Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

Ending Statism by Giving Statists What They Want

While many gun blogs were telling people to vote one way or another I simply said that you should vote for whoever you wanted, or not. I did throw in a caveat though, I said I hoped everybody got everything their preferred candidates promised. It was actually a rather underhanded wish.

There are two solutions to an ever expanding state. First you can attempt to reduce the state’s expansion. Reducing the state’s expansion is difficult because the state, being an exploitative entity, needs to continue expanding its influence in order to gain more people from whom to rob wealth. Solution two is to allow the state to continue expanding until it inevitably collapses. History shows us that all empires eventually fall. Genghis Khan’s empire fell, Alexander the Great’s empire fell, and Rome fell. The more a state expands the more likely it is to collapse.

Statism is expensive. In order to continue expropriating wealth a state must maintain the support of public opinion. Often maintaining public opinion requires giving the public “free” stuff. The United States keeps giving people more and more stuff. Everything from welfare to Social Security to unemployment benefits to Obamacare are attempts by the state to buy the public’s favor. This is a vicious cycle though because as the public gets more and more from the state they begin to expect more and more. In this regard the public is like a child. If a child wants a toy, is denied the toy by his or her parents, screams and cries, and is gifted with the toy it reinforces the idea that screaming and crying is an effective way of getting desired things. When the state gives the public something it reinforces the idea that the political means is the way to get desired things.

Buying the public’s favor isn’t free, the state needs to obtain the wealth required to provide the stuff that buys the public’s favor from somewhere. This is where the state runs into a problem. In order to obtain more wealth the state must expropriate it but in order to expropriate wealth the state must invest more wealth into the police and military. State expropriation comes in the form of fines, taxes, and conquest. None of those are possible without a coercive force to convince people to pay fines, taxes, and tributes demanded of conquest. The more the state wants to expropriate the larger the threat of violence it must hold. This is the catch-22 of statism. A cycle occurs where the state builds a larger coercive force to expropriate more wealth so it can buy the public’s favor. Eventually the state expropriates so much that its victims will refuse to pay. When somebody is starving to death the threat of violence suddenly becomes far less intimidating. Faced with guaranteed death by starvation or possible death by the state’s gun most people will take their chances and disobey the state. This is the point where public opinion turns against the state and its power begins to wane.

Ending the state can be accomplished by giving statists exactly what they want. If statists want more welfare give them more welfare. If they want more unemployment benefits give them more unemployment benefits. If they want “free” healthcare give them “free” healthcare. The more statists receive the faster the state expands and the sooner its imminent collapse will come. When I hope that statists get everything their candidates promise I mean it because that will serve my goals as well.

Tuesday’s Lesson

Tuesday’s election was the inevitable result of a series of bad moves on behalf of the Republican Party (GOP). Their first mistake was how they nominated Romney. Instead of following the rules and procedures created and voted on at the Republican National Convention (RNC) the GOP decided to pull out all of the stops and actually cheat to ensure Romney’s nomination. Cheating at the RNC wasn’t even necessary since the GOP cheated in several states to ensure Romney had enough delegates to win the nomination. What the GOP’s complete disregard for their own rules did was disenfranchise Ron Paul’s supporters, which effectively turned them against the GOP. Paul’s supporters aren’t a majority within the GOP but they are a large enough voting block that pissing them off was not going to end well.

After giving Romney and his vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan the nomination on a silver platter the GOP failed to control either candidate. Both politicians made performed publicity stunts that ended up making them look bad in the public’s eye. There was also the fact that the Republican base was adamant about repealing Obamacare, which Romney failed to promise. When you fail to promise your voter base what they want they’re not going to be inclined to come out and support you. The GOP lost the presidential race because they nominated a guy that their own base didn’t like. You can’t expect to win an election by nominating a guy your own party members hate.

