Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

Live Blog of Capitalism Awareness Week Presentation

Welcome to a first here at A Geek With Guns, a Live Blog. I’m Live Blogging this event. Sorry for the lack of notification but I didn’t expect to do this right away.

20:34: It’s questions and answer time. This ends my live blog because I honestly don’t care about this part of the debate. Thank you for joining me on such short notice, if I choose to do this again I’ll try to give better notice. I’ll also try to pick an event that’s actually meaningful, this one was pretty lame.

20:32: Randian is explaining that equality in the United States means equality in the eyes of the law. He says there is no such thing as equality for opportunity or outcome which is true.

20:31: Statist Prick makes the false claim that yelling fire in a crowded building is a restriction on free speech. Yelling fire in a building isn’t actually illegal and was an example given by a Supreme Court justice as to a potential reason to restrict a right.

20:30: The moderator is asking Statist Prick to define the line between just government action and overstepping of government bounds. He claims it’s based on judgement and it’s one of those “we’ll know it when we see it” things. I disagree and I think anytime the federal government perform actions not granted in the Constitution they have overstepped their bounds (legally thinking).

20:27: Now Statist Prick is claiming our Constitution grants expansive powers to our government. This is debatable depending on who you talk to but I would disagree as the founders often talked about the Constitution as a constraint on the government.

20:26: Statist Prick is saying that the Constitution grants the United States government the ability to collect taxes. That is correct. However he kept talk and ended up sounding stupid. He’s claiming that while you own yourself you have a duty to the “tribe.” If you are obligated to perform duties for another you can no longer be said to be a self-owner in the truest sense.

20:24: Randian is attempting to define what individual rights are. According to him the American revolutionary idea is the belief that you own you. I think he’s trying to make an argument for self-ownership but he hasn’t.

20:21: He says he’d rewrite the Constitution and is a bigger fan of the Declaration of Independence. After saying this he also states that the Constitution is as good as it gets. Thor damn it this guy isn’t very consistent with his message or beliefs.

20:20: The moderator points out the fact that the Constitution allows for many of the things that Randian claims government shouldn’t be allowed to do. As his position is inconstant I can’t wait to hear his answer.

20:17: Now Randian brings up the fact that minimum wage laws actually cause unemployment. Ballsy statement again, good on him.

20:16: Randian is contesting Statist Prick’s claim that government isn’t force. He brings up the fact that government enforces its rules by the point of a gun. That’s a ballsy statement to make at the University of Minnesota, I commend him.

20:14: The Randian is not a fan of democracy. His explanation makes sense I will say, our country has a rule of majority when it comes to violating property rights. If the majority wants to bulldoze your home and build a tennis court it can be done.

20:12: I like that he brings up that we’re wealthier now than we were when there was less government. First of all inflation has made money worth far less which skews the statistics. Second of all our improvements in the means of production have allowed us to produce more and thus gain higher profits.

20:10: Apparently the United States has the highest poverty of all industrialized democracies… what’s quite the category he made up to fit his desired fact into.

20:09: Statist prick is back and is trying to claim that the government isn’t based on force. Somehow when a majority of people demand you do something (democracy) it’s somehow not violent when they use guns to make you comply.

20:07: Oh he’s making that whole if-the-government-doesn’t-do-it-nobody-will mistake in regards to the government again. Apparently Bernie Madoff couldn’t have been arrested by private security firms and tried in a private court. I wish people would stopping making this mistake.

20:06: Randian wants to see an actual number when people talk about “reasonable profits.” I agree.

20:04: He’s brining up how the free market regulates food safety. It’s common sense to realize that food providers aren’t going to poison their customers. Killing your customers has never good very good for getting repeat customers.

20:02: Randian has been describing the problems with central planning and the bailing out of failing businesses. Although I completely agree with that fact he’s not doing much in the way of describing how that is true.

20:00: Well it seems Randian is against the Federal Reserve which is a good sign.

19:58: Randian is actually making some sense now. I agree that the government’s subsidizing of home loans was a major fuck up that built up a bubble that popped and we’re now living with the consequences.

19:57: So the Randian is complaining about government regulations telling us what to do. He’s also a believer that there needs to be some financial regulations. I’m sorry but if you give the government an inch they’ll take a lightyear.

19:56: I think Randian is saying moral but it sounds like maul.

19:54: Now the Randian is claiming that the government should maintain a monopoly on the use of force. I don’t think he stops to consider self-defense in his statements.

