Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals – Page 82

Voting for a Third-Party

The presidential election is fast approaching and that means the voting rhetoric is heating up. One of the most repeated fallacies regarding voting is that voting for a third-party is a vote for one of the two major candidates. Republicans will claim that casting a vote for Gary Johnson is actually casting a vote for Barack Obama while Democrats will claim that casting a vote for Jill Stein is actually casting a vote for Mitt Romney. As I’ve explained before voting doesn’t work that way. The premise that voting for a third-party candidate is actually a vote for one of the two major candidates is based on the assumption that the voter would have voted for one of the two major candidates if the third-party option wasn’t available. This assumption states that libertarians voting for Gary Johnson would have voted for Mitt Romney had no Libertarian Party candidate been available. Why would anybody make such an assumption?

I would never vote for Mitt Romney, period. The man supports gun control and wants to murder people overseas. Both of these stances are morally abhorrent to me. My opinion is shared with many people who are planning to vote for Gary Johnson this election season. Gary Johnson isn’t stealing votes from Mitt Romney because many of Johnson’s supporters would never vote for Romney. If Johnson wasn’t on the ballot many libertarians wouldn’t vote for any presidential candidate.

Consider this example: you’re given a ballot to vote for who will be living with you for the next year. This ballot contains three options: a serial killer, a serial rapist, and a man with no criminal record. Which of the three are you likely to vote for? I’m guessing most of the people reading this post would vote for the man with no criminal record because nobody wants to live with a serial killer or a serial rapist. What if the ballot was changed and the man with no criminal record was removed? Would you sudden vote for the serial killer, serial rapist, or simply not vote? I’m guessing most of the people reading this post would simply not vote. Under such a circumstance it’s asinine to claim that the man with no criminal record is stealing votes from the serial killer or serial rapist. If you’re still unsure of what my point is exchange the serial killer for Mitt Romney, the serial rapist for Barack Obama, and the guy with no criminal record with Gary Johnson.

Locking People in Cages

A Seattle anarchist is likely to be tossed into a cage because she’s unwilling to cooperate with a Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) witch hunt:

Today Leah Plante will again appear before a federal grand jury in Seattle, Washington, for the third time, and refuse to testify about her political beliefs and political associations. It is likely that she will be imprisoned for her principled stance against what she calls a witch hunt against local anarchists.

The grand jury is investigating anarchists in the Northwest, following FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force raids in search of “anarchist literature.” Two other anarchists, Matthew Kyle Duran and Katherine Olejnik, have already been imprisoned for refusing to cooperate.

I have to give Leah Plante credit for having one hell of a backbone. Her kidnapping at the hands of law enforcement agents appears to be nothing more than a typical interstate anarchist witch hunt that the FBI likes to perform periodically (before the Republican National Convention in St. Paul similar raids were conducted on anarchist gathering spots). These witch hunts, like any form of state witch hunt, are run in a fairly specific manner. First a warrant is issued that targets anything and everything you may find at a typical target’s home (anarchist literature in an anarchist home for example) then the targeted individuals are hauled in front of a grand jury and expected to testify against their friends. These coerced (if they don’t testify they’re locked in a cage) testimonies are then used as evidence to bring charges against the targeted individuals.

If she does testify her friends may face charges and spend time in a cage and if she doesn’t testify she’ll probably spend time in a cage. As usual the state offers no escape from its wrath.

Cause and Effect

It appears that my predictions for France after electing a socialist president are coming to fruition. As promised the new administration in France is hiking taxes on the wealthy and, as I predicted, the wealthy are fleeing the country in droves:

France’s luxury property market has hit a selling ‘panic’ as millionaires rush to flee the socialist government’s looming tax hikes, a leading estate agent has revealed.

More than 400 Paris homes worth more than €1million have been put on the market since President Francois Hollande came to power in May – more than double the same period last year.

Many of France’s super-rich want to escape to ‘wealth-friendly’ countries like Britain, Switzerland and Luxembourg.

Why would anybody want to live in a country where three quarters of your labor is stolen by the state?

