The second book on my recommended liberty list is Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Sadly, unlike The Ethics of Liberty, this title isn’t available for free but can be purchased on Amazon (this isn’t an affiliate link by the way). R. J. Rummel is a retired professor from the University of Hawaii who has been studying what he defines as democide. Democide, as defined by Rummel, is “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.”
This book, above all others I’ve read, makes the best case for liberty. The hypothesis Rummel has come to over his years of research is that the more authoritarian and tyrannical a government is the more people they murder. Death by Government demonstrates this fact by presenting the number of democide victims under many governments of this century. This book includes information on Cambodia, Soviet Russia, and even the United States.
If you’re a statist by the conclusion of this book you either have no ability to comprehend written material or are truly a sadistic bastard.
The personal electronics industry is considered to be one of the less regulated industries in the United States. While the government continues to meddle with emission requirements on automobiles, keeping monopoly control over wireless spectrum, and requires it’s sign off on every single item they randomly label as a drug they don’t do a hell of a lot in regulating personal electronics devices.
The fruits of less regulations can be seen by many aspects of personal electronics. Our electronics are becoming every smaller, more powerful, and an ever increasing number of devices are being made available for our purchasing pleasure. Another benefit is the fact that our devices are getting cheaper by the day. You know that super fast video card you purchased today for $400.00? In a few months it’ll be old business and the price will drop to $200.00. For those of us who don’t care about the latest and greatest in video cards we’ll be able to nab a perfectly serviceable card for half the price. For those who want the bleeding edge in graphics technology it’s there for the taking.
And for those who want an entire terabyte of data in their laptop they can have it for roughly $100.00. Don’t worry, I’m not shilling for Newegg on here since they don’t pay me to but I thought it was rather awesome that laptop drives with 1TB of capacity have dropped to the $100.00 range so quickly. Ever increasing capabilities for an ever decreasing price is a side-effect of less government regulation and should be celebrated by all. Just imagine what could be done for other markets if the government would simply pull its fingers out and let us, the consumers, decide on what should and shouldn’t be implemented.
Today marks the first day of my vacation at Defcon. I’m not dump enough to access a network of any kind while at Defcon so I’ve pre-written some posts for your enjoyment. You’re not going to get my usual smart ass remarks about the news of the day but you will get something of value. Every day of my vacation will doing a segment which I’m calling Liberty Literature. Liberty Literature is where I recommend books that I’ve read dealing with the broad topic of liberty.
Personal liberty is a very important topic to me and many gunnies. It’s not because we’re selfish, wanting a liberty based society is the least selfish thing anybody could want. Instead of asking the government to use its monopoly on the use of violence to make others comply with our demands we advocate everybody be allowed to make their own choices in life. It would be great if more people came to this realization which is why I’m posting books that have greatly shaped my political views.
I’m going to start with the book that has influenced my political and ethical views more than any other, The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard. A free (legally) copy of it can be found here.
The Ethics of Liberty explains the very concept of liberty itself. Starting from the use of reason and natural law to explain every person’s right to self-ownership Rothbard expands and explains how the right to self and property are absolute. Further he explains how a completely voluntary society could work including how a free market would make it possible. This book is an eye opener and I highly recommend everybody read it.
Many topics are covered in this title including criminality and punishment, the rights of children, lifeboat situations, and the theory of contracts.
I’m not against the concept of unions as I believe anybody who wants to voluntarily join together with others is a right. What I am against though is when unions use the government’s monopoly on force to make companies comply with the demands of unions. Here’s how I see it, you’re more than welcome to start a union to fight for increased pay, benefits, and conditions just as the company is more than welcome to fire all of your asses if your demands are too high or you’re not willing to negotiate. The concept is called free association, I can choose to associate with you and you can choose to associate with me but neither of us are required to associate with one another.
There are union protests going on at several American Crystal Sugar because the company finally got fed up with the union’s demands and dumped them for non-union employees:
The union representing sugar beet processors says more than 1,200 employees were turned away from entering seven American Crystal Sugar plants in Minnesota, North Dakota and Iowa Monday morning.
The current labor contract expired at midnight Sunday after production workers overwhelmingly rejected the company’s final offer Saturday.
Replacement workers arrived in vans before dawn. In East Grand Forks, security guards were posted at the plant entrances and a line was spray painted outside the doors — a line union employees were told not to cross. WDAZ-TV reports about 120 union workers showed up about 6:15 a.m., but were turned away. Some stayed to picket the plant.
[…]
After the union rejected the company’s offer Saturday, American Crystal Sugar Vice President Brian Ingulsrud said the union rejected a 13 percent pay increase over a five-year contract plus a $2,000 signing bonus.