19:53: Randian is trying to justify when force is necessary. He says force must be banned from human interaction. For some reason he doesn’t include self-defense as a form of human interaction which confuses me. It’s not a fun form of human interaction but it is a form of it.

19:52: Randian just said that we absolutely need government. He’s already lost me. This is supposed to be the guy I’m rooting for… guess what I’m likely going to be ripping them both apart now. Stand by for the fun.

19:51: The other guy we’re going to call the Randian is not introducing himself. I’m not the biggest Ayn Rand fan but I do believe she made some note worthy contributions to the philosophy of liberty.

19:49: At least the statist prick admits Marxism was one of the worst ideas the human race every came up with.

19:48: Now he’s fear mongering by talking about the terrible conditions that lead to regulations. Truth be told most of those horrible conditions were due to technological limitations.

19:47: Statist prick is trying to claim that the United States has never been anything besides a mixed economy. Although somewhat true the old West would be a very notable exception to this.

19:45: I missed the name of the statist prick so he’s just going to be known as the statist prick until I learn his name. According to him the government has done everything besides cure cancer. He actually believe Federal Reserve notes are somehow real money as they’re backed by the full faith and credit of the United States… which isn’t much. He’s making the common statist mistake of thinking that if the state doesn’t provide a product or service it won’t get provided.

Capitalism Awareness Week

I forgot to post this earlier but today is the beginning of Capitalism Awareness Week. Capitalism Awareness Week is an attempt to educate students on the benefits of capitalism and how it is really the only mechanism that can pull us out of our economic depression.

During the week several free lectures are going to be given on the subject at hand. The best part is that all of these events will be streamed across the Internet for all to see. You can watch the events here. As I type this the first lecture, taking place at the University of Minnesota, is starting so hop on over.

There is a Law Somewhere They Can Use

Our so-called justice system has many flaws including the fact that there are so many laws on our books that it’s impossible for a person to actually be considered innocent in a court. If the state wants you gone they can make it happen because they know somewhere on the books there is a law you’re violating right now and all they must do is find it. Case in point demonstrators on Wall Street are being arrested for violating a 150 year-old law against wearing masks:

New York City police monitoring a social media-fueled protest in Manhattan’s Financial District have charged demonstrators with violating an obscure, 150-year-old state statute that bans masked gatherings.

Since Saturday, five people connected with the protest to “occupy” Wall Street have been issued a violation for running afoul of the antimask law, according to police.

First of all everybody who knew that there are protests going on on Wall Street raise your hands. I’m not expecting many hands to be raised since the media hasn’t been covering this at all but alas these protests have been going on since Sunday:

The protest against U.S. banking institutions began Saturday, drawing hundreds from across the country.

Police blocked off several streets in lower Manhattan, directing protesters to Zuccotti Park. On Monday afternoon, sleeping bags, tents and a potluck buffet were set up in the park to accommodate demonstrators.

Either way this 150 year-old laws is being used simply because the state doesn’t like the fact that these people are exercising their right to peaceably assemble. I can see how it unfolded now; some higher up got upset at the fact that people were causing an inconvenience by protesting and told his army of lawyers to, “Find something, ANYTHING, that we can use to get these fucking peasants off the street!” After receiving their orders the army of lawyers descended upon the local law library and began digging through every book, binder, and filing cabinet to fulfill their quest of finding the holy law. One of the lawyers eventually yelled out, “AH HA! I FOUND IT!” and presented a 150 year-old manuscript to his master who rewarded the lawyer with the promise of a barony promotion.

Laws need expiration dates. Personally I believe every law that is passed should have a mandatory expiration date of one year. If the law isn’t renewed a year from it’s passing or renewal it expires and everybody who was fined or imprisoned for violating that law is refunded and freed. This could help reduce the number of laws on the books as they would need to be debated every year when their expiration date approached. Or we could simply not allow laws creating victimless crimes from being legally enforceable.

Thanks Bernanke

Against all logic Ben Bernanke has come out and stated that the Federal Reserve will be performing yet another stimulus plan and needless to say the stock markets aren’t taking the news too well:

US and Asian shares have fallen after the Federal Reserve launched a scheme – dubbed Operation Twist – to help stimulate the flagging US economy.

The Fed will sell about $400bn (£260bn) worth of bonds maturing within three years and buy longer-term debt.

