Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

Let the Protectionism of Brick and Mortar Stores Begin

Brick and mortar stores have been begging the state to give them some kind of protection against online retailers for years now, and the Senate has seen fit to grant that protection:

WASHINGTON — The Senate sided with traditional retailers and financially strapped state and local governments Monday by passing a bill that would widely subject online shopping — for many a largely tax-free frontier — to state sales taxes.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 69 to 27, getting support from Republicans and Democrats alike. But opposition from some conservatives who view it as a tax increase will make it a tougher sell in the House. President Barack Obama has conveyed his support for the measure.

The brick and mortar stores played it safe and offered the state a method of protectionism that benefited themselves and the state, taxation. Online retailers have so far avoided requirements to collect sales taxes in states they lack a physical presence in. This bill would change that, which would require online retailers to know the sales tax laws of every individual state in order to collect the appropriate amount.

A far better solution, if evening the playing field was really what brick and mortar stores were after, would have been to lobby for the abolition of sales taxes. But leveling the playing field wasn’t what those stores were after, they wanted to make it difficult for online retailers to operate, hence they lobbied for a law that would require online retailers to know the tax laws of all 50 states. Imagine the strain such a requirement will put on very small online retailers. If you’re operating an online business by yourself are you going to be able to familiarize yourself with the tax codes of 50 separate states? This law really stands to put those small operators out of business, which is probably why Amazon supported the legislation. Sure, Amazon many have to pay money in taxes, but it will also crush small competitors in the process.

An online sales tax is nothing but a victory for protectionism.

Harry Reid is Confused

Harry Reid appears to be confused. In his world, likely created by the onset of dementia, he believes that the Tea Party and anarchists are equivalent:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says the Tea Party is the main reason why things are not getting done in Congress and views it as a party of modern-day anarchists.

Reid on Wednesday afternoon stood by comments he made on the Senate floor last week comparing Tea Party-affiliated Republicans to 19th century American anarchists.

“I believe that, my experience with the Tea Party, is that they are against government in any form. They throw monkey wrenches into the government,” Reid said during an interview on the “Rusty Humphries Show.”

The Tea Party isn’t ready to rock with us anarchists. They’re like the metalcore fans at the death metal show. While they know some of the lingo and can name a some well-known bands they still complain about their inability to understand the lyrics and won’t venture forth into the mosh pit. Given a few years to mature they may be ready to rock with the big boys but they’re not at that point yet.

Through my mistaken adventure in libertarian politics I attended several Tea Party rallies. Most of the people attending those rallies would qualify, in my book, as being quite patriotic. They love the United States of America, the Constitution, an believe the government has been hijacked by socialists but is still legitimate. What most Tea Party members seem to want want to kick the socialists out of the government and replacement with good all-American conservatives. Tea Party members generally seem to be OK with the concept of taxation and believe we’re simply being taxed “too much.” The neoconservatives in the Tea Party movement (of which there are many) support having a large standing army and even believe that defense is one of the few rightful duties of the federal government. To understand the Tea Party one need only use a layman’s interpretation of the Constitution (as opposed to the convoluted lawyerly interpretation used by the state).

Us anarchists differ by opposing the state in its entirety. We don’t believe in any taxation, oppose standing armies, and don’t believe there are any rightful duties of a state. Those of us who identify ourselves as anarchist don’t believe that the government has been hijacked, we believe the government is running as intended. Whether socialists or conservatives are in charge is of no consequence to us because politicians on both sides of the political spectrum want to expropriate from the general population.

It’s true that many members of the Tea Party may eventually give up their small government desires and transition to no government desires. Tea Party members who transition in such a way will likely become anarcho-capitalists. This isn’t unique to members of the Tea Party though, many socialists and communists may eventually transition to anarchism, specifically anarcho-communism. With that said members of the Tea Party, socialists, and communists haven’t made that transition and many never make that transition. They’re toes may be in the water but they haven’t decided if it’s too cold to jump in yet. To say any of them are equivalent to anarchists are is completely wrong.

