Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

You Can’t Stop the Signal

Two days ago a giant bust of Edward Snowden was found perched atop the Prison Ship Martyrs’ Monument in Fort Greene Park. The sculpture was of the best sort, illicit. It didn’t take long for the authorities to coverup and then remove Snowden from the park, which sent a more prominent message than anything else they could have done. But the signal can’t be stopped. Yesterday a different group of artists created a hologram of Snowden at the site of the previous sculpture:

NEW YORK — Hours after police removed an illicit bust of Edward Snowden from its perch in a Brooklyn park on Monday, artists replaced it with a hologram.

The group of artists — who collectively call themselves “The Illuminator” and are not related to the trio behind the original sculpture — used laptops and projection equipment to cast an image of Snowden in a haze of smoke at the spot where the sculpture once stood.

They say the action was a message of defiance aimed at the authorities who “censored” the piece, according to a tumblr post.

I believe if anybody is deserving of a monument it’s Snowden. He belongs to that rare breed of people willing to risk it all to bring our rulers’ dirty laundry to light. Someday I hope a monument of him and Chelsea Manning are erected in dedication to the idea that breaking the law is sometimes the most heroic thing one can do.

How You Know You Don’t Care About Politics Anymore

The man who started me on the path that eventually lead me to anarchism is Ron Paul. He’s a good man and I generally like what he says. I’ve also attended several of his speeches. Last night he came to the University of Minnesota to give a speech. Several of my friends and I manned the AgoraFest table because somebody has to advocate actual liberty at these events that somehow get heavily attended by Republican groups. Those of us manning tables received free admission to the event so I’m going to give you the rundown of what he said.

Just kidding. Instead of attending the speech a friend and I did something else.

ron-paul-speech

When you decide to go drinking at a nearby bar instead of attend a speech by a man who you still respect but enjoys talking about politics even today you know you’ve stopped caring about politics. This really was one of my shining moments in freeing myself from the clutches of political bullshit.

Anarchist Freedom

Religious freedom has been in the been the political hot potato as of late. According to Republicans people should be free to discriminate against others so long as they’re doing it for religious reasons. I’ve decided to take a page from their book and will begin preaching about anarchist freedom.

What is anarchist freedom? It’s like religious freedom but for anarchists. The people currently beating the religious freedom drum have been pointing out that a person shouldn’t have to go against their deep religious beliefs by associating with sinners. As a devout anarchist it is my belief that agents of the state are wicked extortionists. Being forced to associate with them goes against my strongly held conviction that extortionists should be kept at arm’s reach.

Since Republicans seem to be a fan of discriminatory freedom I’m sure they will support my freedom to not associate with state agents. This means that I should be free to not pay taxes (disassociating with tax collectors, who were considered the lowest of the low even in Jesus’ time), be pulled over by police officers (disassociating with murderers, thieves, and general aggressors), or follow laws passed by politicians (disassociating with people who believe themselves to be owners of other human beings). It’s really that simple. Once Republicans support my anarchist freedoms I will acknowledge that they are sincere about this whole religious freedom thing.

Finally, A Gun Control Group That Makes Sense

Gun control groups usually claim they want to reduce violent crime but then turn around and try to take firearms primarily from peaceful people. But there is finally a group that is targeting a major sources of violence in this country, the New York Police Department (NYPD):

An anti-police activist group calling itself “Disarm NYPD” is aiming to strip officers of their firearms and boot them from certain neighborhoods entirely.

Disarm NYPD writes on its website that its aim is “combatting police violence through direct action in NYC and beyond.”

Instead of cops, the group wants to form what they call “conflict resolution bodies” made up of residents, attempting to make the police force obsolete.

OK, Disarm NYPD isn’t actually a gun control group but if it manages to get the NYPD disbanded it would disarm some of the most violent gang members int he country. Not only do members of the NYPD gang have a history of violence but they are go unpunished in most cases because, well, they’re an officially recognized and endorsed gang by the city government.

Another Positive Aspect of Indiana’s So-Called Religious Freedom Bill

Helping me as a consumer make more informed purchasing decisions isn’t the only positive aspect of Indiana’s so-called religious freedom bill. As it turns out the men in suits in the marble building didn’t fully comprehend what religious freedom means. There are a lot of esoteric religious out there. For example, there are religions where smoking cannabis is a holy ritual:

While Governor Mike Pence (R) was holding a signing ceremony for the bill allowing businesses and individuals to deny services to gays on religious grounds or values, paperwork for the First Church of Cannabis Inc. was being filed with the Secretary of State’s office, reports RTV6.