Negotiations require both sides to give to reach a mutually agreeable solution. Although American Crystal Sugar man an offer to increase the wages of union workers by 13% in a time of economic hardship (plus a $2,000 signing bonus) the union decided that wasn’t enough and refused to accept the offer. Here’s the other thing about negotiations, your side has far less power if is willing to walk away and they will walk away if they find you’re demands are too high. American Crystal Sugar found the union’s demands to be unreasonable and thus game them the finger and hired new employees who are likely to cause fewer headaches.
Of course the union claimed that the negotiations are not about pay but on granting the union a monopoly on labor:
“These negotiations are not and never have been about pay,” Riskey added on Saturday. “The company’s offer still has major loopholes allowing non-union contractors to replace union workers and makes health insurance unaffordable. Any raise is meaningless if our health care costs increase even more or if management can eliminate our jobs and replace us at will.”
What company is going to accept terms where they’re unable to hire non-union employees? That’s basically asking the company to tie their hands behind their back during future negotiations. If I owned a company I would never agree to terms that prevent me, the owner, from running things as I damn well pleased. In exchange for not having to deal with such nonsense I’d ensure I paid my employees well so I wouldn’t have to go through the hardship of hiring and retraining new people constantly.
The union is literally saying that they want a monopoly on hiring employees for American Crystal Sugar. I understand why the whole lot of them were replaced although I’m sure if union employees were willing to leave the union and return to work American Crystal Sugar would have no issue rehiring them (although the union might break that employee’s kneecaps). I also love the final part:
Health costs would go up an average of about $1,000 per employee, which is significantly less than their pay increase, the company said. The union says their out-of-pocket health care costs, on average, would more than double.
You wanted your “free” government provide healthcare and now you got it, and you’re going to have to pay dearly for it. Welcome to government interference in the market, the more power you give the government the higher the cost of providing goods and services in that market. The national unions strongly supported the Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act and are now reaping what they sowed. Sadly they made sure all of us got fucked along with them.
If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard a statist say libertarians are selfish I’d have, well not that much, but that’s not because I never hear that statement it’s because the Federal Reserve has devalued our currency to the point of being almost worthless.
Anyways, as I was saying it’s a common misconception that libertarians are selfish. Unfortunately for statists their accusation is far from the truth, in fact the exact opposite is true. Statists are terribly selfish people who use the government’s monopoly on violence for force everybody in society to comply with the statist’s desires. They want the government to pass laws banning firearms, they want laws that prohibit drinking or using other substances they don’t like, they want laws banning swearing in public places, they want laws telling connecting adults what they can do in their bedroom, and the list goes on. They want these laws that control the actions of others and they want the government to use their monopoly on violence to enforce these laws.
Libertarians on the other hand want everybody to live a life free of coercion. We want the government to get out of our bedrooms, gun safes, liquor cabinets, and everything else they’ve put their fingers in. It is the belief of libertarians that everybody should be free to do as they please so long as they’re not hurting anybody else or anybody’s property. If you want to drink a bottle of whiskey, smoke a joint, and go have sex with three other people all of whom are the same gender as you then by all means go for it. It’s your life to do with as you please and we’re not going to demand that the government use violence to prevent you from pursuing what makes you happy. Even if I don’t approve of something that doesn’t give me the right to demand violence be used on those who do enjoy that thing.
While statists want violence used against everybody to make them comply with their selfish ideals libertarians detest the use of violence. How can anybody think wanting to give everybody the right to do with their life as they please selfish?
I’m usually not one to pull out Ayn Rand (I far prefer the likes of Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, etc.) but I’m also a fan of calling a spade and spade so I’m willing to say with confidence that the following is a situation right out of Atlas Shrugged.
Terry Douglas is the owner of two coal mines (you know, that material most of our power plants required) and obtained a permit to open a third one. These permits aren’t cheap, coming it at roughly $250,000, but a quarter of a million dollars simply isn’t enough flesh for the government so they decided it would be great to go after him for some more money. Well it sounds as if Mr. Douglas has finally had enough and may simply call it quits:
Here is a transcription of what he said that I oh so cleverly borrowed from the linked article:
Nearly every day without fail… men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just… you know… what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I see these guys—I see them with tears in their eyes—looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So…basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.
Of course many people will crucify Mr. Douglas because they believe environmental laws should be upheld at any cost. The problem is many of the environmental laws are bullshit created simply so the government can extract more money from those who actually produce goods that people want. On top of that we wouldn’t even need all these environmental regulations is our country simply recognized property rights as absolute.