Intellectual Property: The Reason Chemotherapy Costs $70,000

While my opposition to intellectual property can easily be justified by pointing out the absurdity of driving a man to suicide because he may have violated intellectual property laws I also like to point out the ways intellectual property laws make negatively impact all of our lives. Healthcare in this country is absurdly expensive. Advocates of state controlled healthcare will tell you that the reason healthcare in the United States is so expensive is because of greedy capitalists and inefficiencies inherent in the free market. These claims are false. One of the biggest reason healthcare in the United States is so expensive is because of the state, namely the monopolies it grants on ideas:

Why does Gleevec, a leukemia drug that costs $70,000 per year in the United States, cost just $2,500 in India?

It’s seemingly simple. Gleevec is under patent in the U.S., but not in India. Accordingly, Novartis, its Swiss-based manufacturer, may prevent competitors from making and selling lower-cost versions of the drug in the U.S., but not in India.

Last week, India’s highest court rejected an application to patent Gleevec. While the legal issue in the case is important — the patentability of modifications to existing drugs under Indian law — the impact of the decision will likely be broader than just that issue, escalating a long-simmering fight over patented cancer medications in emerging markets.

Unlike the United States, which suffers under atrocious intellectual property laws, other countries aren’t nearly as idiotic when it comes to such matters. Patents on medical procedures and drugs are one of the biggest contributors to the healthcare costs in the United States. When one company is granted a monopoly on a medical procedure or drug they can set the cost to whatever they want. In other countries where such intellectual property laws aren’t observed producers of medical procedures and drugs must set their prices competitively or be knocked out of the market.

The Undying Wisdom of Central Planners

Remember the rhetoric spewed by those advocating for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) before the bill was passed into law? According to them the bill was going to reduce the cost of healthcare for Americans and ensure those who currently lack coverage would have coverage. It was all going to be so easy, so tidy, so perfect. The problem with central planners is that the vastly oversimplify things. In their minds the leaders of this country have perfect knowledge and that allows them to do everything right. Once the desires of central planners are realized reality crashes their oversimplified beliefs and they are forced to admit that they didn’t think their cunning plan all the way through:

President Obama said Tuesday that his healthcare law is bound to hit some snags as it comes fully into effect over the next six months.

“Even if we do everything perfectly, there will still be glitches and bumps, “Obama said at a news conference.” That’s pretty much true of every government program that’s ever been set up.”

I think we’re going to find out that “glitches and bumpbs” is a massive understatement as the medical industry in this country, which is already in a woeful state, finally collapses entirely. As Friedrich Hayek explained central planning is impossible because it requires perfect knowledge of current events and the ability to perfectly predict the future. Since the wants and needs of individuals changes continuously and if affected by their previous decisions it’s impossible to actually have perfect knowledge and it is therefore impossible to plan economic matters. History has proven Hayek right and has also shown that the more centrally planned an economic matter is the more out of control it spins.

The Minnesota Pirate Party

I’ve made my views on intellectual property well known at this point. Due to these views I was contacted by a friend who asked me if I wanted to participate in starting a Minnesota chapter of the Pirate Party. For those of you who aren’t aware the Pirate Party isn’t a unified organization but a loose knit affiliation of mostly political parties that focus on civil liberties, direct democracy, and reforming intellectual property laws. Being an anarchist of the individualist persuasion I don’t give a shit about direct democracy (or any kind of democracy for that matter) but I am a big fan of civil liberties and an even bigger fan of abolishing intellectual property laws. In addition to my desire to abolish intellectual property laws I’m also a fan of beer, which I was promised will play a major part in the Minnesota Pirate Party.

Obviously I’m not going to involve myself in the political side of things but I like the people starting this group and the offer sounds like a lot of fun. I’ll post more as we get the groundwork laid out but I thought I would let you all know that the Pirate Party is coming to Minnesota and, if I have any say in the matter, will be bringing the message of abolishing intellectual property with it.

