Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

Same Tactics, Different Party

People, especially self-proclaimed Democrats, often chided the Bush administration for using patriotism to silence their opposition. Now that Bush is out of office and the tables have turn the Obama administration is trying its damnedest to show that there is only one party, the party of the state, by using Bush’s exact tactics to silence its opposition:

In the eight years since then, Democrats haven’t learned how to beat Bush’s tactics. What they’ve learned instead is how to mimic them. “There were very important moments in the discussion about Libya,” Obama adviser David Plouffe told CNN last night. “Gov. Romney looked like someone playing politics, and I think the president looked like a resolute commander-in-chief.” On MSNBC, Obama strategist David Axelrod said the president “is aware every single moment that he’s responsible for the lives of the Americans he sends overseas. … He feels that intensely. So it is offensive, the suggestion that somehow he would play politics with this issue.” Today on Good Morning America, Vice President Biden added:

It became so clear to the American people how Gov. Romney and the campaign continue to try to politicize a tragedy. … The president was clear: We are going to get to the bottom of this. The whole world will know it. And I think when the president turned and looked at Gov. Romney and made that assertion, saying, basically, “Don’t question me on this, in terms of my caring,” I thought it was a powerful moment.

Patriotism is a powerful and frightening tool. It allows the state to great a religious zealotry in those it expropriates from. Instead of fighting against the exploiters the people defend and even worship them. When you speak out against the exploiters the people throw out accusations of treason and being unpatriotic (as if that is supposed to be bad). The state itself uses this reverence for all it’s worth in an attempt to silence all critics. Unfortunately people often fail to see “their” party use patriotism to silence opposition, they only see it when “the other” party does it.

We must avoid succumbing to patriotism. If we allow yourselves to worship the state, to see the state as benevolent, then it becomes far easier to sucker us into supporting heinous crimes such as the stripping of liberties, wars, and ever increasing expropriation.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Laugh at Gun Control

Much of the gun rights community seems to be in a tizzy. During Tuesday’s presidential debate the issue of gun control came up. Not surprisingly both candidates played their expected parts. Mitt Romney pretended that he’s performed at 180 degree turn and is now a staunch supporter of gun rights while Barack Obama remained consistent and said he supports another “assault weapon” ban:

During their second election debate, both men largely danced around a gun-control question, a reflection of how they are wary of offending voters who support gun rights.

However, Obama did say that he would back an assault-weapons ban like the one President Bill Clinton signed in 1994. That law expired in 2004 without being renewed by Congress.

Romney signed such a ban as governor of Massachusetts, but he has indicated that he would not support banning assault weapons as president. He did not say why his stance is different now, but in winning the Republican nomination he courted conservative voters who generally oppose gun restrictions, and he was endorsed by the influential National Rifle Association.

Needless to say this move was smart for both parties. I’m sure Romney gained a few additional supporters in the form of gun rights activists who were suckered by his claimed change of heart. Likewise Obama probably enjoyed a few additional supporters in the form of gun control advocates who he has been keeping at arm’s length (until now, when he actually wants their votes). Ultimately I don’t care.

I no longer worry about an “assault weapon” ban or any other form of gun ban. You see technology has made gun control entirely impossible. Computer numerical control (CnC) machines and 3D printers allow any individual to manufacture the registered parts of many firearms in their own home. If an “assault weapon” ban goes through and AR-15 receivers become illegal to purchase then one only needs to gain access to a CnC machine and manufacture their own. One doesn’t even need to go as far as getting a CnC machine or a 3D printer, almost anybody can make an AK-47 receiver out of sheet metal. If people in a third-world country can manufacture a firearm then you and I, who enjoy the technologic advancements of the first-world, should have no problem whatsoever manufacturing firearms.

We should no longer allow ourselves to be subjected to the desires of sociopaths. If the state says we can’t have “assault weapons” then we should manufacture “assault weapons” in droves. Instead of begging politicians to allow us to keep our arms let’s work to simplify the construction of arms so that any individual can do it in their home with minimal knowledge. Once almost every person is able to manufacture a firearm in their home the entire gun control debate will become completely pointless. There is no way to control something that everybody can easily make.

