Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals – Page 38

Another Vulnerability Caused by State Meddling

In March a security vulnerability, given the fancy marketing name FREAK, was discovered. FREAK was notable because it was caused by government meddling in computer security. Due to cryptography export restrictions quality cryptographic algorithms were not allowed to be put into widespread use, at least legally, and many legacy systems were built around weak algorithms. FREAK may be behind us but a new vulnerability was just discovered:

Tens of thousands of HTTPS-protected websites, mail servers, and other widely used Internet services are vulnerable to a new attack that lets eavesdroppers read and modify data passing through encrypted connections, a team of computer scientists has found.

The vulnerability affects an estimated 8.4 percent of the top one million websites and a slightly bigger percentage of mail servers populating the IPv4 address space, the researchers said. The threat stems from a flaw in the transport layer security protocol that websites and mail servers use to establish encrypted connections with end users. The new attack, which its creators have dubbed Logjam, can be exploited against a subset of servers that support the widely used Diffie-Hellman key exchange, which allows two parties that have never met before to negotiate a secret key even though they’re communicating over an unsecured, public channel.

The weakness is the result of export restrictions the US government mandated in the 1990s on US developers who wanted their software to be used abroad. The regime was established by the Clinton administration so the FBI and other agencies could break the encryption used by foreign entities. Attackers with the ability to monitor the connection between an end user and a Diffie-Hellman-enabled server that supports the export cipher can inject a special payload into the traffic that downgrades encrypted connections to use extremely weak 512-bit key material. Using precomputed data prepared ahead of time, the attackers can then deduce the encryption key negotiated between the two parties.

We’ll likely be dealing with the consequences of those export restrictions for some time to come. The only upside to this is that it is a reminder of what happens when the government meddles in security for its own purposes. Cryptography export restrictions were put in place because the United States government feared it would be unable to spy on foreign entities (and, as it turns out, domestic entities). Now the government, operating under similar concerns for its ability to spy, is discussing mandating the inclusion of back doors in systems that use strong cryptography. If this happens and developers actually comply we’ll have a repeat of what we’re dealing with today. Security vulnerabilities will arise from government mandated cryptography weaknesses that will put the masses at risk.

Whenever the government wishes the involve itself in something that only appropriate answer for the people to give is a loud “No!” This is especially true when it comes to security because the government has a direct interest in ensuring that each and every one of us is vulnerable to its surveillance apparatus.

State Solutions Versus Market Solutions

Technology is a double-edged sword. One edge improves the lives of people. The other edge enables bad people to do bad things. When you want to see both edges of a technology you need only compare how it is used by the state versus the market. Consider drones. States use drones to spy and drop bombs on people. Meanwhile the market utilizes them to provide better services to individuals. Xcel Energy is planning to utilize drones to inspect power infrastructure:

Xcel Energy says it has approval from federal regulators to use drones to inspect more than 320,000 miles of electric and natural gas infrastructure.

The Federal Aviation Administration says Xcel can use the small unmanned aircraft systems to visually inspect electric transmission and distribution lines, power plants, renewable energy facilities, substations and pipelines.

This will allow more reliable provision of power by identifying flaws in the infrastructure before they become a major problem. It will also allow fast identification of problem sources as aerial inspection of power infrastructure is usually faster than ground inspection. Instead of using drones to terrorize entire nations Xcel Energy is another company that has found yet another way to utilize the technology to enhance the lives of people.

Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Results

On my wrist is a device for measuring the passage of time. It is made by Seiko, purely mechanical, and hopelessly outdated. Why do I say it’s outdated? Because it measures the passage of time by the oscillation of a balance wheel. It’s also powered by a mainspring that can keep the watch running for approximately 40 hours. The general workings of the movement are very similar to the general workings of a 100 year-old pocket watch. In the 1970s a new type of movement became popular. It used the oscillation of a quartz crystal to measure the passage of time. Not only is this more accurate than relying on the oscillation of a balance wheel but it’s also cheaper to manufacturer, immune to magnetism, can remain powered for five years on a single battery, and doesn’t need any lubrication. Wristwatches with quartz movements are superior in every way to their mechanical brethren. Why do I wear a mechanical wristwatch? Because I enjoy all of the gears, springs, and levers working together to measure the passage of time. What does this have to do with anything? Quite a lot, actually.

