Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

The United Nations Summed Up

I think Uncle summed up the problem with the United Nations perfectly:

The UN says internet access is a human right. Right to self-defense, nope. Right not to be raped, nope. But free ice cream, yup.

The United Nations is perfectly fine with saying things that must be provided to you by a third party are rights. This makes no sense because a right by definition is something that can’t be taken from you. People who subscribe to the libertarian philosophy believe in the natural right to self-ownership. This is because you own yourself and that ownership of yourself can not be taken away as you have free will even as a slave (you can attempt to escape for instance). In the United States the Constitution guarantees a set of rights but as they are rights for which the government is supposed to be prohibited from interfering with the government decided to go ahead and interfere with them. Either way a right is something that is exercisable withing interference.

The problem for many comes in when they claim something they can’t provide themselves is a right. For instance some people claim healthcare is a right but for that to be true access to healthcare can’t be interfered with. Those who support the idea of healthcare being a right demand government provided healthcare solutions because they hope it will remove any potential interference that could come between a person and their “right” to receiving healthcare. What these people don’t stop to realize is the fact that a right to healthcare also requires medical practitioners. Thus the only way to make healthcare a right is to force medial practitioners to provide healthcare which essentially makes those in the medical field slaves. If the government wishes to make healthcare a right they must force enough people to be doctors and then force those doctors to work on people.

This is the problem with the whole concept of positive rights, you must make slaves out of a portion of the population to guarantee those “rights.”

Why Business Owners Love Government Required Licenses

One of the biggest protection scams in the business world is the requirement for government issued licenses to participate in a specific market. This was a very big things back in the days for taxicabs where the city would only issue a specified number of taxi licenses and thus restrict the size of the market. Taxicab owners loved it because it ensures they had little competition and as demand for taxi drivers crew competition became less and less relevant. Of course taxicabs are a great example but a bit boring but thankfully Salem, Massachusetts provides us with a far more entertaining example of this:

In 2007, the city lifted a cap on the number of psychics allowed to operate and now some believe the ‘Witch City’ is getting overrun.

That’s right Salem required a government issued license to perform “psychic” services within the city. This requirement was recently lifted though and some of the older “psychics” are a bit perturbed:

Barbara Szafranski is a long-time psychic license holder who conducts readings at her downtown shop Angelica of the Angels. She needed no crystal ball to tell her business would take a hit when more fortunetellers hit the scene.

“It affected me 75%. I lost business because many stores opened up that were not in this field. They just opened up because they wanted to get the money from the readings,” said Szafranski.

“It just becomes a bunch of gypsies. Maybe I shouldn’t say that word because they might be upset by it but those people are not necessarily always qualified.”

That 75% loss of business is due to the fact actual competition has moved into a market where government interference ensured little existed. Basically the market is telling Mrs. Szafranski that her price for stupid magically bullshit psychic services is too high and that her clients have found a cheaper provider elsewhere. I would also like to know what qualifications a psychic needs as apparently gypsies lack these qualifications (I’m betting it’s bloodline, you need to be a pure decedent of some promised people).

The reason business owners are in favor of these licensing requirements is because it protects their business and also ensures a high barrier for entry for new potential competitors. Most cities that impost licensing scams like this set a fixed number of available licenses and thus a prospective business owner needs to obtain a licenses from somebody currently in the business. As these licenses are quite rare (the limit is always set artificially low) the prices for a license skyrockets. Needless to say when a license cap such as this is lifted those who put the investment into getting their license want to see the cap returned as Mrs. Szafranski does:

“I’m in favor of putting the cap on because there are so many psychics in the city now. When I first opened up my business 25 years ago I was just about the only one in this area and, of course, as you’re seeing since then it’s grown and grown and grown,” said Szafranski.

Which translates into “I want the cap returned so I can charge my artificially high prices again.” Either way this is a great example of government licensing requirements being nothing more than protection scams.

Where is Your Line

I don’t think I have to point out the fact once again that the United States is quickly becoming ever closer to an authoritarian society. Although many say they wish to prevent this country from turning into a police state I firmly believe we area already there. The question is no longer how to prevent the development of the police state but how far are you willing to be pushed until you say “no more!” This article challenges you to determine where your line is by questioning various factors.