France’s new tax scheme depend on the wealthy staying in the country so I’m predicting some kind of emigration control will be implemented in that country soon (either through an exit tax or a decree requiring anybody leaving the country to get the French government’s permission first).

This is Nothing New for Gun Owners

The Supreme Court is looking at a case that may prevent individuals from reselling foreign made devices containing copyrighted works:

At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.

Put simply, though Apple Inc. AAPL has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book “No Easy Day,” you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.

That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

I know many of my friends will be in a tizzy over this case but such shenanigans are nothing new for gun owners. Federally licensed firearms dealers have long been required to perform a background check on anybody purchasing a firearm. On top of that many individual states, including California, Illinois, and New York [PDF], require all firearms sales to go through federally licensed dealers making it illegal for an individual to sell a firearm directly to another individual. Last year gun control extremist extraordinaire, Chuck Schumer, was pushing to ban all private sales of firearms in the United States. Effectively all federally licensed firearms deals and all individuals in several individual states are prevented from selling their firearms without the state’s permission.

State power only increases. When the state managed to control the sale and transfer of one good it set a precedence for controlling the sale and transfer of all other goods. Those of us in the gun community are well aware of the state’s power over the sale and transfer of firearms so we’re probably the least likely to be surprised by any ruling that would prevent the sale and transfer of foreign made devices containing copyrighted material.

The question we must now ask if how will the Supreme Court rule. I wouldn’t be surprised if they uphold the current ruling (which states it is illegal to resell foreign made devices containing copyrighted works without permission). It would be trivial to uphold such a ruling using the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause. At that point I will gladly welcome owners of electronic devices into the club of individuals possessing goods that cannot be sold without state approval.

Who Will Protect the Poor

When discussing anarchy it’s inevitable that somebody will make some snide comment about protecting the poor. In the eye’s of a statist the state protects the poor but in a stateless society the poor would go without protection because they would be unable to afford protection services. This argument is absurd though because it relies on the false premise that the state actually protects the poor, it doesn’t:

Doris Spates was a baby when her father died inexplicably in 1955. She has watched four siblings die of cancer, and she survived cervical cancer.

After learning that the Army conducted secret chemical testing in her impoverished St. Louis neighborhood at the height of the Cold War, she wonders if her own government is to blame.

In the mid-1950s, and again a decade later, the Army used motorized blowers atop a low-income housing high-rise, at schools and from the backs of station wagons to send a potentially dangerous compound into the already-hazy air in predominantly black areas of St. Louis.

Local officials were told at the time that the government was testing a smoke screen that could shield St. Louis from aerial observation in case the Russians attacked.

But in 1994, the government said the tests were part of a biological weapons program and St. Louis was chosen because it bore some resemblance to Russian cities that the U.S. might attack. The material being sprayed was zinc cadmium sulfide, a fine fluorescent powder.

Instead of protecting the poor the state inflicts harm on them. Many times throughout history the poor have been used a guinea pigs by states for many gruesome experiment. Let’s not forget the Tuskegee syphilis experiment:

The Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began the study in 1932. Investigators enrolled in the study a total of 600 impoverished, African-American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama; 400 who had previously contracted syphilis before the study began, and 200 without the disease. For participating in the study, the men were given free medical care, meals, and free burial insurance. They were never told they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated for it. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for “bad blood,” a local term used to describe several illnesses, including syphilis, anemia and fatigue.

We should also remember when the United States government experimented on poor college students without their consent:

Project MKUltra, or MK-Ultra, was a covert, illegal[1] human research program into behavioral modification run by the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Office of Scientific Intelligence. The program began in the early 1950s, was officially sanctioned in 1953, was reduced in scope in 1964, further curtailed in 1967 and finally halted in 1973.[2] The program used unwitting U.S. and Canadian citizens as its test subjects, which led to controversy regarding its legitimacy.[3][4][5][6] MKUltra involved the use of many methodologies to manipulate people’s individual mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture.[7]

These are just a tiny handful of examples. To claim that the state protects the poor is absurd. In fact the poor are the favored prey of the state. If you want to protect the poor you should detest the state.