Problems didn’t stop for the GOP at the presidential race. Many of their endorsed candidates made extremely stupid public statements. Between Todd Akin’s claim that women seldom become pregnant from “legitimate” rape to Jon Hubbad and Loy Mauch’s defense of slavery to Richard Mourdock’s claim that pregnancies resulting from rape are a gift from God to Charles Fuqua’s advocacy of the death penalty for unruly children the Democratic Party had a lot of ammunition to use against the GOP. How did the GOP expect to win any major elections when a notable number of their endorsed candidates were running around the country spouting off things that were extremely offensive to a good number of people?

The GOP’s stupidity didn’t wasn’t restricted to the national level. Here in Minnesota the state GOP was hard at working sowing the seeds of their own defeat. Knowing that most people only show up to the polls for the presidential election and that their presidential candidate wasn’t going to fire up their voting base they took a gamble. Two constitutional amendments were put forward by the GOP controlled legislative body. One amendment would have implemented voter ID requirements in Minnesota while the other one would have made gay marriages more illegal. Both amendments were a ploy to get voters to the voting booths and it backfired. The state Democratic Party was able to use the amendments to fire up their voting base. In addition to the amendments the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization within the GOP that claims to support gay rights, stabbed the gay community in the back. I’m sure that encouraged members of the gay community that were in the Log Cabin Republicans to vote for Democratic candidates. With so many Democratic voters at the polls the state GOP got slaughtered.

I also want to take a moment to address the Senate race. Klobuchar was up for reelection and the GOP fielded Kurt Bills against her. Kurt Bills claimed to be a liberty candidate, a claim that was proven to be false when he switched his presidential endorsement from Ron Paul to Mitt Romney. Not satisfied that switching his endorsement would piss off enough liberty voters within the Republican Party Bills also made a public statement against all third-party voters. Minnesota’s liberty movement is fairly strong so alienating them can be costly, especially when the state is already strongly Democratic to begin with.

Tuesday had a valable lesson for the GOP. Alienating as many people as possible is not a good political strategy. Between a presidential candidate hated by the GOP’s voter base, endorsed candidates running around spouting offensive statements, and taking every opportunity to move against the gay community and their supporters the GOP sealed their fate. They got exactly what was coming to them. Frankly, after the RNC, I was hoping to see a little revenge during the election. I attended the Republican Party party in Bloomington, Minnesota just so I could watch the spirits of hardcore GOP supporters get crushed in real time. It felt good seeing what happened to my friends in the liberty movement happen to the neoconservatives. Vengeance was had by the liberty movement and all they had to do was stand by the sidelines and watch the GOP hang itself. To those of you who actively worked to surpress the liberty movement in the GOP I hope you enjoy the next four years because they are years of your making.

Although I’m Ashamed to Admit it I Voted

But I’m not ashamed of who I voted for:

I took that picture before I filled in “No” for both of the amendments, which were the only other things I voted on.

With how much I criticize voting and democracy some people are likely curious to know why I voted. Although I didn’t want to contribute any votes to candidates I did want to vote against the amendments. Since I couldn’t decide whether or not I wanted to vote I did what any sane person would do in my situation and consulted Thor. It was raining off and on yesterday so I asked the great thunder god to send me a sign: if it was raining when I arrived at my precinct I would take that as a sign from Thor that he didn’t want me to participate in the vote and if the skys were clear I would take that as a sign from Thor that he did want me to participate in the vote. When I arrive the skys were clear so I went in.

Another question some people may have is why I chose to write-in Vermin Supreme instead of cast a vote for Gary Johnson. I did discuss the fact that I liked Gary Johnson when I met him and that I hoped he’d get close to his desired five percent of the popular vote, so why didn’t I give him a vote? Because I didn’t want to participate in any candidate races.

Look I like Gary Johnson and of all the “serious” candidates running I believe he would be the least evil. Still I have no desire to elect a master and writing in Vermin Supreme gave me that option. In Minnesota write-in votes don’t qualify unless a candidate fills out the appropriate paperwork. To my knowledge Vermin Supreme didn’t fill out that paperwork so my vote for him won’t be counted. He’s also a fellow anarchist so I didn’t feel bad giving him a nod (not to mention that he delivered the lulz).