Yesterday I was involved in a discussion about the Tesla Model 3. I see the Tesla vehicle as a major leap in automobile technology. Not only does it decouple the power source from the vehicle it’s also mechanically simpler than a gasoline powered vehicle. Having a 200 mile range also makes it very useful to anybody living in an urban area that makes a fairly short commute every day. Since the Tesla car offers so much it was guaranteed that somebody would bitch about it.

Another person in the discussion wrote the Tesla off as worthless because it didn’t fit her use case. She needs to make periodic 350 mile trips, which is outside of the Tesla Model 3’s 200 mile range. I pointed out that the Tesla is still in its infancy and battery improvements would likely advance rapidly and give the car greater range. Her response was to claim battery technology advances only over decades.

This is a common fallacy people fall into. They use current trends to make predictions about the future. But technology doesn’t advance linearly. It advances exponentially. That’s because breakthroughs in one field can lead to improvements in other fields. My wristwatch is an example of that. For hundreds of years tools to measure the passage of time relied on mechanical parts. Their complexity made them expensive to manufacture. After hundreds of years of little improvement the quartz movement was released to the world and it was greeted with open arms. People snapped up quartz wristwatches at such a pace that designers of mechanical wristwatches began calling that period the Quartz Crisis. Advancements in electronics had propelled instruments of measuring the passage of time forward.

But that’s not the only example. Humans have been using the bow and arrow for thousands of years. By the 1900s it would be safe to say there wasn’t much left to learn about bows and arrows, right? Wrong. In the 1960s a revolutionary design called the compound bow was released. By utilizing cams a compound bow was able to not only store more energy but also allow the archer to hold the bowstring at full draw longer by reducing the weight to almost nothing. When you draw a compound bow there is a lot of weigh initially and then it tappers off. Even after thousands of years humanity found a way to revolutionize the bow and arrow.

I work in the computer field, which sees constant advancements. Few people stop to consider how far computers have advanced in a few years. In my pocket is a computer that is more powerful than my eight year-old desktop. Not only is it more powerful but it’s also more power efficient. And it’s has 24/7 Internet connectivity thanks to a high-speed wireless technology that was little more than an idea a decade ago.

Dismissing a technology because of past performance is idiotic. The phrase “past performance does not guarantee future results” is traditionally used to note that a previously successful person many not necessary be successful in the future. But it also applies to technological advancements. Just because it took decades to advance battery technology before doesn’t mean it’s going to take decades to advance it again. New materials could be developed tomorrow that allow for lighter batteries that can store more energy and survive more recharge cycles. Suddenly the Tesla Model 4 could have a range of 1,000 miles on a single charge and outlast any gasoline-powered vehicle.

As a general rule I don’t bet against technological advancements. That’s synonymous with saying I don’t bet against markets. The reason I’m so optimistic about market solutions is because markets are constantly advancing. Problems we don’t even know we have are being solved right now. Did you know that pulling your cellular phone out of your pocket is inconvenient? I bet you didn’t. But smart watches exist that allow you to keep your phone in your pocket for longer and enough people enjoy this solution that an entire market is being built around the technology. Markets are the opposite of government. Governments stagnate. Markets advance. When people claim markets can’t solve a solution they are making a sucker’s bet. Just because a market solution to a problem doesn’t currently exist doesn’t mean one won’t exist in the future. Even if a market solution hasn’t be developed over a thousand years doesn’t imply one won’t exist tomorrow.

When a statist predicts anarchism will fail they are making future predictions based on current trends (i.e. the world is currently a statist shithole so it will always be a statist shithole). This is why I don’t take them seriously and never accept their predictions of doom and gloom if the world ever frees itself from the statism.

They’re Finally Getting the Right Idea

The economically ignorant have been demanding the minimum wage be set at $15.00 per hour. If you understand basic economics you know that minimum wage laws don’t guarantee a living wage but merely make it illegal to hire entire swaths of people. Nobody is going to hire a teenager with no skills if they have to pay them $15.00 per hour. And a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour makes no sense for a teenager because they usually live at home, are fed by their parents, and have few bills. They live for a lot less money than an adult raising three kids. And if a business owner does decide to hire them for less then $15.00 per hour they will get a visit from the gang in blue who will either issue a fine or kidnap the owner.