Church founder Bill Levin announced on his Facebook page that the church’s registration has been approved, writing, “Status: Approved by Secretary of State of Indiana – “Congratulations your registration has been approved!” Now we begin to accomplish our goals of Love, Understanding, and Good Health.”

Levin is currently seeking $4.20 donations towards his non-profit church.

I’m sure the government will quickly utilize the exemption it left for itself to intervene in these kinds of matters. After all, religious freedom to most of the people involved in passing this bill means Christian freedom. And when they do utilize their exemption I’m going to trot it around like a prize pony because it will be yet more evidence that the state doesn’t care about voluntary association but loves selective discrimination.

As a side note I also want to point out that the stock image used in that article is probably the single greatest stock image I’ve ever seen.

Dating Advice for Libertarian Men

It’s April 1st but instead of trickery I have genuinely useful advice for my fellow male libertarians. There is a stereotype, justly deserved in my experience, that libertarian men have a hard time getting dates. As a libertarian male who tends to do OK when it comes to dating I’ve been planning a dating advice for libertarian males presentation at AgoraFest. But somebody beat me to it. Avens O’Brien produced a list of 12 reasons why libertarian men aren’t getting laid. Usually I would avoid linking to one of those lists where each item is presented on a separate goddamn page to rake in a few extra fractions of a cent in advertising revenue but this is incredibly important information so I’m making an exception. But to help you out I’m going to list all 12 items and links directly to them.

  1. Complaining, Complaining, Complaining
  2. No Sense of Humor
  3. Being a Creepertarian
  4. Pissing Contests & Hostility
  5. Lacking Other Interests Besides Liberty
  6. Not Caring How You’re Perceived
  7. Not Listening
  8. No Chemistry
  9. Being A Dick
  10. Awkward Aggression
  11. Thinking You’re God’s Gift To Women
  12. You’re Not Good Enough

From the feedback I’ve received points one, two, five, nine, and ten are the really big sticklers. All of the women I’ve dated were willing to forgive a lot so long as their significant other didn’t constantly complain, had a sense of humor, had hobbies outside of philosophized about liberty and politics, wasn’t an asshole, and wasn’t awkwardly aggressive.

The important thing to keep in mind about this list is that it’s written by a women so it’s going to be far more valuable than the shit libertarian men like to post about the need to be all alpha and shit.

The Positive Side of So-Called Religious Freedom Laws

Now that I’ve spent a couple of posts explaining why libertarians shouldn’t actively support these so-called religious freedom laws it’s time for me to explain their upside. As with anything these laws are not black and white. There are pros and cons to them. One of the pros of these laws is that they encourage bigots to be open about their bigotry and therefore allow me to be a more informed consumer.

Let’s take the quintessential Christian baker asked to make a cake for a gay wedding. Under these so-called religious freedom laws the baker is able to turn down the request due to it violating their religious beliefs. Without these laws they are not able to do so without facing the wrath of the state.

I don’t like to support people who actively work against me or my beliefs. This is why I appreciate those “no guns allowed” signs. With a simple sign I know that the owner discriminates against people who would defend themselves from a violent attacker. As a person who believes self-defense is a right I don’t want to give money to anybody who is actively trying to interfere with people defending themselves. Those signs help me be a more informed consumer so I can take my business elsewhere.

These so-called religious freedom bills can give me more information as a consumer. If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding then I know the owner(s) discriminate against homosexuals. Since I strongly oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation I can avoid doing business with that bakery.

Not only do I believe in the freedom of expression I also encourage people to express themselves loudly. This goes doubly so for business owners. I know, people often say they want business owners to shut their mouths. That is certainly the smart thing. But I really do want to know if a business owner is actively working against my goals so I can choose not to provide them with resources to do so. The more information I have at hand the better my decisions can be.

Ignorance of the Laws is Not an Excuse

As Murray Rothbard once said, “The state is a gang of thieves writ large.” The only purpose of the state is to forcibly transfer wealth from the general population to members of the state and its cronies. People like to argue others, probably because they suffer from Stockholm syndrome. But the United States government long ago lost any right to claim it was anything other than a gang of thieves. That’s because the state’s method of wealth transfer is the law and the law is so expansive that there’s no way of even knowing when you’re violating it:

If you walk down the sidewalk, pick up a pretty feather, and take it home, you could be a felon — if it happens to be a bald eagle feather. Bald eagles are plentiful now, and were taken off the endangered species list years ago, but the federal law making possession of them a crime for most people is still on the books, and federal agents are even infiltrating some Native-American powwows in order to find and arrest people. (And feathers from lesser-known birds, like the red-tailed hawk are also covered). Other examples abound, from getting lost in a storm and snowmobiling on the wrong bit of federal land, to diverting storm sewer water around a building.

