Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

Wait People are Taking Free Stuff, Next You’ll Tell Me Water is Wet

The recent occupy movements have been fueled mostly by donated goods. I know the local Minneapolis occupiers are constantly asking for needed items like food, toilet paper, mouthwash, coats, shirts, socks, etc. There’s an obvious problem when you have a gathering fueled entirely by charitable donations, as Miguel at Gun Free Zone points out, people outside of the movement are likely to come and take your shit:

Meanwhile, the protesters are starting to notice folks taking advantage of the demonstration by grabbing some of the free food and clothes that have been made available in Zuccotti Park.

“The tourists take all the food, and the hipsters take all the clothes,” said one demonstrator.

Yup, this happens when you no longer have a system of strict property rights. If everything is up for grabs don’t be surprised if everybody grabs things. This is a major problem that develops in any setting where property rights aren’t strictly defined or enforced. If you’re providing free for for everybody then need to understand people are going to be showing up regardless of whether or not they are part of your movement because they want free shit.

Behavior like this is also what dictates the end of societies build around the idea of, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” While the people of ability will produce for the needs of society at first they will eventually realize that they’re working their asses off while those providing nothing towards the betterment of society reap all of the reward. Once the people of ability realize this they will cease producing and become one of the leeches. Why work your ass off if you’re not going to receive anything for your efforts when you can kick back, relax, and receive everything you need without having to work? When you have a society composed entirely of leeches the blood eventually runs out and all perish.

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying, I’m not saying voluntary donations are bad. I give money to quite a few organizations. But those who support the abolition of property rights and freely giving anything to anybody who asks need to realize that the system will attract leeches. If you’re OK with this then by all means provide goods freely to those who ask but don’t complain when the leeches show up and start taking everything.

Social Contract

If I had a dollar for every time a statist brought up the term social contract I’d be filthy rich. The concept of a social contract has to be one of the dumbest ideas that has ever graced the mindes of men.

Of all the problems surrounding the concept of a social contract the biggest has to be the fact that nobody on this fucking planet can tell me what the exact terms of that contract are. Contracts are voluntary agreements between two entities that are enforceable by law. My biggest problems with the so-called social contract are the fact I never voluntarily agreed to any such contract and I have no idea what terms are in the contract.

In order to enforce a contract it must be known when somebody violates one of the contract’s terms. For instance let’s say we signed a contract stating you would install electrical wiring in my home for $100.00 and that wiring either had to be to code or you wouldn’t get paid. The terms are clear, you get paid if the city inspector says your job meets required electrical code or you don’t get paid. If you wire the house and it doesn’t meet electrical code then you have violated the contract, if you wire the house properly and I don’t pay you then I’ve violated the contract. Whether you violated the contract or I did is irrelevant insofar as there will be a court case in all likeliness.

As no definite terms exist in the social contract it is unenforceable because no party knows when they’re violating one of the terms. While some claim paying your taxes is part of the social contract they’ve been unable to point to where in this hypothetical contract the term exists. Somehow I was so ignorant that I agreed to a contract that obligates me to pay an undefined amount of money to the king. I’m usually smart enough to read a contract and strike out any term that says I have to pay money without defining exactly what that amount of money is.

What the social contract really boils down to is a decree. It states, “You will do whatever I say, whenever I say, and in return I’ll guarantee you nothing.” If statists wish to continue using the argument of a social contract they better get it written up so we know what the terms are. As far as I’m concerned you can’t enforce a contract unless a defined term within has been violated.

More Proof That The Government Views Us as Serfs

I often throw around the word serf as a tongue-in-cheek description of how the government views us. Sadly it’s not as tongue-in-cheek as it should be. A serf was a term used for somebody who worked land owned by a lord. While the lord reaped all of the benefits of the land the serfs were merely allowed to work said land and live there. This is basically the relationship that exists between government and people. Minnesota decided to give a great example of this fact to the citizenry by auctioning off mineral rights to private property:

Private property owners from the Ely area will make a final appeal Wednesday to the state’s top leaders to stop exploration for copper on their land, which lies in a part of the state cherished for its clean lakes and stately forests.

The state’s Executive Council, made up of the governor, the attorney general and other elected officials, is holding a special meeting to hear out citizens who have been fighting the state’s decision last April to sell 50-year mineral leases on their land.

