Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

The Vietnamese Government Doesn’t Understand How the Internet Works

I’m a fan of saying that statism is synonymous with halting progress. Statists always attempt to curtail advancements by forcing them into preconceived notions. A classic example of this mentality can be found in stories involving Japanese Samurai. Many works note that the Samurai believed firearms to be dishonorable weapons. Such a mentality made sense to an individual who spent decades learning the art of swordsmanship. All of the time spent mastering the sword became irrelevant when some peasant with little training could strike from many yards away. Instead of realizing that technology had advanced to a point where the importance of the sword was diminished, a master swordsman would be apt to argue that firearms aren’t honorable. Why change yourself when you can force everybody else to change to suit your desires?

Today we’re seeing this with the emergence of the Internet. Statists are trying to confine the Internet to their preconceived notions. They don’t believe anybody with a blog can be a journalist because journalists have traditionally been individuals who work for centralized state-recognized news organization. They don’t want to acknowledge that crypto-currencies are real currencies because it goes against their belief that money must be centrally issued paper notes. This is what leads governments around the world to implement stupid laws like this:

A controversial law banning Vietnamese online users from discussing current affairs has come into effect.

The decree, known as Decree 72, says blogs and social websites should not be used to share news articles, but only personal information.

The law also requires foreign internet companies to keep their local servers inside Vietnam.

A government could only issue such a decree if it lacked an understanding of how the Internet works. Enforcing laws requires that you can identify offenders. The beauty of the Internet is that one can maintain anonymity if they desire. How can the Vietnamese government enforce laws regulating blogs if those blogs are created on a computer that is connected to a random wireless network under a pseudonym and hosted on a location hidden service? Statists can pass whatever laws they want but reality isn’t going to reform itself to make enforcement of those laws possible.

The State’s “Black Budget”

When looking at the federal budget most self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives focus on money spent on the military, Medicare and Medicare, and Social Security. Those three items can give you an idea about the scale of government spending but it’s the specific items that can give you the juicy details. For example, thanks for Edward Snowden we know what the federal government’s “black budget” of $52.6 billion is being spent on:

The $52.6 billion “black budget” for fiscal 2013, obtained by The Washington Post from former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, maps a bureaucratic and operational landscape that has never been subject to public scrutiny. Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses those funds or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress.

The 178-page budget summary for the National Intelligence Program details the successes, failures and objectives of the 16 spy agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community, which has 107,035 employees.

The Washington Post has censored the information they made available after consulting the government. That, in of itself, tells you a lot about the relationship media outlets have with the state. But the items made available are interesting. For example, a notable amount of money is being spent by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) to break into the computer systems of foreign nations. I’m sure those dollars are generating all kinds of hatred towards this country.

I would advise reading the entire article if you’re interested in either government spending or government spying. Detailed budget items tell a far better story if you’re interested in fiscal matters and knowing how much the government spends on various spying operations gives you some kind of idea of how pervasive the overall operation is.

I’m Beginning to Think a Sinister Plot is Afoot

The United States is preparing to war with Syria. Hoping to prevent the impending war many anti-war activists have been urging people to contact their “representatives.” Contacting “representatives” seems to be the go-to solution whenever one becomes unhappy with political matters. This is especially funny because it’s also the most meaningless act one can make, which leads me to a theory. I’m beginning to believe that having the ability to call, write, and e-mail government officials is a sinister plot.

When you think about it, being able to contact government officials gives people an out. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and taking direct action people can be satisfied that they “did something” by making a phone call, typing a letter, or sending an e-mail. They contact their “representatives.” They let him or her know, in no uncertain language, their feelings on the matter. After that their “representative” becomes the responsible party.

As I explained yesterday, political participation is nothing more than acting by proxy. You elect an individual to do the work you want done. If he or she does as you want you give them a gold star, if he or she doesn’t do what you want you give them a demerit. In the latter case you can absolve yourself of any responsibility because it was your proxy who failed. You elected him or her based on promises that weren’t fulfilled. Contacting “representatives” is little different. If they fail to do as you want you can blame them for the consequences.

Politics is Depressing

Politics has to be one of the most depressing subjects one can talk about. Seriously, it’s always bad news. Whether the state is cracking down on a new technology, declaring a fun activity verboten, starting another war, shooting another dog, running a campaign for another wannabe psychopathic ruler, or kidnapping people for smoking a weed it’s depressing to read about and watch. This is one of the reasons I have distanced myself from politics. Believe it or not, I don’t like writing about political matters. It’s not so much the subject matter that depresses me as the outcome. Although I’d rather not have to read anybody about the state spying on us I would receive the news more happily if that news lead to the end of the spying. Instead the news will get wall-to-wall coverage for a week or two followed by nothing. The news will cease covering it, the state will continue to spy on us, and we will await the next great political catastrophe.