But my biggest criticisms of people advocating for the minimum wage to be raised is their lack of belief. Why only $15.00 per hour? Why not jack it up to $20.00 per hour or even $100.00 per hour? Thankfully the Freedom Socialist Party (an oxymoron if there ever was one) has stepped up to the plate and is demanding minimum wage be raised to $20.00 per hour:

But Doug Barnes, the party’s national secretary, told The Huffington Post on Saturday that the group relies heavily on donations from low-wage workers and could not afford to pay much to an inexperienced designer.

“We’re practicing what we’re preaching in terms of continuing to fight for the minimum wage,” Barnes said, making his first public comment on the controversy. “But we can’t pay a lot more than $13.”

He said the party’s revenues would increase if the minimum wage were raised to $20 — and he’d even prefer $22, at least in Seattle. The city will begin phasing in a $15 minimum wage in April.

“Our donor base would all be affected, and the low-wage workers who support us with $5 to $6 a month would be able to give more,” he said. “That would affect our ability to pay higher wages as well.”

I love his reasoning. Raising the minimum wage will result in more money for the Freedom Socialist Party. How capitalistic of him!

But I do give him credit for at least believing in what he preaches to the extent of demanding an even more absurd minimum wage. Maybe he could kick start the minimum wage inflation movement where minimum wage will be set to inflate by at least two percent every year! That way we could render almost everybody unemployable and the underground economy would flourish.

As an agorist the best feature of minimum wage laws is that they push people into the underground economy. People aren’t going to stand by and starve simply because it’s illegal for anybody to hire them. They’re going to offer their services illegally. That means they won’t pay taxes on their income and will starve the state of some resources. Anybody partaking in illegal services isn’t going to pay sales tax, obtain permits, or do anything else that might tip the authorities off. Part of the reason I want to see minimum wage jacked up is because it will cause the underground economy to expand at a rapid pace. Socialists may have funny economic ideas but that doesn’t mean their ideas are without merit.

Freedom of Speech Doesn’t Imply Freedom from Criticism

The freedom of speech has received a lot of press lately. Between people stomping on American flags and religious bigots painting the entirety of Islam in bad colors a lot of people have been either defending freedom of speech or condemning it. What’s especially interesting to me though are the people who are labeling anybody who criticizes acts of free speech as opponents of free speech. It seems that many people have forgotten that the freedom of speech doesn’t imply freedom from criticism.

Case in point, Pamela Geller. Neocons and other bigots are holding her up as a paragon of free speech for her Islamophobic tirades. Anybody who calls Geller an asshole is accused of infringing on her freedom of speech. I think Geller is an asshole because she is blaming an entire religion for the actions of a few. With that said, I also believe she has every right to say what she’s saying. Why? Because I believe everybody has the right to say what they wish. But part of that right is that I am free to criticize anybody I disagree with for what they say.

Freedom of speech is a two-way street. If you are free to say something I disagree with then I am free to say that I disagree with you. Doing so doesn’t mean I’m infringing on your freedom of speech. Infringement would only occur if I used force to silence you. If somebody says, “All Muslims are evil.” and I respond by saying, “You’re an ignorant asshole.” I haven’t infringed the first person’s freedom of speech. However, if I were to pull a gun on the first person and say, “Shut your mouth or I’ll kill you!” then I have infringed on their freedom of speech.

What about flag stomping or burning? Is that an exercise of free speech? That depends entirely on whether or not the person who owns the flag is doing or has authorized such actions. Somebody purchasing a flag for the sole purpose of stomping or burning it is exercising their right as a property owner. When something belongs to me I have every right to do with it as I please. If somebody steals another person’s flag to stomp or burn then they are thieves. In my opinion free speech isn’t the important question in regards to flag desecration, ownership is. Threatening somebody who is stomping or burning their own flag is an infringement of property rights. You have every right to disagree with their choice in how they use their property but you have no right to use force to stop them unless their use is an initiation of force.