Even though I feel slightly dirty for participating in the election I accomplished my goals. One vote was cast against each of the constitutional amendments and I contributed nothing to any candidate. There’s always a method to my madness. Hopefully we won’t have to deal with constitutional amendments like this during the next election so I can avoid participating without any nagging feeling whatsoever.

Why I’m Hoping Gary Johnson Gets Close to Five Percent of Votes

Although I have no interest in the presidential race this year I must say that I do hope Gary Johnson gets his coveted five percent of the vote. His campaign has continued to state that five percent of the vote will end the two-party system. The idea is that receiving five percent of the popular vote would qualify the Libertarian Party for federal campaign funding next election. While this sounds good on paper the plan as one flaw; it assumes that the Federal Election Committee (FEC) will continue to play by the same rule book during the next election. Assuming the state will play by any set of rules has cause disappointment in the liberty movement before.

The state’s willingness to change the rules whenever its power is threatened is the reason I want Gary Johnson to receive close to five percent of the public votes. As soon as Johnson gets close enough to that five percent to worry the current establishment the FEC will move to raise the required percentage of votes from five percent to 10, 15, or even 20 percent. They will continue move the required percentage high enough to ensure no third party ever qualifies for federal campaign funds. I think the liberty movement needs to see this just as they needed to see the Republican Party change its own rules to ensure a candidate like Ron Paul never came close to threatening the establishment’s power base again.

We will not achieve liberty through the political system because the political system is controlled by those who oppose liberty. Every time we get close to a political goal they move the goalposts back. At the same time they try to hand us table scraps to keep us interesting because they know that their power requires the support of popular opinion. On the other hand the more the move the goalposts back the less popular opinion they enjoy. After Ron Paul was shutdown during the Republican National Convention a good number of people in the liberty movement swore off politics and I think seeing the FEC change the percentage of votes required to get federal funding will cause some more liberty advocates to swear off politics. Piece by piece the state will destroy its own power base of popular opinion and when enough people no longer recognize the state as legitimate it will fall. Therefore I look forward to every step taken by the state to squash the liberty movement. They’re sowing the seeds of their own destruction and I can’t wait until they get what’s coming to them.

My Election Predictions

Since today is Master Selection Day I’ve decided to do my best to predict the outcome of today’s election. I predict that Goldman Sachs will win. While it’s impossible to predict the future with certainty I feel secure in making this prediction since Goldman Sachs as been major campaign contributors to both Obama and Romney. Considering this fact it’s not too much of a stretch to predict either candidate will further Goldman Sach’s goals as payment for the company’s generous campaign contributes.

Beyond Goldman Sach’s victory I also predict that the warfare welfare system will remain intact. Once again both candidates have affirmed their support for continuing the wars America is currently embroiled in and starting new wars as the need arrises. Iran is a likely target for invasion during the next presidential term as Obama and Romney have both expressed interest in bombing the men, women, and children living in that country. Both candidates have also expressed interest in entering more wars including sending military support to Syrian rebels.

The Federal Reserve has nothing to worry about. Neither candidate has expressed even minor interest in either auditing or ending the Federal Reserve. Bankers throughout the United States can rest easy knowing that the easily expanded inflationary money supply will continue on regardless of which presidential candidate wins. In fact it’s likely that the Federal Reserve will continue to print more money under the guise of quantitative easing.

Civil liberties will continue to be stripped from the people. Obama and Romney have continued to beat the war on terror drum which has become a euphemism for eliminating civil liberties. Along with direct attacks against civil liberties both presidential candidates have expressed interest in expanding the police state, against under the guise of the war on terror. Prisons should continue to be overcrowded as nonviolent individuals are locked away for simply disobeying the state’s decrees.

In other words things will continue as they have been for four more years. Nothing will change, the economy won’t improve, liberty won’t be expanded, and noninterventionist policies will not become the status quo. It’s all a big game of chess and we the people are the pawns.

Anyways let me end on a high note by wishing you all a very enjoyable Master Selection Day!

Consider Guy Fawkes and Our Current Situation

Remember, remember, the 5th of November
The Gunpowder Treason and plot;
I see of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.