Markets, Markets Everywhere

After most socialist revolutions the newly established burgeoisie (the revolutionaries who claimed to be fighting for the proletariat) begin monopolizing the economy. This monopolization involves the use of violence in an attempt to completely suppress markets. Shortly after the state begins its war on markets nasty periods of bread lines and starvation begin. As it turns out there is no way for the state to plan an economy and when it attempts to do so everything falls apart. Fortunately markets, which are nothing more than events of human economic interaction, cannot be suppressed and when things start turning south in a planned economy markets begin to spring up in spite of the law. An interesting editorial in the New York Times written by a North Korean expatriate explains who even in a totalitarian state like North Korea markets continue to be the salvation of the people:

Dialogue will never entice the regime to give up its nuclear weapons; the nuclear program is tightly linked to its survival. And talks will not lead to change over the long term; the regime sees them only as a tool for extracting aid. High-level diplomacy is no strategy for getting the regime to make economic reforms. The key to change lies outside the sway of the regime — in the flourishing underground economy.

All North Koreans depended for their very survival on a state rationing system until it collapsed in the mid-1990s. Its demise was due in part to the regime’s concentrated investment of funds in a “party economy” that maintained the cult of the Kims and lavished luxuries on an elite instead of developing a normal economy based on domestic production and trade. Desperate people began to barter household goods for rice on the streets — and the underground economy was born. With thousands of people starving to death, the authorities had no option but to turn a blind eye to all the illegal markets that began to pop up.

Like the Soviet Union, North Korea now has a flourishing “underground” economy, which is the only thing preventing more people from starving to death. In fact the “underground” economy has become so rampant that party members have had to give up the ideals of socialism and involve themselves in markets.

Jang Jin-sung, the author, rightly points out that North Korea’s salvation from tyranny isn’t diplomacy, sanctions, or war. The country’s salvation lies in its markets. The only way to topple a regime is to take away its power and the only effective means of doing that, without establishing another regime in its place, is to starve it of resources. Socialist states such as North Korea monopolize the economy because it gives them unfettered access the nation’s resources. Instead of burdening the general population with taxes socialist states merely claim that the best way for everybody to flourish is if the entire economy is controlled by the ruling class (which is ironic when you consider the philosophical reason for socialism is supposedly to overthrow the ruling class and empower all people).

Although they probably don’t realize it the people in North Korea who are participating in the “underground” economy are agorists. Agorism is a simple idea where the people withhold resources from the state by participating in an “underground” economy. Through this practice the state is starved of resources and loses its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. Who is going to suffer a state when it does nothing but take resources? The people of North Korea can be saved but it is up to them. No outside force is going to save them. At most an outside force, such as the United States, would merely topple the current regime and put another, possibly more brutal, regime in its place. If the North Korean people can topple the regime by depriving the state of resources they will come out with a functioning economy already in place and have no need to suffer another regime.

The Hypocrisy of Background Checks

There is a great deal of hypocrisy in the state demanding non-state gun buyers submit to background checks. Why should we be expected to submit to a background check when arms of the state are actively blocking an investigation into an operation that involves multiple state departments smuggling guns to Mexican drug cartels:

President Barack Obama is resisting a congressional subpoena for documents related to how the administration responded to the revelation of the failed operation known as “Fast and Furious” on the U.S.- Mexican border. It has already turned over thousands of pages of documents about the operation itself.

Justice Department lawyer Ian Gershengorn told a hearing the matter was best left to the give-and-take of the U.S. government’s two elected branches, the president and Congress, and should not be a matter for the courts.

“That is how it has worked for 225 years,” said Gershengorn, referring to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson was skeptical and told Gershengorn, “There are three branches here, not just two.” She did not say how she would rule, but questioned Gershengorn for more than twice as long as she did House of Representatives lawyer Kerry Kircher.

If gun control advocates want to prevent gun violence they should focus their attention on the biggest perpetrator of gun violence, the state.