Think about it for a moment, if a coal mine discharged a pollutant onto another person’s property that person could sue for damages. As it sits now if such an event occurs the government steps in, fines the polluter (or lets them off depending on how much the polluter has contributed to our political Leviathan), and perhaps gives the property owner a little bit of money if they’re feeling generous. The Gulf oil spill would have been devastating to British Petroleum (BP) had the owners of the shorelines covered in oil been allowed to directly sue BP. Instead our government decreed a maximum liability oil companies are responsible for paying which let BP get off with destroying a lot of property with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
If Mr. Douglas damages another person’s property then let that person take legal action. If no damage is occurring Mr. Douglas shouldn’t be punished by our government in the form of fines, taxes, and regulations. It’s honestly that simple.
I’d also like to bring up a side note that’s relevant to this story, which are complains some people make against mine owners. Mine owners are generally not well liked, even if their product is, and accusations are constantly made that these mine owners are skimping on safety and health related concerns. Mr. Douglas points out why that really isn’t the case:
When asked about typical concerns surrounding coal mining—including companies skirting health and safety regulations—Douglas said it “doesn’t make sense” to let safety lapse and risk losing miners to illness or injury when it would only cost more to train new personnel.
This is why business owners are the evil barons they’re often made out to be. It’s in the owner’s best interest to ensure his workers are safe and healthy. Not only do you face potential lawsuits against those you’ve wronged but you also have to hire and train all new personnel. The longer a person works a job the more experience they generally obtain which makes them more valuable to have around.
I expect to see more situations like Mr. Douglas’s where the government makes owning a business all but impossible by piling on pointless environmental regulations. If property rights were properly observed in this country we wouldn’t need all of these expensive regulations. Eliminating these unnecessary regulations would make doing business cheaper and likely cause a reduction in the amount of environmental damage since the consequences wouldn’t be easily bypassed by giving the right people a large campaign contribution.
The thieves at the Minnesota State Capitol have apparently made an agreement to increase the deficit on the budget meaning the state shutdown is over. Like most agreements this one has left everybody wanting. What really galls me though is the fact that those angry about the lack of tax increases keep referring to it as a revenue increase. Calling taxation revenue is one of the biggest misnomers out there.
Think about it, if a thug on the street puts a gun to your head and takes your money do we say the thug has increased his revenue? No, we say he has stolen money. Revenue implies money that has been obtained through voluntary exchange. Taxation is not voluntary exchange but theft. Mark Dayton wasn’t looking to increase the state’s revenue he was looking to steal more money from Minnesota citizens.
Thus we shouldn’t say that the budget agreement included a lack of increasing the state’s revenue, we should be saying the budget agreement included the state stealing less money from us.
And before anybody bring it up I do realize I spend a lot of time ranting about this subject. It’s not because I think the verbiage is all that important, it’s because I want to point out the double standard most people have. When a private individuals uses violence to take from another we call that individual a thief whereas when a government uses violence to take from many people we call it taxation and legitimize it. Whether you believe the ends of taxation justify the means is debatable but saying taxation isn’t a form of theft is flat out lying.
I’m sure most people read the this story and don’t really think much of it:
One of the most famous faces in the Twin Cities bar scene says he has sold his stake in the four pubs he co-founded: Kieran’s Irish Pub, The Local, Cooper and the Liffey.
Why? Folliard wants to go into the whiskey business full time. Earlier this year, he replaced much of the top-selling Jameson Irish Whiskey at his four pubs with his own brand, 2 Gingers. Now he wants to take his product out into the marketplace by selling it to liquor stores and other bars.
But liquor laws prevent the ownership of both a distillery arm (he imports his brand from Ireland) and a retail outlet (such as a bar). Therefore, he has to leave his pubs behind. He said he anticipates that the move will be scrutinized, but insisted that his exit from the pubs is a “complete severance.” He informed the bars’ staff Tuesday of his departure.
When I read the story the first thought that popped into my mind was the fact there is another successful business owner who was fucked over my erroneous legislation. It’s true, in Minnesota a person can’t own both a distillery and liquor retail outlets. This means if you currently own one type of business your only option to enter the second type is to sell off your stakes in the latter.
There is absolutely no reason a person shouldn’t be able to make their own liquor and sell it at establishments that they also own. Unfortunately for many business owners they’re stuck having to make a decision between what type of business they wish to pursue. I don’t personally know Kieran Folliard but I don’t know the four bars he co-founded have been successful ventures (Kieran’s Irish Pub and The Local are great establishments by the way) meaning he’s a person willing to put a lot of work and effort into making a product people want. Thus I’m sure his new venture will do well but sadly he was forced to throw away all his previous success just to try something new.
