Perhaps I Have Some Influence

Walter Block said the pen is mightier than the sword because the pen is used to direct the sword. Part of the reason I write is to be another voice in the crowd. When there is one person exclaiming an idea it’s easy to claim that person is a kook but if there are hundreds or thousands of people exclaiming an idea others are more apt to listen. I consider myself another voice in support of gun rights and market anarchism, in effect I’m trying to help direct the hypothetical “sword” (which is really public opinion) against gun control and the state. It appears as though I’m having some minor influence on those around me because I’ve seen a few friends who I don’t believe were previously in support of (or, more accurately, aware of) market anarchism sharing the following picture:


Image obtained from Stateless Sweets Facebook page

Perhaps I’m having some influence.

The Right to Own Guns

After the recent shooting in Aurora, Colorado the gun control advocates are, as many of us on the gun rights community like to say, dancing in the blood. I don’t have much to say about the incident itself, it was a tragedy that likely couldn’t be avoided. With that said I believe it is a good time to explain why individuals have the right to own firearms since many people on the gun rights fence are currently asking themselves that very question.

When asked why individuals should have the right to own firearms many members of the gun rights community will point to the Second Amendment which states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Advocates of gun control like to point to the part that talks about “A well regulated militia” while gun rights advocates like to point to the part that says “Shall not be infringed.” If you look at the history of this country it’s clear that the founders, by and large, believed individuals should be armed. One flaw in pointing to the Second Amendment is that, while it addresses the legal aspect of gun ownership, it doesn’t address the reason it can be called a right (unless you believe rights are granted by the state).

How can proponents of gun rights claim gun ownership is a right? To answer that we must first answer another question, who owns you? Any of my friends on the left (namely anarcho-communists) will say that you can’t own yourself because you are yourself. If that’s what you believe then this post isn’t for you and you can stop reading now (you can also continue but doing so may not be good for your blood pressure). On the other hand if you believe ownership is merely an extension of self you can safely continue reading without concerns for your blood pressure. Ownership, under libertarian philosophy, generally means having exclusive control over something. Most rights of ownership can be transfered from one individual to another but the right of self ownership cannot for pragmatic reasons. An individual is unable to surrender exclusive control of themselves. Even in a state of slavery, where one person is said to be owned by another, the “owned” individual has the ability to disobey his master. He can refuse to work, attempt to escape, or even attempt to kill his master.

Due to the nontransferable nature of self-ownership one is also the owner of his or her own labor. Labor can be used to produce goods or exchange for other goods. Being a producer means you take resources and alter them in such a way that other people find them useful. Since your labor created the goods they are owned by you and since you can surrender exclusive control over them they are transferable. This is the basis of economics, individuals trading goods for other goods. Usually individuals trade their goods in exchange for money.

A job is nothing more than an agreement where a laborer trades his or her labor to an employer in exchange for other goods (generally money). When you work for $10.00 an hour you’re really trading an hour of your labor to your employer in exchange for $10.00. We must now briefly address what money is.

Money is a medium to facilitate trade. Without money we are left with a barter economy. Barter economies are incredibly inefficient because they rely on double coincidences. Let’s say we have Murray, Ludwig, and Hans. Murray produces eggs, Ludwig produces shoes, and Hans breeds horses. What does Murray do if he wants a pair of shoes? In a barter economy he needs to trade his eggs for shoes. If Ludwig wants eggs this isn’t a problem, but if he doesn’t want eggs this is a problem. What if Ludwig wants a horse? Murray may be able to trade his eggs for a horse and then trade his horse for shoes. This only works if Hans wants eggs though. Money is nothing more than the most salable good. It’s a mechanism to eliminate the problem of double coincidences that make barter economies inefficient. Once money has been adopted Murray can trade his eggs to anybody wanting eggs in exchange for money and trade some of that money to Ludwig for shoes. When we trade our labor for money we’re really trading our labor for the most salable good so we can buy other goods. If you trade your labor for money then the money becomes an indirect product of your labor and thus you have exclusive ownership over it.