The line between criticism and infringement isn’t a fine one that is easily missed. So long as force isn’t on the table no infringement exists. This is true of free speech and property rights.

How to Create an Anarchist

I, like many people, suffer from allergies this time of the year. Of all the allergy medications I’ve taken the only one that has demonstrated any effectiveness is Zyrtec-D. When you’re feeling like death warmed over the last thing you want to do is go through the process of buying Zyrtec-D.

Zyrtec-D is one of those wonderful drugs that contains pseudoephedrine. Pseudoephedrine, in addition to being effective medication, happens to be an ingredient used to make meth. Because the state is determined to fight the unwinnable drug war any medication containing pseudoephedrine is now locked behind the pharmacy counter. In order to buy it you must go up to the counter, which often involves standing in line for some time, and ask for it specifically. Before the pharmacist can give you the medication you must show your ID so it can be logged and sign a waiver that is nothing more than a threat to fine you $250,000 and/or lock you in a cage if you don’t use the medication in a state approved manner. After submitting yourself to that monkey dance you will get a box of 12 measly pills, which means you will have to repeat the entire process in 12 days unless your symptoms vanish. And before you get the crazy idea of heading to another pharmacy to get another box of allergy medication be warned that doing so is against the law. That’s why your ID was logged, after all.

I’m not that old but I still remember a time when I could just walk into the pharmacy, grab several boxes of Zyrtec-D, and be set for the entire allergy season. It was a good time when I wasn’t being punished for “crimes” (quotes used because making meth doesn’t have a victim and is therefore not actually a crime) committed by other people (gotta love the Freest Goddamn Country on Earth’s® collective punishment system).

This entire process really makes me consider buying meth, which is readily available, and converting it back to pseudoephedrine. That would be a lot easier than going through this monkey dance every 12 days.

Record Any Police Interactions You Come Across

Many people believe that police departments have only recently become corrupt cesspools. Others believe police departments have always been violent cesspools but pervasive cameras have allowed individuals to raise awareness of the problem. Either way it’s apparently that recording police interactions is absolutely necessary. To this end many departments have started mandating officers to wear body cameras when on duty. Although this could be a nice step in the right direction the two major problems with body cameras is that the officer wearing them can turn them off (and claim it malfunctioned) and the recorded footage remains under the control of the department. Even if every officer in the country wears a body camera I will still advocate what I’m going to advocate in this post: everybody should record every police interaction they come across.

It doesn’t matter if the police are interacting with you or you just happen to come across police interacting with other individuals; if you see cops interacting with people pull out your camera phone and start recording because that’s the only way shit like this gets noticed:

A Minneapolis police officer has been relieved of duty while his department investigates a profanity-laced video in which he apparently threatens to break the legs of a suspect if he attempts to escape.

The March incident was recorded on a camera phone by one of the young men being arrested in south Minneapolis. In the video, the unidentified officer can be heard telling the suspect: “Plain and simple, if you [expletive] with me, I’m gonna break your legs before you get a chance to run.”

Had the young man not recorded the interaction this claim would be nothing more than his word against the officer’s and we know courts tend to side with officers in such cases. The officer may not receive any punishment for his threat of violence, since officers usually get off scot-free, but the public now knows how this officer chooses to interact with people and that can help them better defend themselves against him. Videos like this are also important to raise awareness of the violence inherent in modern policing. Unless there is public outrage the problem will never be fixed and there won’t be public outrage so long as the public can keep lying to itself about the nature of modern policing.

If you come across a police interaction or are being threatened by police yourself make sure you record everything.

Agorism and Decentralized Power

One of the major news items this week was Elon Musk unveiling the Powerwall, a battery pack aimed at making renewable energy sources more useful. The idea isn’t a new one. People, especially those living in remote areas, have been making homemade energy storage mechanisms, usually out of car or marine batteries, charged by solar panels for some time now. What the Powerwall brings to the table is an affordable prepackaged solution that you can have professionally installed. Advocates of renewable energy have been cheering this announcement while detractors have been pointing out the return on investment:

But as of right now, the ROI still takes too long to reach break-even for people to view it as an economic benefit.