Residents and cabin owners in what may become a new copper mining district near Ely say they were shocked that the state’s century-old minerals law seems skewed to favor mining companies over property owners. It was also their introduction to a side of the Department of Natural Resources that they had never seen — the one with a mission to promote mining.

This is very common throughout the world, while the government will “sell” you property they will keep all mineral rights over that property even after the sale. Canada is a great example of this where the government claims ownership to the mineral rights of all property sold after the early 1900s.

While the people living in Ely, Minnesota thought they owned their land they’re now realizing that they don’t. If they truly owned their land they could forcibly remove the mine speculators from their property as trespassers. Instead those speculators have permission from the government to not only search “private” property for minerals but also mine those minerals without having to grant the “owner” of the property anything but minor compensations.

How disgusting is it that you don’t even own your own property? If you find gold somewhere on your property you’d best not tell anybody as the government may gain knowledge of it and move in to take that gold from you. For a society to be truly peaceful absolute property rights must be recognized.

The Case of Anwar al-Awlaki

The news is in, Anwar al-Awlaki is dead! Hurray! Go America! That’s how this news is being reported by a great number of sources with few giving much consideration to the fact that the President ordered a hit on a United States citizen without granting that citizen’s constitutionally guaranteed right to face his accusers. Thankfully there are some dissenter left on Capitol Hill who are willing to point out this face:

Paul, known for his fierce libertarian views, said the death of the New Mexico native-turned-terrorist-preacher was akin to “assassination” during a campaign stop in New Hampshire.

“I don’t think it’s a good way to deal with our problems,” the Texas Congressman said. “If the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the President assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it’s sad.”

I fully agree with Dr. Paul on this. Anwar al-Awalki may have been a terrible person but he was still a citizen of the United States of America, which means he should have enjoyed the so-called rights ascribed by the Constitution. Namely al-Awalki’s Sixth Amendment guarantee to a trial by jury and right to face his accuser were violated:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The United States is supposedly a landed where rule of law reigns supreme. Instead our government sees fit to throw out laws when those rules become inconvenient to them. Would arresting somebody and trying him for crimes be a pain in the ass? “No problem!” our politicians say, “Just send a missile at him from an unmanned drone!”

People in this country should be truly frightening by this turn of events. When you give the government an inch they always take a lightyear. Sure they’re using the excuse that al-Awalki was a terrorist this time but what’s to stop the government from expanding on this? We’re currently fighting a war on drugs so should the President have the power to order hits on drug deals who are citizens of the United States? Considering the fact that the federal government has been using clauses in the PATRIOT Act to fight the war on drugs what I’m suggesting wouldn’t be too great of a leap. From there why not allow the President to order hits on drug users?

The blind approval of the assassination of al-Awalki is a slippery slope indeed. We, as American people, need to decide if our country is indeed a land where all are equal under the law or if our country is run by a ruling class who can exempt themselves from the law whenever they so choose. Should our politicians have to abide by the Constitution at all times or only pay it lip service when it’s politically expedient? We can’t have it both ways.

He Should Raise His Own Damned Taxes

During one of his town hall meetings Obama was able to get a shill to appear on stage and beg the president to increase taxes:

“Thank you, Mr. President,” the man began. “I don’t have a job, but that’s because I’ve been lucky enough to live in Silicon Valley for a while and work for a small startup down the street here, that did quite well. So, I’m unemployed by choice. My question is: Would you please raise my taxes?”

Let’s look at this from two different angles. First of all what tax is Obama demanding to be raised? Yes there are so many different taxes out there that it’s hard to keep track of them all but currently Obama is demanding that Congress increase the income tax. What does an unemployed person pay in income tax? Nothing, because they’re not employed and thus have no income. Obama’s shill, Doug Edwards, very well may be paying other taxes such as capital gains but that rate would be unaffected by an increase in income taxes. Somebody may ask if a person has to pay income and capital gains taxes on capital gains as it is a type of income. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) you do not. Right off the bat Mr. Edwards’s plee is disingenuous.

The next angle that should be addressed is the fact that you don’t need the government to increase tax rates in order to pay more taxes. If you want to pay more taxes then you can cut the government a check and mail it to the following address:

Bureau of the Public Debt
Department G
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

If Mr. Edwards is genuine in his desire to be more heavily taxed he can go right ahead and tax himself more. Mr. Edwards is pleading the president to increase theft in this country while, most likely, knowing he’ll not be affected by it. Those who are against taxation are already shaking their heads at Mr. Edwards but those who support an increase in income tax should also be shaking their heads. It doesn’t look good for a cause when disingenuous shills are brought up to speak in favor of the movement because what they say will likely be ripped apart by your opposition.