Why Your Presidential Vote Won’t Count in Minnesota

Advocates of voting for third-party candidates are often subjected to ridicule because their votes, statistically speaking, don’t count. Supporters of the two party system claim that anybody voting for a third-party candidate is throwing their vote away or is actually voting for one of the two major candidates (Republicans will claim a third-party vote is actually a vote for Obama while Democrats will claim that a third-party vote is actually a vote for Romney). Fortunately I live in Minnesota and can tell you that your presidential vote won’t count unless you vote for Obama. To understand this one must look at the electoral college system. Many people don’t realize that presidential elections aren’t determined by popular vote, they’re determined by the electoral college system:

When U.S. citizens vote for president and vice President every election cycle, ballots show the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates, although they are actually electing a slate of “electors” that represent them in each state. The electors from every state combine to form the Electoral College.

Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always two) plus the number of its U.S. House representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each state’s population as determined in the census).

When you cast a vote for president you’re not actually casting a vote for that candidate, you’re casting a vote for a group of presidential electors. These electors are the people who actually vote for the president. Effectively you cast a vote for a group of “representatives” who actually get to vote for the president. Now we must look at how electors are selected:

Each political party with a candidate on the ballot designates its own set of electors for each state, matching the number of electors they appoint with the number of electoral votes allotted to the state. This usually occurs at state party conventions. Electors are typically strong and loyal supporters of their political party, but can never be a U.S. Senator or Representative. Electors are also generally free agents, as only 29 states require electors to vote as they have pledged, and many constitutional scholars believe those requirements would not stand in a court challenge.

After the election, by statutes in 48 states and the District of Columbia, the party that wins the most votes in that state appoints all of the electors for that state. This is known as a “winner-take-all” or “unit rule” allocation of electors, which became the norm across the nation by the 1830’s. Currently, the only exceptions to the unit rule are in Maine and Nebraska that allocate their electors by congressional district, plus two at-large electors awarded to the candidate who wins the states’ popular votes.

Minnesota has 10 electoral votes (we have eight House representaties and two Senators) so each political party gets to elect 10 presidential electors. With the exception of two states, presidential electors are selected on a “winner-takes-all” basis. Minnesota is not one of those two states:

6. Can a voter split votes between presidential elector candidates of different political parties?

No.

A vote can only be cast for the entire slate of electors by voting for the presidential and vice-presidential ticket that the candidates for elector are pledged to support.

7. Are the presidential elector candidates required to receive a majority of the votes cast (50%) in Minnesota?

No.

The presidential electors pledged to support the presidential and vice-presidential ticket that receives the MOST votes in MINNESOTA are certified as the official presidential electors for Minnesota. The winning slate of electors is only required to receive more votes in Minnesota than any other slate of electors. A majority (50% plus one vote) is not required for an elector to be elected.

Whichever party gets the majority of votes in Minnesota gets to select all of the presidential electors. If the Democratic Party gets 30% of the votes, the Republican Party gets 29% of the votes, the Libertarian Party gets 21% of the votes, and the Green Party gets 20% of the votes the Democratic Party gets to select all of the electors. If you don’t vote for the majority presidential candidate in Minnesota your vote literally doesn’t count.

Let’s take a look at Minnesota’s electoral college history. Since 1932 the Democratic Party has won all but three presidential elections in Minnesota. The last presidential election won by the Republicans in Minnesota was in 1972. That means since 1972 no vote for a Republican president has counted in the state of Minnesota. Furthermore Obama is polling ahead of Romney in this state so history is looking to repeat itself.

Claiming that any presidential vote cast for a third-party is being thrown away in Minnesota is effectively true. Likewise claiming any presidential vote cast for the Republican Party is being thrown away in Minnesota is also effectively true. Unless you’re planning to vote for Obama in this election your vote won’t matter in the state of 10,000 lakes.

What does all of this mean? For those of your on the fence about voting for a third-party candidate it means you can safely do so without worrying about whether or not your vote may lead to the “greater” of two evils becoming president. If you’re a libertarian that is worried about Obama getting reelected if you vote for Gary Johnson put your worries to rest. The same goes for those of you considering voting for the Green Party, Constitution Party, or any other political party. Obama is all but guaranteed to win all 10 electoral votes in Minnesota regardless of how you vote. Vote your conscious because, unless you’re voting for Obama, your vote won’t have any affect on the presidential race.