The line for many people is very close and they are willing to turn their own family members in for using substances that the state says are verboten. Others, such as myself, place the line far away and are unwilling to cooperate with the state if that cooperation means a person will become a victim of the state’s wrath without actually having hurt anybody or damaged anybody’s property. Are you willing to submit to Homeland Security’s “if you see something say something” program? Will you turn your neighbor in for tax evasion even though such a crime doesn’t harm you? Do you believe it’s OK to call the police because you neighbor is in possession of a machine gun without the appropriate government issued tax stamp?

I believe this is an important issue for everybody to consider. I’m not going to tell you where you should draw the line, that’s up to you and your conscious. The decision is a weighty one with many consequences including the fact that lack of cooperation very well could lead to violence being used against you.

My Government Curfew Rant

I mentioned that parts of Northern Minneapolis were under government enforced curfew but honestly I didn’t realize how pissed off the whole idea made me so here is my little rant on the subject. The United States was supposedly founded on the ideals of individual liberty. You were supposed to be free of government interference unless you were actively harming another individual or their property. There was supposed to be little government interference in your life. Well through the centuries our government, like all governments throughout history, has decided to give us all the middle finger.

Now there are few aspects of our lives where government interference can’t be found. Everything we do must be approved, stamped, and sealed. But the idea that a government goon can tell you when you must be in your home and when you can leave is disgusting. They have literally placed you into a prison during the hours of a curfew. The fact that our society has come to a point where it’s felt acceptable for the government to restrict your movements because they declared an emergency is sickening. As a free individuals nobody has the right to tell me when and where I can go unless my travels violate the property rights of another individual.

The only reason the police declare curfews is because they’re lazy and it makes their job easier. Instead of having to deal with those pesky problems like due process a state of emergency gives the police complete power to assume everybody that isn’t in a government approved uniform is doing something wrong. Evidence? Due process? Probable cause? Fuck all that noise, if you’re walking from your neighbor’s home back to your place after a specified hour you must be up to something wrong! After all anybody who disobeys the orders of our glorious leaders is probably a subversive person and should be dealt with anyways.

I haven’t granted the government any authority over my person, especially when it comes to my free movements. The people in Northern Minneapolis are being punished by the state because their homes happened to be conveniently located right in the path of Mother Nature’s range induced path of destruction. Those denizens are being imprisoned in their own homes by the government because of events nobody could control. I’m sure it goes without further saying but the entire concept of a government mandated curfew pisses me right the fuck off.

Privatization

Ladies and gentlemen brace yourselves I’m actually going to link to a post written by a syndicalist. OK I’m joking, I don’t care what somebody’s political orientation is when I like to it on this site. On a serious note though I found an excellent writeup dealing with a topic of privatization that has always bothered me, who gets the money from the sale of “public” works:

Taxes entail coercion; this is why they’re not called donations. Accordingly, one might think self-styled advocates of free markets and smaller government, Ayn Rand aficionados especially, would be cognizant of the fact that, when it comes to a moral claim over the things that said taxes go to — from telecommunications to transit systems — the coerced taxpayer would have the strongest case for ownership.

You’d be wrong, of course. When it comes to downsizing the state, most conservatives and libertarians have a raging hard-on for privatization, by which they mean the government auctioning off taxpayer property to the highest private bidder. The problem with this approach, from a Freedom! and individual rights perspective, is that those who were forced to invest in the state entity to be auctioned off are left with next to nothing to show for it, usually some multinational corporation instead swooping in to pick it up at pennies on the dollar.

This has always been an issue to me. I’m all for privatization (gee could you have guessed that one) but I’m against the government getting the money from sales of “public” works. The fact of the matter is “public” works are funded through stolen… I mean taxpayer money. Throughout the list of any “public” work taxpayers are the ones who foot the bill for building and maintaining the work. Yet when the government decides it’s time to privatize the system (a good thing) they auction off the work and keep all the money for themselves (a bad thing). Were the government honest that money would be equally divided amongst the taxpayers in the form of either shares or money. If we payed for the damned thing we should get our money back when it’s sold off. Obviously this will never happen as government is none to keen on the whole idea of returning stolen money.