Rick Perry Wants to Invade Mexico

If it wasn’t blatantly obvious that Rick Perry is a neo-con he decided to show his true colors for all to see. Mr. Perry seems to believe that sending American troops into Mexico is a logical method of fighting the drug cartels:

Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry on Saturday said he would be open to sending U.S. troops into Mexico to combat drug cartels.

Speaking in New Hampshire during a campaign stop, Perry said, “It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and keep them off our border.”

Let’s stop to think about this for a minute. The only reason the drug cartels in Mexico have any power is because they were able to attain wealth through an illegitimate business. Their business is only illegitimate because the United States government declared a pointless war on drugs. One sign of insanity is performing the exact same sequence of events and expecting a different outcome. By that definition the federal government must be insane because we had a little episode in our history known as Prohibition. Due to alcohol being declare a verboten substance the criminal underground began making a fortune off of bootlegged liquor. This lead to an increased level of violent crime which was only reduced when the constitutional amendment banning alcohol was repealed.

So what does our miraculous government do several decades down the road? Start a prohibition against various politically selected drugs which turned manufacturing, selling, and using those substances into a crime. This lead to a dramatic increase in violent crime which has not subsumed. If Rick Perry is serious about reducing the violent crime rate along the Mexican-American border he will advocate an end to the war on drugs as Ron Paul has. By ending the needless war on drugs we will take the power from the drug cartels as legitimate competition enters the market and the production of currently illegal substances begins to drop sharply in price. So long as the federal government attempts to play nanny we’re going to have to deal with drug cartels whose power is ever increasing.

An invasion of Mexico to stop the drug cartels will end in nothing but more wasting of taxpayer dollars and more of our soldiers dying needlessly. We already have several wars going on overseas anyways so why is there any talk about starting another one?

One Voluntaryist’s Take on the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act

Earlier this week I got into a very interesting conversation with another libertarian regarding the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. I’ll not reprint the entire conversation here but in summary I stated that, although holding some reservations, in general support the bill. My opponent holds a completely different opinion believing that it’s not for Congress to pass laws based on their interpretation of the Constitution and determining interpretations of the Constitution lies solely with the Supreme Court. Basically he believes Congress is overstepping its Constitutionally authorized powers by presenting this bill.

How can two libertarians come to completely different stances regarding this one bill? Simple, there are different categories of libertarians. My opponent is a strict constitutionalist while I am a voluntaryist. While both categories follow the non-aggression principle which constructs the foundation of libertarian philosophy and both categories believe in the rule of law there is a difference in belief of what constitutes aggression and what qualifies as law.

A strict constitutionalist does not believe a state operating under a country’s constitution is committing aggression as the constitution is considered a socially agreed upon document that those living within a country either must agree to or leave. Voluntaryists on the other hand believe that a state is necessarily violence as the definition of state is an entity that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a geographic area. Likewise a state can only be maintained through taxation which constitutes an act of agression against those being taxed.

Rest assured that I haven not wasted your time explaining the difference between the two as it is important knowledge to have in hand in order to understand the view I’m about to present regarding this bill.

As I stated in the beginning of this post I support the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act even though I hold some reservations about granting more power to the federal government. My support for this bill stems from my belief in absolute property rights which extents from my belief in the absolute right of self-ownership. There are only two legitimate means of obtaining property; homesteading and mutually agree to terms of trade between a prospective buyer and a person who either homesteaded the property or obtained it through a mutually agree upon trade. The act of homesteading necessarily requires that you mix your labor with the property (in other words make some kind of improvement to the property) in order to claim it as your own.

Unfortunately absolute property rights can not exist under a state. This fact can be demonstrated through two points; all land is claimed by the state as its own and the state maintains the power of eminent domain over all property within its geographic area. Being a state does not obtain its property through either of the two legitimate means of property attainment the state can not be said to legitimately own any property. What the state does have, however, is an incredible capacity for violence which its willing use in order to maintain its claim of property ownership.

Thus we have a conundrum, while the state should not be able to make rules regarding the actions of people on unowned property they do so through the threat and use of violence. Violence is an incredible tool for maintaining illegitimate claims and thus it’s often much easier to work within the state’s rules than to violate them. Thus it is in the best interests of those living under the state to acquire any liberties they can get away with. If acquiring these liberties can be done by obtaining permission from the state through a state approved legislative process then it might as well be used. A tool is a tool after all.