Regulations that force a person to abandon previous success just so they can try their hand at something new serve no purpose. Such regulations simply punish those who do well by keeping them from competing in other markets where they do equally well, if not better, than current actors in that market. These regulations are nothing more than anti-competition measures that protect those currently in markets from having to worry about somebody new coming in and offering a better product.
There are times when good intentions go awry and somebody is harmed or their property is damaged. In such cases I understand that the person doing the harm should have to pay reparations to the person they harmed but I see no reason why a person with good intentions that harmed nobody should be punished. Sadly the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) doesn’t see it that way and are looking to nail a man who was basically being nice:
Christian Lopez, 23, caught the ball and promptly handed it over to the Yankees without demanding any kind of payment, the Daily News reported. The Yankees rewarded him with suite seats for the rest of the season, plus a heap of autographed team memorabilia.
Mr. Lopez seems like a nice guy. He caught a baseball that is likely worth a lot of money to collectors and returned it to the team while asking for no payment in return. The team, being good hearted people whose livelihood is based on having happy fans, decided to reward Mr. Lopez for his nice act by giving him a lot of free stuff. Well the IRS sees all that free stuff as taxable income and are chomping at the bit to rend money from Mr. Lopez in the form of income tax:
That’s what could cost Lopez. According to The New York Times, the total value of the seats and loot could exceed $120,000. The IRS would consider that to be taxable income, several accountants told both newspapers.
Assholes. I also dislike how the author of this article refers to the stuff given to Mr. Lopez as loot. Loot implies that the goods were ill gotten. What the IRS are trying to get is loot as they’re trying to use force to steal money from Mr. Lopez. What Mr. Lopez received were goods given voluntarily by the team for an act that he did charitably.
This could end up in a court battle as items rules as gifts are non-taxable and what the team gave Mr. Lopez could be considered nothing but a gift (as he demanded no payment for returning the ball I don’t see how the team giving Mr. Lopez something could be anything else but a gift). Of course it will cost Mr. Lopez money to pay or fight the taxes so his only available option may to be refuse the gifts given to him. Isn’t it great when the government swoops in to punish those who do an act of charity? As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
Let’s get something straight, speeding tickets are issued because going faster than an arbitrarily selected speed is dangerous, they’re issued because speeding tickets are sources of profit. Actually this is true of almost every type of fine and citation that the government issues and that’s why they try to make it as difficult as possible to fight.
Vincent Gillespie said the $319.90 cost of appealing his July 19, 2005, parking ticket in Hampshire Superior Court far exceeded the $15 fine.
[…]
Because Northampton’s system did not include the option of appearing before a hearing officer, as it does now, Gillespie filed for summary judgment in Hampshire Superior Court, saying he was denied his rights. Judge Bertha D. Josephson found in his favor, but ruled in the city’s favor on Gillespie’s Constitutional argument that the fee system effectively denied him access to the courts.
A common complain when you mention privatized courts is that those without means won’t be able to receive justice as they couldn’t afford going to court. To that I ask, what’s the difference between private and public courts? As it currently sits many courts require you to pay a large fee, much larger than most citations issued by the government, in order to fight a citation. This is by design though, the government just wants your money and in order to get it they’re making it difficult for you to contest their decision to write you a citation.
I received a parking ticket in St. Paul last winter for $35.00. My options were to go before a hearings officer who would then determine whether or not I had a valid reason to contest the ticket. If he didn’t agree my reason was valid the cost of going to court was something akin to $100.00 (plus all the time I’d have to take off of work, gas to get there, etc.). Having the option of going before a hearings officer is also malarkey because the government shouldn’t be in charge of determining whether your grievance with the government is valid. Anytime a grievance occurs a neutral third-party should be used to judge whether a grievance is valid or not. After all, if you had a grievance against Ford you wouldn’t go to an employee of Ford to determine the validity of your grievance.
In summary the cost of fighting a citation is purposely set to prevent people from fighting them. The government wants your money and they want to get it with the least amount of hassle possible. If you fight it they have to utilize their resources (which you pay for, so you’re effectively paying them to fight you as well) which requires work and as we know government goons are adverse to work.
As people living in a supposedly free society we should demand that the government hears our grievances with them at no additional expense to ourselves. We already pay for the government, we pay them to write us citations, we pay them to run the court, we pay for the paper citations are written on, we pay for the whole damned thing. Since we’re already paying for a whole system we shouldn’t be required to pay more when we believe the system that we pay for has wronged us in some way.