Some of your a probably wondering what this has to do with the right to own firearms. Under libertarian philosophy it has everything to do with the right to own firearms. If you are the exclusive owner of your labor and trade it in exchange for money then you are the exclusive owner of that money. As the exclusive owner of that money you can exchange it for other goods, say a firearm. If somebody uses their labor to produce a firearm then they are the exclusive owner of that firearm. Being the exclusive owner of that firearm they may trade it to another. Since you’re the exclusive owner of some money you can exchange that money to gain exclusive ownership of a firearm.

What do gun control advocates want? They want to prevent individuals from using their labor to produce or exchange for firearms. How can one do this? There are only two ways, by having ownership over another or coercion.

If you are the owner of an individual you have exclusive control. In such a case you also own the product of that individual’s labor and therefore can exchange that labor for whatever you desire. If you want to prevent that individual from obtaining a firearm you can simply refuse to allow that individual to exchange your labor (it’s not his labor since you own him) for a firearm. In effect you can only prevent another from using their labor to produce or exchange for a firearm if you have ownership over that individual. Of course, as explained earlier, such a claim is absurd because one cannot surrender exclusive control over themselves to another. That leaves the second option, coercion.

Coercion is nothing more than using the threat of or actual force to persuade or dissuade another. This is the means gun control advocates generally use. When a gun control advocate demands the state pass legislation to control firearms they are really demanding the state use the threat of or actual violence to prevent individuals from producing or obtaining firearms. The incorrectly named assault weapon ban was one of these threats. While this law was in place individuals purchasing or manufacturing new firearms that met the state’s criteria for assault weapons would be kidnapped and held in a cage. If that individual refused to comply with his kidnappers (the police) they would use physical force, even going so far as the murder that individual if he should resist sufficiently. Many gun control advocates claim they support gun control because they oppose violence but this is patently false because coercion is violence and that is the tool gun control advocates most often employ.

Gun control is an absurd idea because it either requires the ability to own another human being or coercion. Under libertarian philosophy one cannot own another for pragmatic reasons. Under United States law one cannot legally own another because the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery. This means gun control can only be implemented through coercion, which makes advocates of gun control who claim to oppose violence hypocrites and their philosophy paradoxical.

The Return of the Red Scare

The United States has a long history of fearing the reds. From 1919 to 1920 there was a fear that the Bolsheviks would do to the United States what they did to Russia. McCarthy was absolutely convinced that communists had infiltrated the United States government and lead the second red scare from 1947 to 1957 (he turned out to be right). It seems that Michelle Bachmann is following in the tracks of her predecessors and trying to stir up fear of another group, muslims:

The flap began after Bachmann and Republican colleagues Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, Florida Rep. Tom Rooney and Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland sent letters to several inspector generals in the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice and the Office of National Intelligence as to whether the Muslim Brotherhood could be infiltrating the U.S. government. The letters quickly attracted attention with one specifically mentioning the State Department’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, a long-time Hillary Clinton aide, by name.

Bachmann’s letter says “Huma Abedin has three family members — her late father, her mother and her brother-conected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives or organizations.

Statism is a funny beast because it attracts everybody who wants to force their beliefs onto others. Communists managed to infiltrate the United States government in the hopes of forcing communism on the populace. Bachmann has used the state in an attempt to force his zealous Christian beliefs onto the population and I wouldn’t be surprised if there are muslims doing the same thing with their religion.

It amuses me to see so many people fight one another to gain control of the state apparatus.

What’s Illegal for Us is Legal for Them

Although it’s illegal for mere peasants to impersonate police officers it’s now legal for police officers to impersonate you:

In November 2009, police officers in the state of Washington seized an iPhone belonging to suspected drug dealer Daniel Lee. While the phone was in police custody, a man named Shawn Hinton sent a text message to the device, reading, “Hey whats up dogg can you call me i need to talk to you.” Suspecting that Hinton was looking to buy drugs from Lee, Detective Kevin Sawyer replied to the message, posing as Lee. With a series of text messages, he arranged to meet Hinton in the parking lot of a local grocery store—where Hinton was arrested and charged with attempted possession of heroin.

[…]

But can cops legally do this with seized cell phones? When their cases went to trial, Hinton and Roden both argued that Sawyer had violated their privacy rights by intercepting, without a warrant, private communications intended for Lee.

