justice” system is full of disproportional punishments as noted by people who have sat in prison longer for possessing small amounts of marijuana than many others have of murdering fellow human beings. People love to say the punishment should fit the crime and I agree, unfortunately that’s now what happens in this country.

Wisconsin’s Training Requirement Thrown Out

In a rare act of political common sense the lawmakers in Wisconsin have tossed out the mandatory four hours of training to obtain a carry permit:

Applicants to carry concealed weapons in Wisconsin will no longer have to complete four hours of training, after a Republican-controlled legislative committee voted Monday to do away with the requirement that had been assailed by the National Rifle Association as being too strict.

The rule mandating the successful completion of at least four hours of training was put in place by Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s Department of Justice in advance of the law taking effect last week.

[…]

“There’s no reason why we have to micromanage how people obtain their concealed carry permit,” said Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend. Other states with no minimum training requirements haven’t had any problems and “there’s going to be no problem in the state of Wisconsin either,” Grothman said.

Senator Grothman states is beautifully, states lacking training requirements haven’t had any issues with the issuance of carry permits. The idea that training be required to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right is absurd. Has anybody ever advocated a requirement of training be completed before exercising the right of free speech? I’ve never heard anybody claim those wishing to protect themselves against self-persecution only be allowed to remain silent if they’ve passed a training program.

Why should those eligible to own firearms be restricted from carrying them?

Another State Votes Against Mandatory Health Insurance

It appears the tradition of nullification is alive and well in regards to the federal Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act. Ohio joins the rapidly growing number of states that have voted against allowing the government to dictate what you buy:

On the eve of the 213th anniversary of the passage of Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, laying the intellectual groundwork of nullification, the people of Ohio exercised their power and nullified the insurance mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Ohioans passed Issue Three, a constitutional amendment to preserve their right to choose their own health care and health care coverage. Preliminary returns indicated a wide margin of victory, with more than 60 percent approving the amendment. The amendment makes it illegal for any local, state or federal law to require Ohio residents to purchase health insurance, effectively nullifying a key component of the PPACA.

“This signifies that state level resistance to federal power is not just an old idea relegated to history books,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said, “It’s something that’s alive and well right now.”

Ohio became the tenth state to reject the insurance mandates in the PPACA.

Good on you Ohio. There is no justification that allows the federal government to determine what you will and will not buy. While the lack of justification hasn’t stopped the federal government from dictating that all Americans buy into Social Security it’s still nice to see a line in the sand drawn somewhere.

The idea that you have to buy health insurance under threat of punishment is disgusting and I’m not sure how the American public put up with the passage of such legislation. While those who support the legislation say it’s important to ensure all Americans receive quality healthcare they are mistaken in what this bill really enacts. It doesn’t enact quality healthcare, it enacts violence by putting a gun to the head of every American and demanding they buy health insurance.