Why? Basically, it boils down to how much you pay per kWh put into the battery, which is then retrieved later. And if you don’t already have a big enough photovoltaic system to get off the grid, paying the estimated $0.30/kWh for electricity through the Powerwall may not make much sense. On average, grid prices for electricity in the US are about $0.12/kWh. Rooftop solar PV is estimated to reach grid parity in most places by 2016, but it’s not quite there yet.

The author of this statement makes a common economic mistake by assuming the only return one gains from an investment is monetary. Value is subjective and there are many advantages to a product such as the Powerwall other than saving money on the power bill. For agorists the biggest advantage may be decentralization.

Relying on a centralized power infrastructure has several downsides. First, if the complex centralized system goes down you have no power. This is becoming a bigger deal as we come to rely on our electrically powered appliances and devices more heavily. By having your own solar array and battery to storage energy for cloudy days and nights you can keep your gear running even if the centralized power grid goes down.

Second, and this is a big one for agorists, a centralized power system is more easy for a state to tax. One of the reasons states prefer big businesses over small ones is that they reduce the costs of enforcing a tax scheme. It’s easier for a state to keep tabs on a handful of large businesses than thousands of little ones. Since businesses act as tax collectors themselves by withholding payroll taxes for the state having a handful of large employers further reduces the state’s overhead. Power is the same. By having everybody hooked into a centralized system the state can collect power-related taxes easily by putting the power provider in charge of collecting. Even if the state declared a tax on power generated by personally owned solar panels it would be a nightmare to enforce. The more decentralized the power infrastructure is the more difficult it is for the state to use it as a tax collecting mechanism.

Third, and this is probably even more important for agorists, the state can more readily utilize a centralized power infrastructure to enforce its decrees. It’s possible for the state to utilized power usage to detect cannabis growers. With a centralized system it’s trivial to convince the power company to report large spikes in customer power usage by either offering a reward or through coercive means. Any prohibited activity that requires a large amount of power could be caught by monitoring the centralized power system. By relying on your own solar panels you can more readily conceal you power usage since you don’t have nosy power providers checking how much you’ve used every month.

By making solar power more accessible the Powerwall stands to be a good product for agorists because it allows one to further decouple themselves from the state. Because of that it stands to have a much quicker return on investment that most people are giving it credit for. I know the value of being able to further separate myself from the state is enormous, especially if the means of separating myself open up additional revenue sources that were otherwise too risky.

Entrepreneurship is the Best Defense Against Hierarchy

G. K. Chesterton once wrote, “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.” The concern that a handful of capitalists will eventually become so wealthy and powerful that they will wield complete power over the rest of society is one often raised by socialists. It’s a common criticism against libertarianism (especially anarcho-capitalism). And it’s not without merit. Employees are naturally at a disadvantage when compared to employers.

What’s to stop an employer, for example, from demanding an employee either provide sexual favors or face termination? Statists will point out that this is the reason a state is necessary but then ignore that agents of the state could, and periodically do, demand exactly that. Libertarians will point out that the employee is free to find employment elsewhere but then ignores the difficulty, especially if the employee is providing for their family, often involved in doing so. Communists will point out that such demands are irrelevant when everybody is economically equal but then ignore the necessity of a hierarchy to enforce that equality.

All three approaches to the problem result in hierarchy. In the case of statism the state wields power that is even greater than that of the employer. Under libertarianism the employer wields power over the employee. Communism, although its advocates often pretend it’s not so, requires a power over all members of society to enforce economic equality. So what’s the solution? Easy. Become an entrepreneur.

OK, it’s not necessarily easy but nothing worth doing ever is. Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK3), in A New Libertarian Manifesto [PDF], expressed his belief that the employer-employee relationship is a holdover from feudal times and would likely disappear in a free society. Although I’m not sure if the employer-employee relationship would disappear entirely in a free society I do believe eliminating this relationship as much as possible is the most effective means of creating and maintaining a free society. The failure of statism and communism is that they look at the problems inherent in hierarchy on a societal level. Libertarianism understands that the problems inherent in hierarchy must be looked at on an individual level. Where many libertarians fall short is assuming everything stops at the non-aggression principle.