Today is the 5th of November, known as Guy Fawkes Night in Britain. In 1605 a man by the name of Guido Fawkes was captured hauling gunpowder under the House of Lords in a plot to assassinate King James I. Members of the Gunpowder Treason planned to replace the Protestant monarchy with a Catholic monarchy, effectively returning England to a time before the Church of England was separated from the Catholic Church.

There are similarities between that time and today. The beginning of the Gunpowder Treason goes back to 1534 when Henry VIII separated the Church of England from the Catholic Church in order to annul is marriage (the Catholic Church wouldn’t approve Henry’s divorce so they were no longer politically convenient). Part of the separation included the issuance of the Act of Supremacy of 1534, which established the monarch as the head of the Church of England and the monarchy. Before the Act of Supremacy was issued the Pope was in charge of the Catholic Church, and by extension the Church of England, whereas the monarch was the head of the monarchy. With the separation of church and state eliminated the monarchs of England moved to eliminate competition to the religion they now controlled.

In 1559, under the reign of Elizabeth I, a second Act of Supremacy was issued that mandated anybody taking public office in England swear and oath to recognize the monarchy as the supreme head of the Church and state. Failing to swear such an oath would result in charges of treason, which ended with a death sentence. To further ensure all competition to the Church of England was greatly reduced Parliament also issued the Act of Uniformity. The Act of Uniformity made weekly worship at the Church of England compulsory. Failure to attend weekly service would result in the issuance of a fine.

The stage was set for a Catholic rebellion, which is what the Gunpowder Treason of 1605 was about. Conspirators in the plot hoped to restore Papal control over the Church of England by removing the Protestant monarch and replacing him with a Catholic one.

Like Guy Fawkes, we live under a totalitarian state. Groups labeled as subversive are repressed just as Catholics were repressed after the first Act of Supremacy was issued. Things are also notably different because the repression isn’t based on religious beliefs, instead repression is based on statism. People standing against the state are actively targeted by the state. Anybody advocating liberty is prevented from obtaining any real power by the currently established state. Political parties that are unwilling to tow the current establishment party line are actively prevented from participating in presidential debates and from receiving federal campaign funds. People who are not Republicans or Democrats are treated as second class individuals just as Catholics were after the Church of England split from Rome.

The more things change the more they stay the same. History is littered with power hungry individuals suppressing any potential competition. Today, like in the time of Guy Fawkes, we live under a system that attempts to eliminate state competition. We can’t vote our way out of this. Any gain we make through the political system, if any gain is even possible, will be temporary at best. The only way to achieve liberty will be to eliminate the state itself. So long as we grant a monopoly on violence to individuals and groups we will be subjecting ourselves to their whims. This is why I advocate anarchism, it is the only way to break the cycle of power hungry individuals suppressing all competition to their reign. Remember, remember, the 5th of November for it has lessons that are applicable even today.

Tomorrow is Master Selection Day

I want to remind my fellow slaves that tomorrow is Master Selection Day. Our masters are so benevolent that they allow use to choose new masters periodically. There are numerous races to consider from the presidency to congressional representatives to city councils. Whoever a majority of slaves vote for will become the master of his or her particular fiefdom. So don’t forget to vote because not voting could imply that you find the American government illegitimate and your friends will think you hate freedom and democracy!

I should also ask you to support my master of choice. While conditions seems unfavorable at the moment I can ensure you that selecting the other master will leads to even worse conditions for use slaves. Therefore you must vote for my preferred master for the sake of this country.

How Price Gouging Saves Lives

With the recent storms that hit the eastern coast of the United States there has been some talk regarding price gouging. People get up in arms when store owners jack of their prices during a natural disaster. Those who lack an understanding of economics claim that price gouging is immoral and should be stopped. The truth is that price gouging is actually beneficial and can save lives:

Let us postulate that a small Orlando drug store has ten bags of ice in stock that, prior to the storm, it had been selling for $4.39 a bag. Of this stock it could normally expect to sell one or two bags a day. In the wake of Hurricane Charley, however, ten local residents show up at the store over the course of a day to buy ice. Most want to buy more than one bag.