They should have called it Operation Rolling Thunder since the Federal Reserve’s plan appears to be an attempt to bomb the world markets into submission through the use of bad monetary policy. What the Federal Reserve seems to believe is that they can fix the problem they created by using the same strategies that landed us in this depression in the first place. I’m guessing Bernanke doesn’t have a stove in his home since he seems like the kind of person who would touch a hot burner and never realized that touching it again will lead to more pain.

If you guys want to fix the economy then get the fuck out of the way and let the free market correct for your constant interferences.

Preemptive War

Much of the United State’s foreign policy revolves around the concept of preemptive war. Although the concept seems simple on paper, take out potential enemies before they have a chance to be an actual threat, it becomes ethically dubious once you start thinking about the concept.

As with most concepts we need to break this one down to the lowest level which is the individual. Let us consider the concept of preemptive war but replace countries with individual people. In our hypothetical scenario we’re going to say you live next to Ishmael whom you believe to be not quite right in the head. Ishmael often talks about his belief that the apocalypse is coming and that it is his duty to destroy the enemies of his god, Loki. You’ve been watching Ishmael stock up on enough firepower to arm a small militia but suddenly you hear whispers that he’s found somebody willing to sell him a grenade launcher. After hearing this news you realize that Ishmael with a grenade launcher may not be the best thing in the world for your life expectancy and thus feel as though you need to stop him before he does something stupid and ends up killing you. Of course you have no actual proof that Ishmael means you harm or would actually be dangerous with a grenade launcher in his possession but it’s a possibility.

Using the concept of preemptive war you would then go over to Ishmael’s house, knock on his door, and shoot him in the face when he opened it. Congratulations, you’ve just enacted United States foreign policy in your own neighborhood.

This is the problem with preemptive war, it can’t legitimately be considered an act of self-defense because there is no fear of immediate and tangible danger. Self-defense necessarily requires the defender to feel as though there is an immediate and tangible threat to their life. You can’t shoot a teenage boy on the street and later justify your action by claiming he may have mugged you if given the change.

Preemptive war isn’t a form of self-defense no matter how many times our government claims it to be. It is the initiation of violence plain and simple and that is why libertarians oppose it.

The Free Market in Action

A short while back DigiNotar, a Dutch certificate authority, was hacked and their signing certificates were stolen. This lead to incidents where hackers were able to create certificates for any website they chose and those certificates would appear to be valid to every major web browser. For instance a phiser could create a site and the web browser would see the certificate and say it was valid as it was signed by DigiNotar, a trusted certificate authority.

DigiNotar’s business is literally trust so their reputation is everything. Unless people can trust that websites whose certificates were signed by DigiNotar are who they claim to be DigiNotar has no business. Well people can no longer trust certificates signed by DigiNotar and now they’re filing for bankruptcy:

DigiNotar, the Dutch certificate authority (CA) which was recently at the centre of a significant hacking case, has been declared bankrupt.

This is the free market in action. People trusted DigiNotar and DigiNotar failed to uphold that trust so people are no longer willing to do business with that company. As one of the entities DigiNotar’s failure negatively affected was the Dutch government it’s unlikely the company will receive any kind of bailout or otherwise be artificially propped up meaning this is a rare case where we get to see how the free market actually works.

Agorism Alive and Well

For those who are unaware agorism is a counter economic system that strives to make an flourishing underground economy. That is to say it strives to make an economy free of government interference. Whenever you do work for a friend in exchange for cash and don’t report that income to the government you’re practicing a form of agorism. As the world economy falls further and further into the pit of failure agorism seems to be becoming more prevalent:

The United States continues to suffer from mass unemployment. People have had to adjust their lifestyles to the new reality—fewer jobs, lower wages, mortgages to pay that are now more than their homes are worth. Millions have dropped out of the job hunt and are trying to find other ways to sustain their families.

That’s where the underground economy comes in. Also called the shadow or informal economy, it’s not just illegal activity like selling drugs or doing sex work. It’s all sorts of work that doesn’t get regulated by the government or reported to the IRS, and it’s a far bigger part of the economy than most of us are aware—in 2009, economics professor Friedrich Schneider estimated that it was nearly 8 percent of the US GDP, somewhere around $1 trillion. (That makes the shadow GDP bigger than the entire GDP of Turkey or Austria.) Schneider doesn’t include illegal activities in his count– he studies legal production of goods and services that are outside of tax and labor laws. And that shadow economy is growing as regular jobs continue to be hard to come by—Schneider estimated 5 percent in ’09 alone.