So we stand at a crossroad. In one direction the state claims the right to create arbitrary rules dictating the actions of those living within its borders. In the other direction we have the fact that the state has no legitimate claim to the property within its borders and thus has no legitimate grounds for dictating the actions of those living within. Meanwhile many of us wish to maintain our right to self-defense wherever we travel within the borders of the state (a right derived from self-ownership). I believe those of us wishing to maintain our right to self-defense should travel the road supporting the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.

The state has no right to demand that we travel through unowned property disarmed. If the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act is passed it will remove an arbitrary restriction placed upon the people in the United States. That is to say we will gain an additional liberty and remove one more rule that is enforced through violence. Likewise this bill will maintain the rights of legitimate property owners as nowhere within the bill’s text is there a decree that private property owners must allow armed individuals onto their property.

Albeit I usually do not support the federal government granting itself additional powers over the individual states I still support this law overall as it grants an additional liberty to those living in the United States. I still find the claims of my opponent dubious as the Bill of Rights clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Most libertarians in the strict constitutionalist camp seem to agree that this bill is an overall good thing but I understand the view of those who oppose it on the grounds that any additional powers claimed by the federal government are generally dangerous.

Herp Derp

There are stupid people, really stupid people, and then there is this fucking moron:

When I say fucking moron I mean the “economist” the reporter is quoting in case that wasn’t obvious. If you don’t know what gold is backed by I’m here to inform, gold is backed by itself. Although people often get caught up in the concept of the “gold standard” what supporters actually mean is a commodity based money. Gold has traditionally been the commodity chosen to act as money due to many qualities including is scarcity, easy divisibility, durability, and actual use in the manufacture of other goods. Gold could easily be replaced by any other commodity so long as it’s generally accepted as the common good of trade.

United States dollars on the other hand are basically backed by a bunch of well armed thugs who claim it’s worth to be the supposed full faith and credit of their organization. Of course that very organization is tens of trillions of dollars in debt so I’m not sure what faith or credit they have remaining.

When somebody talks about a commodity backed money they mean each monetary unit is actually a receipt for a physical good stored elsewhere (unless the actual physical good is being used). For example if the dollar were a gold back currency each dollar would be set as being worth a certain weight in gold. When you went to the bank you could convert your paper receipts into their physical value of the backing commodity.

The United States dollar is a fiat currency meaning there is no physical commodity backing it. It’s basically only worth what others are willing to recognized it for. If foreign countries are no longer willing to recognized the value of the paper dollar then the dollar literally has no actual value.

The Irony Tastes Sweet

I have a friend who we will call Boris in order to protect his true identity. Boris is a communist (like a real communist, I’m not saying this as an insult) who has been working hard at finding work. During the span of time that he’s been unemployed he’s been writing numerous complaints about being poor (from his iPad) and about how the “rich” should pay their “fair share” of taxes.

Low and behold Boris has found a job but alas fate has decided to be a cruel bitch as he had the following to say:

My new found job lands me in the 25% tax bracket… really US? Can I ever cut a *$^*# break….

I can’t tell you how hard I laughed when I read this. Oh the irony of demanding the “rich” pay more taxes and then landing a new job only to be made to pay more taxes is almost too great. Boris if you’re reading this I’m sorry but this is absolutely hilarious from where I’m sitting.

Following his post Boris also tried to justify his anger but claiming people making over $1 million should be made to pay a 90% income tax. It’s nice to see he finally found an exact definition of rich which, not surprisingly, is above his pay scale. I really wish Boris would just jump on my bandwagon and detest all taxation as theft because then he could remain ideologically consistent while complaining about having to pay more income tax.

If you’ll excuse me my stomach is in pain from all the laughing I’m doing right now.

Dollar Apocalypse

It seems more of my friends have started jumping on the blog bandwagon. One of my friends in the finance field has started a new blog that focuses on the current economic fuck up that we’re currently experiencing. He’s a pretty smart guy so I highly recommend heading over to his site and reading through the material posted so far.

For those of you wondering if I shill for my friends let me asure you I do. Well I shill for my friends who I believe post material worth reading, I actually have quite a few friends who have started blogs but lack any content that’s worthwhile so I haven’t brought them up. Still if you know me and have a blog let me know and I may send you two of my four readers.