What’s the point of politics is it only leads to anxiety, high blood pressure, and rage? One of the things I like about agorism is that it’s apolitical and enjoyable. I enjoy working with my fellows an conducting business with them in an entirely voluntary market. Even if agorism doesn’t undermine the state I still have fun doing it. Politics, on the other hand, isn’t fun to participate in regardless of the outcome.

For those of you participating in the political system and wondering why us dirty agorists refuse to join you, the answer is simple: we’re tired of being depressed. We’re tired of investing our time, money, and energy into a system that bears no fruit. Why would any sane person want to spend hours at a caucus, hours at a basic political operating unit (BPOU) convention, hours at a state convention, and days at a national convention when you’re going to have jack shit to show for it? Who in their right mind would invest time, money, and energy into a campaign when you have no reasonable assurance that the campaigner is going to do what you want? I only have a finite amount of time on this planet and I plan to spend as much of it as possible doing what I enjoy. Agorism is something I enjoy. If not for the possibility of putting an end to the state’s power then for the friendships I’ve developed and the good times I’ve had.

Agorists and Apathy

Apathy is one of the more comical criticism politically involved individuals make towards agorists. In the world of the politically involved any failure to participate in the political process is a sign of laziness. I say the criticism is comical because it implies agorists are doing nothing while politically involved individuals are pulling all the weight.

Consider what political involvement entails. When one is politically involved they are working on campaigns, attending party functions, volunteering their time at events, and showing up to the voting booth on election day. What do all of these acts have in common? They all involve a proxy. One of the criticisms us gun rights activists make towards gun control advocates is their inconsistency. Gun control advocates claim to oppose guns but they almost unilaterally are willing to use a gun by proxy. When somebody breaks into their home they are unwilling to use a gun to defend themselves. However, they are willing to call a police officer with a gun to defend them. Working for a campaign is effectively trying to make social changes by proxy.

A politically involved individuals is usually trying to get a specific person or party in power in the hopes that that person or party will change things in a favorable way. Electing a pro-gun candidate in the hopes that he or she will fight for gun rights is an act by proxy. Instead of doing the footwork themselves, most politically involved gun rights activists are trying to get somebody else to do the work for them. Mind you, this isn’t to say all politically involved individuals are trying to pawn off their work on another. Many gun rights advocates introduce new people to the shooting community, teach people how to shoot, and research ways to make gun laws irrelevant.

Agorists seldom rely on proxies to do their work. An agorist tends to take direct action by performing economic activity that undermines the state. It is through underground economics that agorists hope to end the state, which is the intended goal. Taking direct action strikes me as far less apathetic than asking somebody to go to a marble building and vote a certain way in the hopes that those votes will eventually lead to a desired end goal. Mahatma Gandhi said, “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.” Agorists are being the change they want to see. Can the same be said about politically involved individuals?

Bloodletting

Anarchists understand that the state is behind the times. When it comes to medical science the United States is practically in the medieval period. Upon creating or hearing news that the Syrian regime may have used chemical weapons the United States diagnosed the country with a severe case of violence. Instead of applying modern medical techniques, the United States opted for an ancient medical procedure known as bloodletting. In the eyes of American politicians the disease of violence in Syria can be cured if enough blood is removed from the country. In lieu of leeches the United States plans to use cruise missiles. My only hope is that the patient recovers before they bleed out.

Five Stages of Becoming an Anarchist

I used to be a statist libertarian. Back in those days I foolishly believed that all of the major ills we face in American society could be fixed if the federal government would simply follow the Constitution. Unbeknownst to me, it was. But I was stuck in the little statist cage that I was thrown in by the public education system. I escaped that cage and now enjoy the free life of an anarchist. But the transition wasn’t instant, it took me almost three decades to arrive at this point. Joseph S. Diedrich explains the five stages of becoming an anarchist, which is a fairly accurate list for how my transition went. The stages Joseph lists are:

  1. Denial
  2. Anger
  3. Bargaining
  4. Depression
  5. Acceptance

I managed to skip stages two and four. Anger was never a problem for me because, back in my statist days, I believed that anarchists were still fellow liberty lovers who simply misunderstood the facts of life. Depression never affected me because I wasn’t heavily vested in statism, I was merely under the misguided belief that the state was necessary because it was pounded into my head by the public education system.

The Fallacy of Social Safety Nets

Self-described progressives often advocate the creation of, what they call, social safety nets. While their hearts are in the right place their methods suck. Most of us want a mechanism to help those who have fallen on hard times but having the state establish that mechanism is the wrong way to do it, unless your goal is something besides helping those in need. The state has a long–running war against the homeless. State operated social safety nets are euphemisms for stealing wealth from the people and kicking to the curb those who have nothing for the state to take. Take, for example, the recent decision made by city officials in Columbia, South Carolina:

Last week, city officials in Columbia, South Carolina approved a plan to remove the homeless population of the city from the downtown area as a means of protecting the Columbia’s growing commerce.