But in a pair of decisions, one of which was recently covered by Forbes, a Washington state appeals court disagreed. If the decisions, penned by Judge Joel Penoyar and supported by one of his colleagues, are upheld on appeal, they could have far-reaching implications for cell phone privacy.

The problem with statism is that it inherently has two sets of laws, a private set that individuals must follow and a public set that apply to the state itself. This always ends with the state, under their separate system of law, being able to do things individuals cannot. For example, an individual who impersonates a police officer will likely land in prison whereas a police officer who impersonates an individual will be congratulated on a job well done. If somebody owes you a debt and you kidnap them and lock them in your basement you’ll be charged with kidnapping, if the police kidnap you and lock you in a cage for not paying taxes they’re again congratulated on a job well done.

Having two systems of law ultimate means one group, namely the state as they are the ones allowed to make the laws in both systems, gains advantage over the other. Behavior that would land an individual in jail, say robbery or murder, are legal for the state to perform.

What’s worse is that the state is granted a monopoly on deciding both sets of laws. Generally this means the state will grant itself immense power and restrict the liberty of individuals. When an individual opposes one of the state’s claimed powers they make their case in front of a state controlled court, which often rules on the side of the state. Liberty cannot exist so long as multiple sets of rules exist. In order for true liberty to exist everybody must play by the same set of rules.

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

My feeling about voting for Romney or Obama can be summed up by paraphrasing Snake Plissken, “I vote for Mitt Romney, you win they lose. I vote for Barack Obama, they win, you lose. The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

For those of use confused about my unwillingness to support Romney in “The most important election of our lifetime!” (that isn’t) let me just say that Romney’s victory merely means you win, they lose. On the other hand if Obama wins it merely means they win, you lose. I’m not a member of either team, I have no interest in either presidential candidate winning. Regardless who wins I lose.

The Futility of Arguing Constitutionality

We all like to argue about the true meaning of the Constitution. Arguments regarding constitutionality fall into two camps generally referred to as left and right. The left usually argue that the language in the Constitution grants vast authority to the federal government or will bring up the idea that the Constitution is a “living document” whose interpretation can change over time (of course this idea is patently absurd as that would mean the Constitution is the only piece of legislation that can be interpreted differently over time). On the other side we have the right who generally argue that the Constitution grants very limited powers to the federal government. Both sides use the same text to argue in favor of their positions. Unfortunately arguments based on constitutionality are meaningless because the Constitution itself grants the power to arbitrate such disagreements to a branch of the federal government.

Article 3 of the United States Constitution reads:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The part I’m mainly referring to is “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” In arguing against arguments based on constitutionality I’m going to make a constitutional argument (how messed up is that?). The reason for this is that I’m concerned with how the excerpt is used today in law, not my interpretation on how it should be used.

The power of the judiciary extends to all cases arising under the Constitution itself. Effectively this grants the Supreme Court the power to interpret the meaning of the Constitution by being the ultimate arbitrator in disagreements regarding the document. If one group says the Commerce Clause doesn’t allow the federal government to regulate goods manufactured and sold for exclusive use in one individual state while another groups says the opposite they may find their disagreement going to the Supreme Court. At that point the Supreme Court will rule in favor of one side. As the Supreme Court works on a majority vote and has nine judges the legal interpretation of constitutional language is decided by five individuals. No matter what you and I say, no matter what anybody outside of the Supreme Court says, those five guys are the only people who get to decide what the Constitution really means.

An example of this is the Commerce Clause. This seemingly minor entry in the list of Congressional powers has been used to justify numerous laws that were later challenged by upheld by the Supreme Court. One such case was Wickard v. Filburn where the Supreme Court decided the Commerce Clause granted the federal government the authority to prevent an individual from growing more than an the state allowed amount of wheat even though the wheat was intended for personal use. The Supreme Court’s logic basically revolved around the fact that a farmer who grew his own wheat wouldn’t buy wheat on the market and therefore would effect wheat prices. Many people would say that such a ruling was bullshit, that the Founding Fathers never meant for the Commerce Clause to mean that, but the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the ultimate authority in arbitrating such debates so, through their ruling, the Commerce Clause means the federal government can regulate wheat production for private use.

The catch-22 of arguing constitutionality is the fact that the Constitution itself makes such arguments pointless.