“Regulatory crimes” of this sort are incredibly numerous and a category that is growing quickly. They are the ones likely to trap unwary individuals into being felons without knowing it. That is why Michael Cottone, in a just-published Tennessee Law Review article, suggests that maybe the old presumption that individuals know the law is outdated, unfair and maybe even unconstitutional. “Tellingly,” he writes, “no exact count of the number of federal statutes that impose criminal sanctions has ever been given, but estimates from the last 15 years range from 3,600 to approximately 4,500.” Meanwhile, according to recent congressional testimony, the number of federal regulations (enacted by administrative agencies under loose authority from Congress) carrying criminal penalties may be as many as 300,000.

That’s not all. The vast number of laws alone wouldn’t be so bad if you had to knowingly be violating them to be charged but that too as gone by the wayside:

And it gets worse. While the old-fashioned common law crimes typically required a culpable mental state — you had to realize you were doing something wrong — the regulatory crimes generally don’t require any knowledge that you’re breaking the law. This seems quite unfair. As Cottone asks, “How can people be expected to know all the laws governing their conduct when no one even knows exactly how many criminal laws exist?”

There might be some legitimacy to the claim that the state exists to preserve order if the common law practice of culpable mental state still existed. After all, if you unknowingly violate a law and are then informed of that law’s existence you can take action to avoid continuing to violate it and order would be preserved. But that’s not how the system works. Once you’ve violated a law, it doesn’t matter if you know of the laws existence, the state gets to transfer wealth from you to itself. And since there are so many laws on the books it’s impossible to not do something the state can use to justify a forcible wealth transfer.

Voluntary Association Versus Selective Discrimination

There seems to be some confusion amongst libertarian circles over the difference between voluntary association and selective discrimination. Don’t worry though, Padre Chris is here to clear things up.

Voluntary association is the principle that everybody is free to choose who they want to associate with and who they don’t want to associate with. Period. This means a bigoted asshole can choose not to associate with Muslims and decent human beings can choose to not associate with that bigoted asshole. Selective discrimination differs in that individuals can only choose to disassociate with somebody if their reason is on an approved list. In this case the bigoted asshole can only choose to not associate with Muslims if the people who create the list of criteria put “being Muslim” as an approved reason to discriminate. Other people may also only choose to not associate with a bigoted asshole if the list contains “being a bigoted asshole”.

Libertarianism, due to the non-aggression principle (the only way you can prevent somebody from voluntarily associating with another is to put a gun to their heads and make them associate), mandates voluntary association. However many libertarians mistakenly believe that cases of selective discrimination are forms of voluntary association. That’s what happened with libertarians who supported Indiana’s SB 101. They heralded the law as a good piece of legislation because it allows businesses to not associate with people based on religious reasons. But the legislation contains a clause that lets the state decide whether or not to prosecute somebody for discriminating even if it’s based on religious reasons.

Herein lies the problem. Under the state there can only be selective discrimination. Nobody, for example, is free to not associate with state agents. Furthermore the state periodically either prohibits or mandates certain types of discrimination. In the South many states mandated racial discrimination under Jim Crow laws. Today racial discrimination is mostly prohibited for non-state actors but many states are enabling, and sometimes mandating through marriage and bathroom usage laws, discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender individuals. The only thing that has really changed between then and now is that race has been removed from the list of acceptable reasons to discriminate and religion has been moved up the list (I would say added but it’s almost always been there).

Libertarianism, at least the anarchist branch of it, advocates equality under the law. Nobody can have privileges others do not enjoy. In the case of discrimination equality under the law would require that everybody be free to voluntary associate or disassociate with anybody else or nobody be free to do so. None of these “religious freedom” laws accomplish that. They merely grant people of certain religions privileges that others do not enjoy. Libertarians shouldn’t involve themselves in the political discrimination battle unless the result would create equality under the law. In the case of religious freedom a libertarian should only involve themselves if the bill would allow anybody of any religion, or lack of religion in the case of atheists, the freedom to discriminate based on their beliefs and left not exception for the state to intervene.

People should be free to choose who they want to associate and disassociate with. That freedom can only exist under anarchy. But we currently suffer under a state so libertarians must not get suckered into supporting legislation that appears to enable voluntary association but really only allows discrimination in a manner approved by the state.