The Emergency Homeless Response, headed by Councilman Cameron Runyan (D), was unanimously approved by the Columbia City Council. Under the plan, police will patrol downtown Columbia and remove all homeless individuals from the area. Should they refuse to leave, they will be subject to arrest. A hotline will be set up to aid the process, so that downtown residents can report the presence of homeless individuals to the police. Police will also more strictly enforce Columbia’s “quality of life” policies, which include (among others) bans on public urination and loitering.

As a supplement to the plan, an emergency winter shelter on the outskirts of the city will be opened year-round to accommodate the influx of homeless individuals exiled from the city center. However, as the shelter only has 240 beds, it is unlikely to be able to handle the entire homeless population of Columbia, which numbers around 1,518 people.

As I said in a longer winded post, progressives will never be able to achieve their goals through statism. The state has no interest in helping the poor and downtrodden because they have nothing for the state to take. Instead of helping the homeless city governments have opted for a different plan. That plan is to make the lives of the homeless so miserable that they migrate elsewhere and become another city’s “problem.” If you truly want to help those in need then it’s time to create mutual aid societies. Through voluntary efforts those in need can be helped.

Another Reason I Find Politics Trite

Yesterday I headed over to /r/Libertarian hoping to skim a blog worthy story or two from the cesspool of neoconservative talking point. My quest almost turned out to be fruitless until I decided to look at things from another perspective. Instead of looking for an interesting story to discuss I decided to look for a link that embodied some of the reasons I find politics to be a pointless exercise. That quest was a rousing success. I could have posted many stories here but I settled on one that managed to unintentionally summarize one of the things I hate most about politics into a simple image. Take a look at this comic:

If you’re a neoconservative who thinks that the only thing wrong with America is the president then this image probably gives you a throbbing hard-on or makes you moist between your legs. It’s pure, unbridled Obama hatred packed into a 71 kilobyte, 555×380 pixel image. But, like most political cartoons, it’s a lie. The author would lead you to believe that Obama has claimed all the power for his branch of government and rendered the other two impotent. It’s a crock of shit, which brings me to one of the things I hate a politics the most: the tendency to grossly oversimplify matters.

Although the example I picked is neoconservative in nature, the neoliberals aren’t innocent of such chicanery. In fact it was only two election cycles ago where the neoliberals blamed all of the world’s ills on George W. Bush. Now that their man is the figurehead of America all of the ills of this country are due to “obstructionist Republicans in the House.” You can see that both sides share a common trait: everything bad is always the other side’s fault and everything good is always their side’s doing.

I have a theory about why such behavior is prevalent in politics. Politics requires one to believe in the currently established system, at least to some extent. How else could one claim that the country can be saved so long as the “right people” get into office? Why else would one work for the “right person’s” campaign unless they believed the system itself can be used to affect positive change? If you truly believe the system is broken, if you truly believe the system can’t be used to create a better future then you will find no point in participating in it. Since individuals who participate in the political system believe that, at least in some capacity, the system is legitimate they must find another reason why their vision for the “best future” isn’t being executed. Some of these people blame uneducated voters while others blame certain politicians.

You see, if the system is legitimate then society’s ills must be caused by something besides the system itself. Taking the system itself off of the table removes a great deal of complex societal issues. Fixing society’s ills, for example, is as simple as putting the “right people” in charge of the legitimate system. Since most people believe that their vision is the one true vision they inevitably find the parties responsible for society’s ills: those who hold different political ideologies. We now have an “us” them and a “them” team. Depending on how you identify yourself politically the composition of “us” and “them” will differ. In the case of Republicans the “them” team is made up of Democrats. Team libertarian sees team “them” as a bunch of pinko socialists. Self-declared conservatives have a tendency to blame “the liberals.” It’s very convenient but it boils very complex issues down to gross generalizations.

Returning to the comic we see that the author believes the executive branch has all the power. I’m sure, in his head, all would be well again if the three branches had equal power. The good news is that each branch does have equal power. How the hell do you think the executive branch enjoys its vast power? Congress has to pass the budget that allows the executive branch to execute its whims. The judicial branch has been more than happy to rule the vast powers of the executive branch as constitutional. We don’t have a compartmentalized system where each branch fights the other two branches. What we do have are three members of the same team. All three branches of government are helping each other because they know if they scratch their fellow’s back they will likely get their back scratched in return. But since individuals involved in the political process believe the system, in some capacity, is legitimate they can’t bring themselves to make such criticisms.

There you have it, a long-winded rant about one of the inherit characteristics of politics that I detest. This, among many other reasons, is why I refuse to further participate in the political process. I will note work on a campaign, run for office, or vote. As far as I’m concerned the entire system is part of the problem and any work performed within that system is a complete waste of my time. If I want to have heated debates about meaningless topics I will stick to ones about which superhero is more bad ass. At least debates about superheroes are entertaining because the characters involved are larger than life. Debates about political figures are depressing because the characters are petty criminals who get their rocks off on wielding power over their fellow individuals.