So what happens? If the price is kept at $4.39 a bag because the drugstore owner fears the wrath of State Attorney General Charlie Crist and the finger wagging of local news anchors, the first five people who want to buy ice might obtain the entire stock. The first person buys one bag, the second person buys four bags, the third buys two bags, the fourth buys two bags, and the fifth buys one bag. The last five people get no ice. Yet one or more of the last five applicants may need the ice more desperately than any of the first five.

But suppose the store owner is operating in an unhampered market. Realizing that many more people than usual will now demand ice, and also realizing that with supply lines temporarily severed it will be difficult or impossible to bring in new supplies of ice for at least several days, he resorts to the expedient of raising the price to, say, $15.39 a bag.

Now customers will act more economically with respect to the available supply. Now, the person who has $60 in his wallet, and who had been willing to pay $17 to buy four bags of ice, may be willing to pay for only one or two bags of ice (because he needs the balance of his ready cash for other immediate needs). Some of the persons seeking ice may decide that they have a large enough reserve of canned food in their homes that they don’t need to worry about preserving the one pound of ground beef in their freezer. They may forgo the purchase of ice altogether, even if they can “afford” it in the sense that they have $20 bills in their wallets. Meanwhile, the stragglers who in the first scenario lacked any opportunity to purchase ice will now be able to.

Increasing prices of goods during natural disasters encourages conservation, which increases the chances that those goods will be available to those who need them. Jacking the price up encourages those who aren’t in critical need of a good to go without whereas those who separately need a good have access. Using the above example of ice, somebody wanting to keep beer cold may be unwilling to spend $15.39 to buy a bag of ice whereas the diabetic needing ice to keep their insuline cold will be more than happy to spend $15.39 on a bag of ice and will likely be grateful that the price increase ensured ice was available.

Warfare as a Form of Welfare

Many proponents of state welfare also claim to oppose war. This isn’t surprising since proponents of state welfare try to position themselves as compassionate and caring. What they fail to understand is that warfare is also a form of welfare:

Approximately 1.4 million Americans work as members of the armed forces, and another 1.6 million workers labor in the civilian “defense” industry. These Americans are welfare clients of the “workfare” variety.

As an economic factor, they might just as well be digging holes and filling them back in (in fact, as a US Marine infantryman, I did quite a bit of exactly that!). The vast bulk of the work they do serves no “legitimate” function with respect to actual defense of the United States from attack or invasion, and in fact more likely increases the risks of such.

Some high double-digit percentage — I think 75% is a reasonable and conservative estimate — of “defense” spending is not about “defense” in any meaningful sense of the word. It’s about keeping those 3 million workers on the clock, and keeping their politically connected employers in profit.

Setting aside the apparently arbitrary percentage selected by the author the point of this article is clear, warfare employs some 3 million individuals. Every tank, ship, and missile requires manpower to design, build and, employ. Somebody must drive the tank, entire crews are needed to operate a ship, and missiles don’t fire themselves (yet). On top of building and operating military equipment there is also a massive number of support personell from janitors to secretaries to cooks.

Were the wars ended many of these 3 million people may find themselves without work. Facing a sudden surplus of labor it may take some time before those people are able to find employment again. By maintaining the warfare aspect of the warfare-welfare state some 3 million people find themselves being paid through tax victimization to be unproductive. Furthermore this form of welfare is self-perpetuating:

If that was the end of it, it would be pretty bad — one out of every five dollars earned by American workers siphoned off on an incredibly inefficient welfare program. But that’s not the end of it at all. The existence of the welfare program is a major incentive for going to war early and often.

If there is no war then the warfare-based welfare program must be either downsized or eliminated. Therefore a warfare-based welfare program encourages going to war because it allows those employed by warfare to continue to be employed and because nobody likes to have trillions of dollars of equipment lying around unused. Claiming to be in support of welfare but opposed to warfare, at least in the United States, is oxymoronic. Warfare is welfare.