The Ouroboros of War

People in this country often assume that the people labeled terrorists hate us because of our freedom. It’s an absurd concept on the surface. Why would people in a foreign country give a damn about the freedoms a person living in a foreign country enjoys? Unless they have nothing else to worry about they most likely are going to invest their time, money, and lives on such matters. If the terrorists don’t hate us because of our freedoms then why do they hate us? It’s simple, our government is bombing them:

For the first time, a civilian affected by a US drone strike in Yemen has testified before members of Congress. Farea al-Muslimi, an American-educated Yemeni journalist whose home village of Wessab had been attacked by a US drone just six days prior, went before the Senate’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights yesterday, during a special hearing on the effects of America’s secret drone wars on civilian populations and the US rule of law. But despite previous commitments, representatives of the Obama administration were notably absent.

“The drone strike and its impact tore my heart, much as the tragic bombings in Boston last week tore your hearts and also mine,” said Muslimi to the bipartisan panel of US Senators, which included committee chair Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Al Franken (D-MN). The strike killed six people including its intended target, Hamid Radman al Manea, a local man suspected to have ties with Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Penninsula (AQAP). Muslimi was not an eyewitness to the strike, but he claims that the man was well-known around his home town and could have easily been arrested by local authorities — seemingly at odds with the US government’s legal position that drone strikes are only justified when capture is “unfeasible.”

[…]

Muslimi described his experience living in America as having changed his life, and has spoke highly of the US to his fellow Yemenis ever since his return. “Now, however, when they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads, ready to fire missiles at any time,” he said, describing the anger he has seen play into the hands of terrorist recruiters. “What the violent militants previously failed to achieve, one drone strike accomplished in an instant… This is not an isolated instance. Drone strikes are the face of America to many Yemenis.”

Most people remember how they felt during 9/11. First they were shocked then, after the shock wore off, they became angry. The same thing happened after the bombing in Boston, people were first in a state of shock and became angry afterward. It’s no different for people living in other parts of the world. When an American drone bombs a village and takes out several children along with the target the people of that community, especially the people who knew the victims, become furious. They want justice, they want to strike back at the monster that struck their community.

War is a self-feeding cycle. One group bombs another group, the other group bombs the first group back, the first group retaliates for the other group’s bombing by bombing them back, the other group retaliates for the first group’s retaliation, and so on. Eventually everybody is either dead or one side is out of soldiers, ordinance, or willpower to continue the fight. Nobody really wins. Sure, one group gets to declare victory but their victory only came at a tremendous cost.

Considering the fact that the United States is bombing people in the Middle East is it any surprise that the bombing in Boston was likely a retalitatory strike:

The two suspects in the Boston bombing that killed three and injured more than 260 were motivated by the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials told the Washington Post.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, “the 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack,” the Post writes, citing “U.S. officials familiar with the interviews.”

Patriotic folk are usually quick to say “We’re bombing military targets, they’re bombing civilian targets. It’s completely different!” That sentiment is bullshit. The United States has been targeting specific individuals and hasn’t made a notable attempt to avoid taking out innocent bystanders in its quest. Instead of using snipers or other assassins to take out targets in a manner that carriers minimal risk to bystanders the United States has taken the lazy route of dropping Hellfire missiles on suspects (since there is no trial to affirm guilt the people being bombed are merely suspects). Then, to compound its stupidity, it drops another bomb to ensure the target’s death and often kills emergency responders who arrive to care for the victims of the initial blast. There is no notable difference between bombing suspects with drones and the tactics of the people labeled by the state as terrorists.

Another thing often said by patriotic folk is “They’re targeting civilians, we’re not!” Ironically these are the same people who blame all Muslims and Middle Easterners for the actions of a handful of individuals. These bombers were likely patriotic folk themselves and, like patriotic folk here, lay the blame for the actions of a handful of American individuals on all Americans. In other words they don’t see their actions as targeting civilians just as many patriotic folk here don’t see dropping bombs from drones on civilian populations as targeting civilians. When you assign blame collectively don’t be surprised when your enemy does the same.