Don’t let the two major parties scare you into voting for one of their candidates. I know many advocates of gun rights are trying to convince people to vote for Romney because they believe he will nominate more gun friendly Supreme Court judges. That issue doesn’t concern you if you live in Minnesota because you don’t get a say in this election unless you support Obama. Vote for who you want to win. Since your vote is going to be thrown away you might as well have a clear conscious after you’re done casting a ballot.

We Were Never at War with the So-Called Jihadists

We were never at war with so-called jihadists, we were always at war with Eastasia. Don’t be alarmed by the fact that your government is giving arms to so-called jihadists:

Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.

That conclusion, of which President Obama and other senior officials are aware from classified assessments of the Syrian conflict that has now claimed more than 25,000 lives, casts into doubt whether the White House’s strategy of minimal and indirect intervention in the Syrian conflict is accomplishing its intended purpose of helping a democratic-minded opposition topple an oppressive government, or is instead sowing the seeds of future insurgencies hostile to the United States.

“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” said one American official familiar with the outlines of those findings, commenting on an operation that in American eyes has increasingly gone awry.

This really makes you wonder what the United States’s interest in toppling the Syrian regime is. What is it about the Syrian regime that makes them so increadibly dangerous that America is willing to arm the same groups that it claims are a threat to the American people? Is the Syrian regime more brutal than the theocratic regimes that have been filling power vacuums left in the Middle East as of late? As it currently stands the Syrian constitution requires the president to be Muslim but doesn’t establish Islam as the state’s religion. In fact it has the following to say:

Citizens are equal in rights and duties, without discrimination on grounds of sex, race, language,religion or creed.

Would the situation in Syria improve if a more theocratic regime gained power? Historically such a thing is extremely rare. In general more theocratic states end up being more tyrannical and use whatever religion they claim to believe in as justification for solidifying their power. I would argue that it’s unlikely that America is arming so-called jihadists for the benefit of the Syrian people. On the other hand Syria is on the border of Iran and would make a great launching point for any war against Iran. That’s something to consider.

That Race Card is Wearing Thin

I really hate it when accusations of racism are used as a generic method of silencing opposition. Take this conversation that I had with a friend on Facebook:

The test on the picture seemed to imply that anybody who opposes Obama, or at least a majority of those who oppose Obama, are doing because of the man’s race. What bothers me about such an accusation is that there is no evidence to back it up. Without the ability to read minds one cannot know for certain what another is thinking. Yet one must consider the number of reasons one could oppose Obama. Obama is a very loathsome human being. He was swept into office on the promises of reducing the police state, ending Bush’s wars, shutting down Guantanamo Bay, and restoring many of the civil liberties that were lost when the state implemented tyrannical laws after the 9/11 attacks. After getting into office Obama has expanded the police state, continued Bush’s wars and started some of his own, kept Guantanamo Bay open, took more civil liberties from Americans, and even managed to find time to outright murder two American citizens without even pretending to hold a trial. As you can see there are many reasons to oppose Obama that have absolutely nothing to do with his race.

Yet some of his supporters continue to play the race card. This faction of Obama supporters like to take pictures such as the one shared by my friend and use it as evidence that everybody who opposes Obama, or at least a majority of those who oppose Obama, are racists. What’s funny is that we don’t even know if the person who defaced that sign was a racists. It very well could have been a racist or it could have been an Obama supporter attempting to make his political opponents look bad. There is no proof either way and even if there was it would prove nothing about the majority of people who don’t support Obama.

Obama’s supporters need to put the race card away unless there is a provable case of racism. If a member of the Ku Klux Klan argues against Obama because of his race then the race card is applicable. The race card is not applicable every time somebody criticizes Obama. Furthermore the race card should not be played against individuals who are entirely uninvolved in any racist acts. Trying to imply everybody who opposes Obama is a racist because one of Obama’s opponents is a racist is nothing more than a cowardly attempt to silence those who hold a different political viewpoint.