It’s Probably Not a Coincidence

It seems the Venezuelan government has been abusing its power more and more:

The abuse of power by the Venezuelan government under President Hugo Chavez has increased over the past four years, according to Human Rights Watch.

Legislation limiting free speech and the removal of institutional safeguards give the government free rein to censor and intimidate critics, the group says.

[…]

Its latest report, entitled Tightening the Grip: Concentration and Abuse of Power in Chavez’s Venezuela, argues that the human rights situation in the country has become even more precarious.

I doubt it’s a coincidence that the Venezuelan government has been increasingly infringing on free speech and ignoring supposed institutional safeguards during the same span of time that it’s been restricting gun ownership. In “>2006 the Venezuelan government implemented stricter gun control laws and went even further this year when it banned legal gun ownership for non-military and non-police personell. History has demonstrated that states start implementing arms control as they are ramping up the tyranny machinery.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership has an excellent list of states that implemented gun control schemes shortly before beginning acts of genocide. The Soviet Union, for example, didn’t abolish private gun ownership until 1929, immediately before Stalin’s purges began. Nazi Germany also implemented gun control laws that prevented Jews and other state-proclaimed enemies from owning firearms. Needless to say it’s not surprising to see Venezuela following the same road. Now that Chavez’s empire has declared a state monopoly on gun ownership things are bound to only get worse. Again, if you live in Venezuela it would be a good time to get out.

We Didn’t Get Here on Our Own

Obama gave a political speech and you know what that means? It means the Internet is abuzz with his supporters cheering his speech and his opponents decrying his speech. His opponents have been brining up a part of his speech that strongly mirrors that famous one given by Elizabeth Warren some time ago. Basically Obama is trying to explain how all successful people became successful because of the government:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.

This part of his speech is true, nobody became successful by themselves. One needs consumers to buy their products or services before they can become successful. Unfortunately, as is common for Obama, his grain of truth is used to create a bucket of lies:

Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.

Is this the same unbelievable American system that diverts ungodly amounts of money into the construction of drones, aircraft carriers, and submarines so we can trot around the world and kill people who aren’t like us? Is this the same unbelievable American system that protects the interests of favored businesses from competition? Is this the same unbelievable American system that will murder you if you disobey one of its decrees?

The one thing our unbelievable American system hasn’t done is allow us to thrive… unless you’re one of the state’s cronies of course.

Somebody invested in roads and bridges.

I think he mean somebody paid for the roads and bridges at gunpoint because the state has claimed a monopoly on the construction of transportation infrastructure. People didn’t invest in those roads and bridges, they paid for them because they were forced to, they were threatened with kidnapping and detainment in a cage if they didn’t “invest” in the state monopoly.

If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.

Obama is correct, most businesses were physically built by private construction companies. The success of those businesses was made possible by consumers. An entrepreneur came up with the idea and figured out how to execute it. In fact the only real hinderance was the state that demanded a huge portion of the business owner’s wealth in exchange for “protection” from itself.

Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

OK, here is where I raise a giant middle finger. The state didn’t create the Internet “so that all companies could make money off of the Internet.” Do you know why the state created the technology that lead to the Internet? Because the United States government was having the biggest dick measuring competition in the history of the human race with Soviet Russia. Realizing that a centralized communication system would be rendered entirely inoperable by a Soviet nuclear strike the United States government moved to develop a more decentralized communication network. It had nothing to do with helping companies make money, it had everything with that silly little competition that almost ended life on this planet as we know it.

The last thing the United States government had on its mind with the predecessor to the Interent was economic gains, they just wanted to survive the stupid little war they managed to get every man, woman, and child living within its borders involved in. No member of the state can claim any kind of moral high ground when it comes to the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

Yeah, imagine if everybody was able to voluntarily decide whether or not they even wanted fire service. As it sits right now fire departments are funded by stolen money and you know what? I still see firefighters standing in the middle of busy intersections with boots begging for even more money. Are they underfunded? Perhaps, but as they don’t have to compete on a free market against other fire departments we can’t be sure. For all we know the local fire departments are merely inefficient and frivolously throwing money away.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

I like how he continues to purposely confuse the idea of people working together and people being forced into actions they may not want to take at the point of the state’s gun. He’s also shown a complete lack of historical knowledge, by his definition of people working together (that is the federal government doing it with stolen money) it didn’t happen “since the founding of this country” because the Articles of Confederation didn’t grant Congress the power to tax. Instead the Congress was relegated to begging the individual states for money, which meant the states were actually in control but that we never did things together, by his definition, until the ratification of the Constitution.