So the underground economy in the United States alone is estimated to be roughly eight percent of our gross domestic product (GDP). That’s rather impressive, especially when you consider the fact that that statistic doesn’t including illegal activities but only activities that are legal in all ways except their complete ignoring of tax and labor laws.

I personally am in complete support of the agorist movement as I find the very concept of government involvement in the economy detestable. While the government and statists views agorism as theft I view it as a peaceful means of telling the government where they can stick their market interference, wars, and other activities they fund with money obtained through taxation. But as I said the government and statists view it as a form of theft which can be seen by how they refer to the underground economy:

Economist Edgar Feige estimated in 2009 that unreported economic activity was costing the US government $600 billion in tax revenues, and the growth in that number—from the Internal Revenue Service’s 2001 estimate of $345 billion—indicates the growth of the informal economy. Reporting on Feige’s work, Dennis Chaptman noted, “As the recession deepens and regular employment opportunities decline, unreported activities tend to grow, thereby swelling the tax gap and worsening the government’s budget deficit.”

Notice the wording, “costing the US government $600 billion in tax revenues.” Statistis view the product of all labor as property of the government as evident by the fact they consider taxation a form of revenue. Using this line of thinking you would be robbing the government of tax revenues if you took a pay cut that caused you to pay less income tax.

The product of your labor is not the property of the government, it’s your property. If you do not report your income to the government you’re not robbing them of revenue as the money they would have obtained from taxing your income was never rightfully theirs in the first place. Something can not be considered revenue if it would have never been rightfully yours in the first place.

Another way of thinking about this is through the example of a mugger. Let’s say a mugger robbed 10 people one year and obtained $100.00 from each of his victims for a total of $1,000.00. Now let’s say, due to these muggings, eight of the mugger’s victims went out and obtained a firearm and a carry permit. The following year the mugger attempts to rob the same 10 victims for the same amount but is only able to successfully mug two of them as the other eight pulled a gun on him and he ran off. As the mugger was only able to mug two victims for $100.00 each his take for the year was $200.00. Would you say that he suffered a $800.00 loss in revenue? Most people I know would not but that’s exactly what the government and statists are claiming.

Personally I’m glad to see the underground economy growing at such a rapid rate. Government interference in the free market is what originally lead to our economic woes and their attempts to lessen or shorten this depression have only caused it to linger longer and become more severe. Why should the government receive a cut of our labor if they are the reason we as a country are becoming less prosperous every day? Would you continue to pay an employee who continued to cost you money through his actions? No, you would fire that idiot and try to find somebody competent to replace him. Let us fire the government from our economy and instead move towards more underground activity where all transactions are voluntary and each participant gets to keep the entire product of their labor.

That’s Called Charity

There was a recent story in the Red Star about Comcast’s new program that allowed students to get online access at a greatly reduced rate. As usual somebody is complaining:

I see that Comcast is making a big splash on your editorial pages (“Comcast helps poor get online,” Short Takes, Sept. 15).

Why don’t you give the credit where it is due — to the other Comcast customers who pay full price every month?

The ones who receive their bills and say, “Hey, hon, Comcast raised the rates again.”

Lower access fees, no equipment rental fees, computer vouchers for the poor– full-paying customers are the ones who gave away all these niceties.

Are we really to believe that Comcast is not passing the costs along?

EDWARD MCHUGH, East Bethel

What Edward doesn’t seem to understand is that this concept is known as charity. Personally I’m all for Comcast’s new service so long as they aren’t receiving any government subsidy to provide it and I’m a paying Comcast customer. I realize that programs such as this aren’t free and customers such as myself are likely paying for the offset but as it’s a means of giving voluntarily I’m all for it.

Unlike the government Comcast hasn’t put a gun to my head and said that I will pay more money to provide subsidized service to those who can’t afford the standard Comcast service. Comcast has said they will provide this subsidized service and I’m more than welcome to either continue using Comcast or find another Internet provider. If Mr. McHugh is unhappy with the possibility that some of his money may be going to provide cheaper Internet access to families who can’t afford Comcast’s standard service then he can demonstrate his unhappiness by using a different service provider.

Unless there is a government subsidy involved anytime a company gives money or subsidized products or services it comes from the profits they obtain through their customers. When Glock writes a big check to veteran associations that money originated from paying customers. When Apple matches employee donations to charities that money also originates from paying customers. If you believe you’re paying too high of a price for your good or service due to the manufacturer’s or provider’s charitable donations then you can simply stop doing business with that company.