What if Gary Johnson Won

Yesterday the Republican and Democratic candidates had their first presidential debate. While I didn’t watch the debate I’m assuming it was a publicly broadcasted circle jerk where both candidates refused to say anything truly critical of the other while pretending some iota of difference exists between them (I feel this assumption is safe based on previous presidential debates and both candidates’ voting records). This is the problem with presidential debates, they’re predictable and boring. Many people are being quick to point out that these debates could be made much more interesting if third party candidates were allowed to participate. Unfortunately those candidates aren’t allowed to participate in the debates unless they reach 15% in a series of polls (and if they do manage to get close the Commission of Presidential Debates will surely raise the required percentage).

One of the more notable movements regarding third party candidates are Gary Johnson’s supporters. They’ve been demanding Johnson be allowed to participate in the debates, going so far as to support the lawsuit brought against the commission by Johnson’s campaign. Johnson’s supporters believe that participation in these debates will allow Johnson to win the presidential election (or, at least, help the Libertarian Party achieve victory in a future election). This raises an interesting question, what would happen if Johnson won the election?

In our system of checks and balances Johnson’s victory would be entirely symbolic. Yes we would have a third party president but we would still have a Congress controlled by the Republicans and Democrats. As it currently stands the system of checks and balances doesn’t check or balance anything. Congress isn’t motivated to control the president and the president isn’t motivated to control Congress. The Supreme Court, which is composed of judges appointed by members of the two major parties, has been more than happy to further the statist agenda through its rulings. Our state is one big happy family. Each of the branches helps out the others because they’re controlled by the same people.

Johnson’s victory would throw a monkey wrench into the current state circle jerk. While that in of itself sounds hilarious it would effectively change nothing. Once the circle jerk is broken you can guarantee that the legislative and judicial branches of the state will use every check and balance at their disposal to control Johnson. Congress will suddenly question executive orders, challenge Supreme Court nominations, and probably go so far as to actually declare wars to prevent Johnson from brining the troops home (then they would probably move to impeach him if he still ordered the troops to return, claiming he is derelict in his duties as command-in-chief). You can also guarantee that Congress will call for impeachment hearings the second Johnson sliped up in any way.

Although people are often quick to point out the checks and balances supposedly designed into our federal government as a tool against tyranny they seem to be oblivious of the fact that such tools aren’t effective if they’re all controlled by the same statists. Checks and balances only work if each involved entity actually desires to control the other involved entities. If the legislative branch wants to control the executive branch they can but if they don’t want to the executive branch remains free to do whatever it please. The Republicans and Democrats have developed an understanding with one another. Neither party will throw up any actual resistance against the other so long as the favor is returned. The second a third party gets into a position of power both major parties will work together to check and balance that outsider into ineffectiveness.

Drones are Terrorizing Civilians, Not Fighting Terrorists

Just pretend that you’re surprised by this:

A new report on the secret U.S. drone war in Pakistan says the attacks have killed far more civilians than acknowledged, traumatized a nation and undermined international law. In “Living Under Drones,” researchers conclude the drone strikes “terrorize men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities.” The study concludes that most of the militants killed in the strikes have been low-level targets whose deaths have failed to make the United States any safer. Just 2 percent of drone attack victims are said to be top militant leaders.

Considering the fact that the current administration had to redefine the term “enemy combatant” to mean any military aged male in order to keep the number of civilian deaths being reported down I’m not at all surprised by this report. A terrorist is defined as “a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.” Considering this fact I think it’s far more apt to call the United States government a terrorist than the people they’re bombing.