His claim that we rise and fall together as one nation is also patently false. As it currently stands the state’s cronies are rising while everybody else is falling. In fact the average American family income has been falling for the last ten or so years while corporate profits are hitting all time highs. It appears as though we aren’t all rising and falling together as a nation.

The speech continues on but that section summed it up well. According to Obama nothing would every get accomplished if it wasn’t for the all powerful state forcing people to surrender an ever-increasing portion of their wealth. Individuals in Obama’s world of delusion are entirely incapable of working together.

Working for the Man

How many hours of your peasant life are spent working for the feudal lords? A lot:

This year, Americans have to work until July 15 to pay for the burden of government, more than six months.

In a new report, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) has calculated that Americans will spend a total of 197 days toiling to pay for the cost of government.

[…]

The report, Cost of Government Day, shows that Americans will work 88 days to pay for federal spending; 40 days for state and local spending; and 69 days for total regulatory costs.

Six months of your life next year will be spent working to give a violent agency that’s spending every dollar it can get ahold of to further cement its power in order to steal even more from you. Feudalism never left, we’re the peasants while the state is the manor lord. We’re allowed to keep a portion of what we make for subsistence only because dead people don’t generate wealth that can be stolen.

The Unintended Consequences of Wind Energy

I’m continuing my assault on the failures of progressive environmentalism by addressing another dark side of wind energy. Previously I explained how carbon taxes would hinder the adoption of wind energy but now I’m going to discuss the unintended consequences of adopting it. The problem with progressive environmentalism is the same problem that faces any central plan, you only have a handful of individuals mulling over the plan and therefore a great number of possible issues aren’t brought up.

Progressive environmentalists have been demanding more wind power. They have also been advocating the protection of wildlife. What didn’t occur to them was that these two goals are mutually exclusive. Let’s take a look at a report generated by the Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS):

Focus on Key Sectors: In fact, the rapid expansion of the wind industry will also be addressed in general as the second part of this Law Enforcement initiative to lessen the impact of energy production on wildlife resources. While wind power promises to be an important part of the Nation’s strategy to address climate change, wind farm operations already kill significant numbers of birds, bats, and other species. With more than 100,000 turbines expected to be in operation in the United States by 2030, annual bird mortality rates alone (now estimated by the Service at 440,000 per year) are expected to exceed one million.

Wildlife, it appears, doesn’t understand human central plans. Politicians and progressive environmentalists have been generating propaganda for the wind energy industry for some time now. What they didn’t stop to consider was the fact that humans are the only species that can read. When we build a giant wind farm the local airborne wildlife doesn’t comprehend that those wind turbines are giant rotating murder machines. Anything that flies into those spinning blades is almost certain to come out the other side in more pieces than it entered.

Now the progressive environmentalists have to make a decision, birds or wind energy. Like the decision between trees and water, the decision between birds and wind energy is mutually exclusive. You can’t simply build wind turbines away from birds because birds inhabit every part of the planet (even Antarctica). Today the FWS already estimates the bird mortality rate from wind turbines to be around 400,000. As the number of wind turbines increase the number of dead flying animals will also increase (until so many of them have been killed that their populations collapse due to lack of genetic diversity or breeding stock).

It’s actually amazing that the same central planners that enacted legislation to protect wild birds didn’t stop to consider giant spinning blades in the air as potential threats to birds. Oh well, at least there is always solar… son of a bitch [PDF]:

Solar One related animal mortality.–During approximately 40 wks of study, we documented 70 bird fatalities involving 26 species at Solar One (Table 1). The mean rate of mortality between visits was 1.7 birds _+ 1.8 SD (n = 40, range 0-7). Results of the scavenger bias experiments indicate that from 10-30% of carcasses were removed between searches, thus, the actual rate of mortality may have been from 1.9-2.2 birds. Two causes of avian mortality were identified at Solar One, colliding with structures and burning from standby points.

It’s almost as if there are no free lunches on this planet.