The non-aggression principle certainly allows for employer-employee relationships. But the non-aggression principle only asks if something is ethical. Just because something is ethical doesn’t mean it’s optimal. Consider a meth addict. There’s nothing unethical under the non-aggression principle in using meth. That doesn’t mean slowly killing yourself with meth is a great idea though (although that determination, ultimately, lies with the meth user). Likewise, there’s nothing wrong with being an employee but it may not necessarily be an optimal situation.

When you work for an employer you necessarily have to abide by their terms. If you don’t they can fire you. Under a state you may have some protections from an employer but you must then abide by the state’s terms. Failing to do so will likely result in even more severe consequences since the state reserves for itself the right to kidnap, cage, and even murder you. Therefore the only means of achieving true liberty is to be self-sufficient.

Self-sufficiency often brings to mind recluses living in the woods, raising their own food, and building their own shelter. This doesn’t have to be the case though. Anybody who has the means of creating enough wealth to trade for their wants and needs is self-sufficient. You don’t need to raise your own food so long as you can trade with somebody who has a surplus of food and is willing to trade it with you. As an entrepreneur you cannot be fired by a boss and you’re not reliant on a state to protect you from an egregious employer.

One might ask, what if nobody is making what you want or need? That indicates an unfulfilled market demand, which is a great opportunity for entrepreneurship. In all likelihood if you want or need something then somebody else does as well. If you have a want or need that’s unfulfilled use the opportunity to practice a little entrepreneurship.

In a stateless society where everybody is an entrepreneur the amount of hierarchy is extremely limited. To return to Chesterton’s quote, capitalism maximizes individual liberty when everybody is a capitalist. This is something SEK3 understood. And while the universe doesn’t allow for perfect solutions being and entrepreneur is certainly a better option for individual liberty than being reliant on somebody else.

We need to move the conversation away from the employer-employee relationship and towards advocating entrepreneurship.

Why the Government Sucks at Building Roads

A common phrase you’ll hear amongst libertarian circles is “But without government who will build the roads?!” This phrase is a sarcastic remark meant to poke fun at statists who cannot conceive of an alternative to government transportation infrastructure. While statists continue to claim that government is necessary to build and maintain roads, us libertarians are asking why government roads suck so much.

As I mentioned yesterday, Minnesota has a lot of dilapidated bridges. Anybody who drives the roads around here knows that bridges aren’t the only part of our automobile infrastructure that sucks. Some roads are so full of potholes that I feel as though the off-road package on my Ranger is necessary when traveling on the roads. No tax increases or surpluses seem to change anything. What’s the problem?

The problem is incentives. Statists scoff at the idea of private roads but the fact of the matter is private entities that derive profits from roads have an incentive to maintain those roads. Businessed, for example, want to make it as easy as possible for customers to get to them. Organizations that own highways want to provide motorists the best experience possible so they’ll keep coming back. Governments have no such incentives.

The two biggest problem with government roads are monopolization and mandatory payments. In many states the government maintains a near monopoly on road infrastructure. This is done through regulations that make building roads illegal or prohibitively expensive. Regulations usually take the form of outright bans, building permits, property taxes, arbitrary environmental restrictions, etc. Effectively the state declares a monopoly for itself on any notable infrastructure. If people living in a state need access to roads and don’t like what the state has provided they have no alternatives so there is no concern that users will go elsewhere. Even if users stopped using the roads they’re still required to pay for them. Taxes, after all, aren’t voluntary. Using private roads to get around wouldn’t exempt you from paying the state gas tax when you filled up your tank. Property and sales taxes, which are sometimes used in addition to gas taxes to build infrastructure, are also not optional.

When an alternative can’t exist and you have to pay for something regardless there is no incentive for the provider to make you happy. Motorists weren’t able to go to a different provider when the 35W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed due to government negligence because there were no alternatives. Minnesotans also didn’t receive a discount on their taxes as compensation for being unable to utilize the bridge. In fact Minnesotans were expected to pay more. How’s that for an incentive? If the state government neglected more bridges to the point of collapse it could then demand even more tax money.

There are no shortages of entrepreneurs who want to build roads so the idea that nobody will build them if the government doesn’t is preposterous. The real question is what incentive does the state have to provide motorists with quality infrastructure?