I’m a huge fan of voluntary charity and it may surprise many to learn that I donate money to various causes that I support. The problem I have is when an entity like the government puts a gun to my head and forces me to give money to causes regardless of my opinion.

Everything Will Be a Felony

One of the arguments I make against prohibiting anybody with a felony from owning firearms is the fact that most felony crimes aren’t violent in nature. While an argument can be made to prohibit a murderer from owing a firearm as they have a history of violence there is no logical argument for preventing people charged with tax evasion from owning firearms. On top of that more crimes are being pushed up to felony level every day including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:

In order to step up the prosecution of hackers and scary cybercriminals, the feds are changing a law to make unauthorized access to a computer system a felony rather than just a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor. That means making a change to something called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The article mentions an amendment being proposed to exempt violations of websites’ terms of services from the law but that’s not the point of this particular post. The point is that the government is constantly increasing the severity of crimes and those increases may leave you barred from exercising your rights even though you’ve never done anything violent.

I’m a firm believer in making criminals pay proportional compensation to their victims. This means that punishments should fit and once that punishment is exacted no further punishment should be brought against you. Those who steal from somebody should be made to return the stolen property (or the property’s value if it’s no longer returnable) along with an amount equal to the value of the stolen property. Once that debt has been paid no further punishment should be brought against the criminal. There is nothing proportional about preventing somebody who evaded theft taxes or hacked a computer from owning firearms or voting.

A vast difference exists in violent and non-violent crimes. Many people who are willing to perform non-violent crimes such as speeding or fraud are not willing to perform violent crimes such as assault or murder. The idea that we should prohibit all felons from ever again owning firearms needs to go the way of the dodo. Too many crimes are listed as felonies to make any logical argument that all felons should have their rights removed. Under the current system the government could ban firearms simply by elevating more minor crimes such as speeding and jaywalking to felony status.

The Morality of Profits

The Firearm Blog has a very interesting piece trying to uncover who owns Kahr arms, which concludes that Kahr’s claim that the company is 100% American owned is likely true. Either way that’s not the part of the article that really stood out to me, it was a quote from Kahr’s current majority shareholder Justin Moon. The quote is pulled from an interview of Justin Moon by Massad Ayoob where Ayoob asked about the speculation people have in regards to Kahr’s ownership. Ayoob asked if Moon’s father or his church owned Kahr to which Moon replied:

I currently am the majority shareholder of Kahr and operate my business to provide high quality firearms to the public and to make a profit.

Emphasis mine. Why would such an small line in a large article stick out to me? Because of the simple fact that many people would consider Moon’s motivation somehow morally wrong. Many people claim that wanting to make a profit is somehow immoral and that we should all strive to rid ourselves of any desires of making money or becoming rich. That belief is utter bullshit though.

Profits are a market mechanism of ensuring scarce resources are put into the hands of those best able to distributed them in a manner that serves society’s wants and needs. Of course this is only true if the market isn’t burdened by government interference but this post is about the moral justification of profits, not the ills of government meddling.

The market is composed of producers and consumers. Producers attempt to anticipate the wants of consumers and do their best at fulfilling those wants while consumers seek out things that best alleviate their discomforts. If your discomfort is hunger you seek food, if your discomfort is having to manually do your bookwork you seek a computer, etc. When a produce manufactures widgets that best alleviate the discomforts of consumers those producers are rewarded through the traded goods they receive in exchange for their widgets. Usually this traded good is money but it can be anything the producer wants in trade for their widget.

If you have two producers of a discomfort alleviating widget the one consumers most demand will sell better. Consumer demand is multi-facetted and their decision includes the price/demand ratio. Should one producer be selling a widget that best alleviates the consumers’ discomfort but at an astronomical price it’s likely the competing producer will see higher profits in the end even though their widget isn’t the best as whatever function it performs. In the end the producer who manufactures a cheaper widget may see higher profits through the volume of sales.

Either way the profits received by the producer is the reward given by consumers for fulfilling their wants and needs. Profits shouldn’t be looked at as immoral because that is the means of which resources best land in the hands of those who have demonstrated an ability to properly distribute said resources. Those profits are then used by the producer to generate new widgets that server to alleviate other consumer discomforts. When you think about it the cycle is beautiful in its simplicity.

Those who claim profits are immoral need to come up with a better means of ensuring our scarce resources are best distributed to fulfill the wants and needs of society. Do know that I will completely ignore any proposal that isn’t voluntary in nature because the whole “might makes right” system only works for those with the most force to wield.