Why Hobbes was Wrong About the Necessity of the State

When an anarchist brings up the idea of abolishing the state around a statist they are usually met with a very Hobbesian argument. They claim that without the state humans would become vicious beasts roaming the world with the purposes of raping, killing, and stealing. Such a claim is absurd by its very nature:

Now, setting aside the fact that anarchism does not imply an absence of law or defense, and setting aside the fact that Hobbes’ ideas about the state of nature are completely ridiculous, just consider how interesting their claim was in that particular situation. Five armed men sitting in a field dozens and dozens of miles from a police officer having a civil chat about anarchism without any one of us trying to rape, rob or kill any of the others is a rather remarkable thing if Thomas Hobbes is right about human nature. Equally interesting is the fact that none of us feared or even contemplated the possibility of being raped, robbed or killed by anyone out there in the wilds of the Colorado plains that day. Like Coloradoans of the 19th century, we met scores of armed men over the course of the day, none of which we personally knew, and yet it never even crossed any of our minds to be concerned for our chastity, our wealth or our lives.

If the state is the only thing keeping humanity from barbarism then humans should revert to barbarism when away from the state’s influence, right? This isn’t the case as noted by the millions of hunters that have managed to leave the state’s sphere of influence, with guns no less, and return home safely. Shouldn’t lumberjacks working far from civilization carve each other up with chainsaws? How can shipping vessels traverse the vast expanses of the ocean without the crews murdering or raping each other? Wouldn’t astronauts kill one another since they’re completely beyond the reach of the state?

The primary failure of the Hobbesian idea that humans are naturally barbarous is that it requires ignoring the fact humans developed societies in the first place. If humans were naturally uncooperative how did they cooperate enough to form societies? Humans predate states therefore people of the ancient world must have avoided murdering one another in the absence of states long enough to form tribes, villages, and eventually cities. This fact alone demonstrates the fallacious nature of Hobbes’s claim.

Foxes Guarding the Hen House

Statists often claim that the state is necessary to protect the people. I find it rather strange to argue the need to have murders, extortionists, and rapists employed to protect us from murders, extortionists, and rapists. The police are not men of good will who benevolently protect the people from evil. Instead the police are criminals themselves. They murder anybody who resists their tyranny, extort people by issuing fines for nonviolent actions, and even commit rape:

The FBI defines rape as “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object … without the consent of the victim.” By this definition, Vagnini raped multiple people while he was on the job. In one instance, he allegedly caused his victim to experience anal bleeding for days. In another, he added insult to injury by allegedly planting drugs on his victim.

Rather than serving and protecting, other officers chose to aid and abet. In one incident, Vagnini’s victim was held down by other officers while Vagnini raped him. Furthermore, the Milwaukee Police Department was aware of these incidents for “a couple of years.” They waited “until authorities recognized a pattern” before they did anything to hold him accountable. Translation: The police department was aware that Vagnini was committing rapes, but they waited to do anything about it until they had determined that he was a serial rapist.

This story is appalling, but sadly it is not unique. For example, in Utah police officers have been known to conduct “forced catheterization” searches, which consist of forcibly inserting a catheter into the victim’s urethra to perform drug tests. In 2004, Haley Hooper was held down by four officers while a catheter was inserted into her vagina. While this met the legal definition of object rape, her lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds that the officers were protected by “qualified immunity.” Officers involved in another forced catheterization were promoted rather than prosecuted.

State protection is a fallacy because it implies the state actually protects people. In reality the state claims a monopoly on violence and uses that claimed monopoly to do whatever it pleases. Those tasked with enforcing the state’s decrees are often given special privileges including the ability to break the very laws they’re supposedly upholding. While the state claims any form of penetration without consent is rape it often forcefully penetrates individuals under the guise of searches. By their very definition they are committing rape. How can we expect individuals to uphold the law when they are given permission to break the law?

The State Never Forgets to Punish Good Deeds

When the state sees somebody performing a good deed they are usually quick to swoop in and mercilessly punish the good Samaritan. Take the paramedic who had the audacity to give a blanket to a man in need:

Two weeks ago, a house caught fire, and the elderly man who lived there was brought outside wearing only his underwear. Paramedic Jeff Gaglio gave him a blanket. Then on Tuesday, Gaglio was informed that the department was bringing him up on charges for his action. Jerald James, chief of the Emergency Medical Service (EMS), who is responsible for Gaglio’s punishment, said in defense of the charges, “We can’t have an employee who feels that they have a right to give away state property without getting prior approval.” In fact, his department and the city of Detroit are strapped for cash. However, it has also been revealed that the department did not pay for the blanket. The one that Gaglio gave away had been donated.