So here we sit. The government which claims to represent us has declared war on the people of the Middle East. Knowing they cannot win a conventional war they have opted to use the only tactic that has been effective at fighting the United States, fourth generation warfare. Many people here claim that the Muslims, Middle Easterners, or Muslim Middle Easterners are attacking us and we need to attack them back. When the people of the Middle East are attacked they claim that the Americans are attack them and see the need to return the favor. This cycle will continue until one side either wises the hell up or runs the other out of resources. Unless the United States does the former the people we call terrorists will do the latter. Until one of those two conditions are met the cycle will continue, bombs will be dropped, people will die, and demands for revenge will continue.

The Advantages of Decentralized Security

Terrorism is a tactic that has proven to be successful because it exploits basic economics. Two individuals with a couple of pressure cookers and some explosives placing an entire region under martial law can be considered nothing more than a successful attack. What made this response possible, in part, is the increasing centralization of security in the United States.

During the early days of the United States the founders envisioned a militia system, akin to what Switzerland has today, where the average person was armed and received basic military training. Between then and now the country transitioned from a militia system to a centralized standing army. Along with this transition have come many consequences. Thanks to its standing army the federal government began to enjoy the ability to crush any opposition, which it used to on several individual states that decided the whole Union thing wasn’t working out for them. As the advocates of a militia system predicted the existence of a standing army lead to tyranny. The establishment of tyranny is only one consequence of a standing army however. Another aspect that is seldom discussed is the sheer cost involved in maintaining a permanent military class.

Military spending for the United States has reach absurd levels. Nobody should be surprised by that, centralized systems are notoriously inefficient. The United States has further compounded its error by transforming the domestic police force into a standing army as well. America has changed a lot since the almost stateless Frontier was, well, a frontier [PDF]. Before the militarization of the police there existed an actual security market, which provided security at a much cheaper rate and with better results. In most cases of trouble the general population was armed sufficiently to deal with the matter. In cases where the general populace was unable or unwilling to deal with troublesome matters professional mercenaries would be hired. If a community was large enough to warrant a full time peacekeeper the townsfolk would come together to hire a sheriff, who would rely on the armed townsfolk for any matters he could not handle himself.

This decentralized system had many advantages. First, it was efficient. Resources only needed to be invested in security when problems occurred. When a professional police class exists they must be paid year around regardless of whether or not trouble exists. Even in today’s world police spend most of their time dealing with victimless “crimes” like exceeding the arbitrarily posted speed limit, parking in places posted as no parking zones, and the consumption of certain plants. Crimes involving victims are exceedingly rare so without victimless “crimes” the average police officer would be paid to, quite literally, stand around and do nothing.

The second advantage of a decentralized system is that the cost of committing crimes increases. Under a centralized system where only professional police officers are likely to be armed the cost of committing a crime against non-police officers is relatively low. If I wanted to rob my neighbor’s home I am reasonable sure I would encounter little, if any, resistance. Under a decentralized system more people are likely to be armed and training to use arms because there is no centralized entity they can put their faith in. If I wanted to rob my neighbor’s home under a decentralized system I would be more likely to encounter resistance, which would increase the cost of performing the act and likely discourage me from doing so.

Advantage number three is that a decentralized system relies primarily on individuals familiar with an area. This point was prominently made during the entire Boston fiasco. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wasn’t found by the police, he was found by a homeowner who noticed the tarp over his boat was amiss. The homeowner was familiar with the area, unlike many of the police officers brought in to deal with the situation. That knowledge allowed him to find the perpetrator even when the police could not. Familiarity with an area is invaluable when searching for a suspected wrongdoer. While a person unfamiliar with an area is unlikely to notice a small out of place detail a person who is familiar with the area is likely to take note if they’re actively searching for somebody.

Another advantage is that people are more likely to take interest in the affairs of friends, family members, and neighbors. If you rob, assault, or murder somebody you can be reasonably assured that your victim’s friends, family members, and neighbors are going to be none too happy with you. In general people don’t like to see those they like suffer harm. Police officers, especially those not from the afflicted area, are less likely to have an emotional investment in solving a crime.