Anarchists Aren’t the Problem

When I discuss anarchism it’s inevitable that somebody will claim the lack of a state will inevitable lead to roving gangs of bandits preying on the weak. What people making such an argument have failed to address is how such a system is functionally different than what we live under today. Under today’s system we have a giant roving gang called the state preying on everybody who lives within its claimed territory. As Robert Higgs explained, anarchists aren’t the ones who have perpetuated history’s great atrocities:

Anarchists did not try to Carry Out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not Carry Out a Great Leap Forward that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children. In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

The systematic slaughter of so many people is very difficult without a state. To claim that states are the only thing standing between civilization and barbarism demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge regarding history. States have perpetrated great genocides throughout the world whereas stateless societies such as Medieval Iceland, Medieval Ireland [PDF], the American Old West [PDF], and Neutral Moresnet are notable for their relative peace.

The state isn’t what lies between civilization and barbarism, the state is barbarism.

Caring About the Presidential Election is a Sign of Apathy

I came across an excellent piece that explains why caring about the presidential election is actually a sign of apathy:

One of the most socially destructive traits is apathy. Without paying attention and being involved, one can not only fail to stop, but even perpetuate, the worst social ills imaginable.

That’s why I advocate staying as uninvested in the current presidential election as possible.

[…]

The political campaigns — which exist for the purpose of trying to “win” — give participants the feeling they are doing something. Meanwhile, this feeling of “doing something” fails to translate at all into anything remotely relevant to the causes they hold dear. After it’s all over, the activist is exhausted and unable to take on any action that has real effects on the community.

Of course, one must be first convinced that the two candidates are, in fact, “roughly indiscernible” and irrelevant to the causes one holds dear. But this should be the opinion of many who still plan on voting for either President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. The former has alienated serious liberals with an atrocious civil liberties record, expansion of American military involvement and harsh prosecution of the drug war, among other issues. The latter has alienated serious conservatives with his endless politically convenient conversions, most notably in literally crafting the basis of the much-derided Affordable Care Act.

Even if there were serious differences between the two candidates, it’s very hard to overstate the ineffectiveness of voting. Given the huge number of people your vote is up against, the odds show it is literally more likely for you to die in a car accident on the way to the polling place than to cast a decisive vote in the presidential election. This is even more of an issue in a state like Oklahoma that currently has zero chance of even remotely resembling a “swing state.”

Voting is the easy way out. It’s a mechanism for individuals to feel like they’ve done something to enact change without actually having to do anything. Whether Obama wins or Romney wins is irrelevant, they’re more similar than different. On top of that, statistically speaking, your vote doesn’t count. The outcome of the election will be the same whether you go out and vote or stay home.

Change isn’t easy and casting a vote at the polling place on November 6^th will not accomplish anything. The only way things will change is if public opinion changes and that can only happen when people realize how entirely corrupt and evil the state is. Unfortunately people will never come to this realization so long as they believe they have a say in how the state operates through the voting process.

The Serfs Aren’t Buying It

We’re being bombarded with advertisements telling us we need to register to vote. Somehow we’re supposed to believe that we have a choice in this election, that Romney is somehow different than Obama and vise versa. Thankfully the serfs aren’t buying it this time around:

The Democratic and Republican parties are struggling to engage new voters in this year’s presidential race, with an apparent deficit of enthusiasm suppressing the number of people who have registered to vote ahead of the 6 November election.

A Guardian survey of six of the most crucial swing states upon which the outcome of the presidential ballot is likely to depend has found that new voter registrations recorded between January and August this year are markedly down compared with the same period in 2008. The drop is particularly pronounced in several states for the Democrats – a likely indication that Barack Obama’s re-election team has been unable to match the exceptional levels of voter excitement generated by his candidacy four years ago.

The six states included in the Guardian survey – Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia – are all being bitterly fought over by Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney.

The state is desperate to get people out voting. Why? Because participating in the political process through voting makes people think they have skin in the game. Voters usually believe they are part of the state and thus are responsible for where the state goes. Fiscal conservatives will blame the voting public when the state continues to spend and spend, anti-war activists will blame the voting public when the wars continue to wage on, and advocates of gay marriage will blame the voting public when gay marriages continue to be illegal. The state gets to continue its reign so long as popular opinion allows it and popular opinion will continue to allow it so long as the people believe they are responsible for the ills of the state.

It’s reassuring to see that fewer people are buying into the bullshit of democracy.