What I find most laughable is the idea that the state can own property. In this case the blanket was donated by if it was purchased by the state it would have been purchased with stolen money. The state exists solely off of extortion in the form of taxes, fines, and other assorted fees. Failure to pay taxes or fines will result in the state’s boot being brought down upon you and if you fail to pay any demanded fees before doing something you will also find the state’s boot coming down upon you. Considering this fact it’s impossible to say the state can own legitimate property since all the property they acquire is acquired through extortion.

The way I see it the state doesn’t own property and the people have every right to claim any property currently claimed by the state. Every building, automobile, and aircraft carrier was made possible by resources stolen from you and me. Were there any justice these goods would be liquidated and the funds dispersed amongst the population based on the amount of money that was stolen from them by the state. Instead the state punishes anybody who attempts to return even the tiniest of these goods to the people.

Leah Plante Joins Fellow Anarchist in Prison

I have an update on yesterday’s story about Leah Planet. She refused to testify against he fellow anarchists during the grand jury hearing and is now being held in a cage:

A third self-described anarchist from the Pacific Northwest has been jailed by federal officials for refusing to speak before a secretive grand jury that the accused have called a politically-motivated modern-day witch-hunt.

Leah-Lynn Plante, a mid-20s activist from Seattle, Washington, was ushered out of court by authorities on Wednesday after refusing for a third time to answer questions forced on her by a grand jury — a panel of prosecutors convened to determine if an indictment can be issued for a federal crime.

She joins fellow anarchists Katherine Olejnik and Matt Duran as state prisoners in their fishing expedition. Even though the state goons had enough cause to get a warrant issued (in other words they were able to drop the word anarchist near a judge) they apparently couldn’t find enough evidence of wrongdoing to charge the three with any crime so they’ve resorted to coercive tactics to wrest testimonies from the three. Fortunately Leah, Katherine, and Matt are reusing to play the state’s game.

I can do nothing but commend the three’s refusal to cooperate with the criminal gang generally referred to as government. Whether they do anything wrong or not isn’t really relevant in this case as responsibility to gather evidence of wrongdoing falls to the prosecutors. Seeing insufficient evidence exists to even bring up charges this is looking more like an anarchist witch hunt than a serious attempt to get justice for wronged individuals.

Inconsistent Libertarians

Brace yourself, I’m about to go on a rant. If you don’t feel like reading a rant just scroll up to the next story.

I’m easily irritated by inconsistency, which is why I loath the /r/Libertarian subreddit. While the subreddit is a great source for libertarian news the contributing members are extremely inconsistent. Yesterday I posted about the story of Leah Plante. She is facing cage time because she is refusing to testify against her fellows in a grand jury. Most libertarians would find such a situation reprehensible as one has the right to remain silent. This story made it to /r/Libertarian and, in general, most comments were on the side of Leah. As expected a large number of libertarians were opposed to the idea of coerced testimonies and witch hunts against political dissidents. That was until somebody pointed out that Leah has been involved in the Occupy movement. Suddenly the general consensus of /r/Libertarian went from “This case is bullshit, you shouldn’t be coerced into testifying against somebody!” to “Fuck that bitch! Occupiers deserve everything they get!”

What the fuck? People only have rights so long as they’re not involved in political movements you detest? A person has the right to free speech or to remain silent unless they’re not a libertarian? That, ladies and gentlemen, is a hypocritical stance if there ever was one.

As a libertarian I’ve found myself defending some very unsavory characters. I find myself defending the right of racists, bigots, etc. to speak freely. I find myself defending the right of those who have committed fraud to keep and bear arms. I find myself defending lots of people who I vehemently disagree with because libertarianism is, at least I thought, supposed to be able equal rights for all. It shouldn’t matter if you’re black or white, man or woman, libertarian or communist. If you’re a human being you should enjoy the same freedoms as every other human being. These freedoms, at least according to most libertarian philosophies, include not being coerced into actions you have no desire to take.

This “us” vs. “them” tribalistic bullshit needs to end. I’m not a big fan of collectivism and spend quite a bit of time arguing against it but that doesn’t mean I will suddenly do a 180 degree turn on my beliefs when a collectivist is facing a bad situation. Remaining consistent is important when you’re trying to make a philosophical argument. If you’re preaching one thing but doing another people will soon ignore everything you say. Arguing that everybody should live free of coercion one moment and then claiming coercion is perfectly acceptable the next moment makes you a hypocrite and nobody listens to hypocrites.

That’s my two cents, spend it however you want.