When you combine these advantages you have a system that can deal with incidents like the Boston bombing in a much less resource intensive manner. The suspect is more likely to be found quickly due to everybody’s familiarity with the area, the resources needed to defend against the bomber are spread out amongst the armed populace instead of centralized by a single organizations, those with an emotional investment will be the ones seeking the perpetrator, and the crime may not have occurred in the first place because the cost of doing so would have been higher.

All Progress is Due to Anarchy

Although the term anarchy is often incorrectly used as a synonym for chaos the true definition of the world means “without rulers.” While various branches of anarchism disagree about what is meant by “without rulers” most branches agree that it means an absence of coercive rule (the reason for the disagreement is the varying criteria regarding what is coercive). Within the realm of politics many people often refer to rights. Like the various branches of anarchism, the various political philosophies disagree about what constitutes a right but most of them share the definition of a right, which is the absence of coercive rule used to prohibit actions. The right to free speech really means an absence of coercive control over what somebody expresses. The right to keep and bear arms really means an absence of coercive control over possessing and carrying arms. In essence rights are anarchy. The debate between gun rights and gun control activists can therefore be boiled down to whether or not coercive force should be used to prevent somebody from possessing or carrying firearms and to what extent that force should be employed.

JayG over at MArooned made an excellent statement regarding rights:

Look, freedom is messy. It’s scary, and dangerous, and unpredictable. Living in a free society means, yes, it is possible that the wrong people might do something that winds up in innocent people getting hurt.

Rights are frightening to many people because the absence of control also means an inability to predict outcomes. Will an absence of control over firearm ownership lead to a more peaceful society or a more violent society? Although deductive logic and available research indicate the latter, there is no way to know what the future will bring. However we do know what the presence of control will bring, the status quo. To quote Jeffrey Tucker:

Anarchy is all around us. Without it, our world would fall apart. All progress is due to it. All order extends from it. All blessed things that rise above the state of nature are owned to it. The human race thrives only because of the lack of control, not because of it. I’m saying that we need ever more absence of control to make the world a more beautiful place. It is a paradox that we must forever explain.

Progress is only possible when there is an absence of coercive rule. Henry Ford didn’t streamline automobile production because a state goon put a gun to his head and said, “Make building cars more efficient.” Mr. Ford’s advancement of automobile production only came about because he was free to act on his idea. Steve Wozniak didn’t create the first affordable mass-produced personal computer because some thug told him to. The Apple I came about because Mr. Wozniak was a brilliant inventor who wanted to bring the power of computing to the average person. This wonderful communication system we call the Internet is another demonstration of the power of anarchy. While the infrastructure remained under the control of the state little happened. Once people were given unfettered access to the Internet is began to change society and we not sit here and enjoy the ability to watch movies and television shows on demand, listen to music on demand, and do our shopping from the comfort of our living rooms.

While freedom, that is to say the recognition of rights, may seem scary in the long run it usually turns out for the better. Coercive rule, on the other hand, tends to turn out far worse. Most of the scary things we learn about in history stem from extremely coercive regimes and individuals. It’s not surprising when you consider that those in power have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Politicians who expropriate wealth from the general population have a good reason to advocate for the disarmament of the general populace. Without doing so the general populace may decide to rise up when the politicians begin taking too much.

Gun control advocates believe they can make society better by inflicting more control on it. Their theory may sound good on paper but historically it’s unprecedented. More control generally means less progress. In fact enough control seems to return humanity to more barbaric times. As regimes or individuals gain more control over a population violence is often the result. This may be because people have an innate desire to be free, having control over a populace reduces the cost of inflicting violence upon them, more violence must be continuously implemented in order to gain more control, or some other reason(s). But history tends towards freedom being far less messy than the lack thereof. While bumps may occur in a free society those bumps tend to be relatively mild to the genocides and death camps that are so common with the most tyrannical regimes. In the end less control tends to be better for everybody and because of that more actions should be recognized as rights everyday.