I Love Amazon

I do a lot of business with Amazon from buying real world products, to books on my Kindle (and the Kindle), to storage services via their S3 online storage system. Amazon is a company I feel good supporting and they seem committed to ensuring I continue to feel good about supporting them. One of the things Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos has been fighting is the attempt by various states to collect taxes from Amazon’s customers. Well Mr. Bezos came out and stated that the states’ attempts to demand taxes is unconstitutional:

Although a growing number of states are demanding that Amazon collect and pay tax on sales within their borders, such demands are “interference in interstate commerce” and prohibited by the Constitution, Bezos said.

“We’re no different from other big chains of retailers,” Bezos said. “They don’t collect sales taxes in states where they don’t have [employees], either.”

I’m not a fan of taxation and watching Mr. Bezos fight government attempts to extort money from his organization has been fun. Amazon has demonstrated the willingness to put their money where their mouth is and even left Texas due to the state’s attempt to extort money from Amazon.

I don’t think Bezos understands the fact that the Constitution isn’t exactly a document that is taken seriously by our government but I do like the argument. I hope Amazon continues to fight the good fight and resist the attempt by states to take productive money from the private sector and squander it on worthless government projects. There is even an huge advantage to states not trying to take money from Amazon as those states are where Amazon will decide to build their warehouses and data centers:

This month, when Amazon announced plans to build or expand three warehouses, it praised the governors of Arizona and Indiana, who didn’t demand sales tax collection. “We are committed to growth in Indiana because Gov. Daniels and other state officials have demonstrated their commitment to Amazon jobs and investments,” said Paul Misener, Amazon VP for global public policy.

Those warehouse jobs very well could have been in Texas but alas that state decided they were going to fuck over their citizenry by ensuring Amazon moved to a friendlier state. Now Arizona and Indiana get to reap the rewards for treating businesses that employ people right.

Inflation is Theft

I briefly covered the how government initiated inflation is in fact a form of theft. Well I ran into a good article that does a good job of explaining this and showing why the Keynesian theory that inflation is good because it spurs spending is stupid.

There isn’t much comment I can offer on this article besides urging you to head over and read it.

Keynes and Hayek Throwing Down

Although I traditionally hold disdain for rap music once in a great while there are rap songs that I consider sufficiently awesome. These are two videos are rare cases of awesome rap songs. Submitted for your amusement Keynes vs. Hayek raps:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc]

Yes I’m a nerd.

The videos to poke fun at the fact that everybody seems to think Keynes was some kind of economic genius (when in fact he was a fucking idiot). When typing this post I also noticed that Firefox knew how to property correct the spelling of Keynes but had no idea how to spell Hayek. I find that sad but slightly amusing at the same time.

Why Legally Recording the Police is Needed

Several states have laws that make it illegal for us lowly peasants to video tape police officers while they’re on duty. These laws have been a problem since day one because it takes away one of the few weapons we mere serfs have to defend ourselves against police abuse. A great example that demonstrates the need for allowing the recording of police officers is the following:

On a mild February afternoon, Fiorino, 25, decided to walk to an AutoZone on Frankford Avenue in Northeast Philly with the .40-caliber Glock he legally owns holstered in plain view on his left hip. His stroll ended when someone called out from behind: “Yo, Junior, what are you doing?”

Fiorino wheeled and saw Sgt. Michael Dougherty aiming a handgun at him.

What happened next would be hard to believe, except that Fiorino audio-recorded all of it: a tense, profanity-laced, 40-minute encounter with cops who told him that what he was doing – openly carrying a gun on the city’s streets – was against the law.

The police officer was not only ignorant of the law but also threatened to murder Fiorino:

Get down on your knees. Just obey what I’m saying,” Dougherty said.

“Sir,” Fiorino replied, “I’m more than happy to stand here -”

“If you make a move, I’m going to fucking shoot you,” Dougherty snapped. “I’m telling you right now, you make a move, and you’re going down!”

Had Fiorino not recorded this entire encounter it would have been a situation of his word against the cops. As the government controls both the courts and police it’s not hard to figure out that the courts are generally going to side with the police in any he said she said arguments. This becomes even more important when those tasked with enforcing the law don’t actually know the law themselves.