Tag: You Can’t Cure Stupid

Most People Don’t Agree with His Beliefs

A common criticism I hear regarding libertarianism and Ron Paul specifically is that they both fill a niche by a vast majority of people don’t agree with them. I find this criticism dubious at best. How can I say that? Isn’t the fact there hasn’t been a libertarian president proof that the claim is true? No.

Simply put, most people don’t have beliefs regarding political issues. They believe what the most influential people in their lives tell them to believe. They don’t put time into thinking about their beliefs, they just know that one side is right and the other side is wrong. It’s how the game is played. You cheer for the team that’s geographically closer to where you live and shout against every other team because, “They’re not from around here.” Evangelicals will generally oppose legalizing abortion because their ministers have told them it’s against the will of God while progressives will generally support legalizing abortion because the hot feminist they’re trying to shack up with tells them a woman has a right to choose. Neither party every stops to actually consider what they believe.

Foreign policy is another great issue to demonstrate this fact. Many people believe Paul’s foreign policy is “kooky” or “unworkable” and cite talking points to backup their claim. Likewise supporters of Paul’s foreign policy merely believe themselves to be anti-war and therefore must agree. Neither group stops to consider the reason they believe what they believe.

This is why I say criticizing libertarianism based on the apparent lack of popular support is pointless. The majority of people oppose libertarian ideas because the talking head on the teevee tells them to. Most of these people don’t even know about libertarian philosophy. They know the talking head on teevee told them that the libertarians want to eliminate Medicare and that will cause their grandparents to die a slow and horrible death. What those talking heads never mention is that libertarian philosophy is based upon the non-aggression principle and taxation, a form of theft, is incompatible with the non-aggression principle. Because Medicare is funded by initiated force libertarians oppose it but support alternatives such as mutual aid.

You simply can’t claim a majority of people don’t support beliefs when a majority of people don’t have beliefs.

It’s Not the People Who Vote That Count, It’s the Machines That Count the Votes.

Many districts have been pushing hard for electronic voting machines. People believe that electronic devices are going to be more reliable for elections than any mechanical system could be. Machines that are used in the voting process are mechanically simple and thus it’s fairly easy to predict what kind of failures you’ll run into unlike complex electronic devices:

Tests on an electronic voting machine that recorded shockingly high numbers of extra votes in the 2010 election show that overheating may have caused upwards of 30 percent of the votes in a South Bronx voting precinct to go uncounted.

WNYC first reported on the issue in December 2011, when it was found that tens of thousands of votes in the 2010 elections went uncounted because electronic voting machines counted more than one vote in a race.

A review by the state Board of Election and the electronic voting machines’ manufacturer ES&S found that these “over votes,” as they’re called, were due to a machine error. In the report issued by ES&S, when the machine used in the South Bronx overheated, ballots run during a test began coming back with errors.

“After lunch [when the machine was idle for about an hour] almost every ballot was read incorrectly, in all orientations, even ballots that had read correctly just before lunch,” the ES&S report said.

Electronics are finicky and generally much more prone to unpredictable failures than mechanical devices. Minor variances in temperature, moisture, and electrical conditions can cause electronics to fail in strange and difficult to predict ways. Combine this with the fact computer software is almost impossible to write well and you have a perfect storm for massive electron fraud.

The CIA Captured Their Own Man

The news has been covering the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) foiling of the “updated underwear bomber.” I didn’t bother to cover this because I was waiting for the punchline and it has been delivered:

The would-be bomber in the recently-uncovered plot to blow up a U.S.-bound airliner leaving Yemen was an undercover intelligence agent. The plot was revealed to U.S. intelligence officials based on a tip by Saudi intelligence services, and had been revealed by a Saudi intelligence source who had been inside Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and providing information to the Saudis and the CIA for some time.

CBS News correspondent John Miller, a former assistant director at the FBI, reports that the double-agent revelation goes right to the heart of an intelligence agency’s nightmare, which is identifying a source that they’ve placed inside an organization.

Great job guys, you did some bang up investigatory work. You managed to not only foil an “updated underwear bomb” scheme but you also managed to catch one of your own agents. With quality work like this I feel safer already.

Butt Hurt Krugman

Paul Krugman is a little butt hurt after his debate with Ron Paul and has taken a little time to blog about it:

Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?).

Notice that Krugman is complaining about the useless nature of face-to-face debates because it doesn’t give the debaters an opportunity to present data or perform fact checking. I’ve seen plenty of debates between people who have presented a great deal of data to back their claims and given citations for their sources so people can check what they’ve said afterwards but I’m going to give Krugman this point for one reason… he shoots himself in the foot.

First he complains about his inability to present data or verify facts presented by Ron Paul then he states what Ron Paul said about growth after World War II was false but doesn’t actually provide any proof of his statement. It’s a damned blog post Krugman, you have plenty of opportunity to make your argument and present your facts since you’re not under the pressure of an opposing debater. If you’re going to complain about face-to-face debates because they don’t give an opportunity to check facts then criticize the person you debated you should actually present some data that backs your statement. You have a platform to make your argument and you totally blow it.

If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.

Actually, if you watch the debate, Ron Paul was a little more elegant than “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” Once again I will point out that Krugman has plenty of opportunity to backup his statement on his blog article but totally ignores it. I also like the fact that Krugman believes his supporters are different than Ron Paul’s supporters as far as reactionary positions are concerned. I guess Krugman loves a little conformational bias in his statements.

So why did I do it? Because I’m trying to publicize my book, which does have lots of data and facts — but those data and facts don’t matter unless I get enough people to read it.

I’ll give Krugman a point for honesty and admitting he just did the debate to publicize his book but take away points for failing to publicize his book. A debate would have been the perfect place to cite his new book for arguments. He could have said, “As I’ve written in my new book your statement about growth after World War II is false. You see…” and he could have presented his argument from there.

Krugman basically entered a debate to publicize his book, failed to publicize his book, failed to make any valid points during his discussion and then proceded to write a blog post about how pointless debates are without actually taking an opportunity to demonstrate his argument by presenting facts to backup his claims. I think this guy is the poster child for the meaningless nature of Nobel Prizes (which Krugman won one of in the field of economics).

Everything I Don’t Like is a Loophole

If you don’t like something that’s legal the first thing you must do is label it a loophole. Don’t like the fact that a company is using the tax code as written? Claim that company is exploiting a tax code loophole. Don’t like individuals owning legally allowed firearms? As Uncle points out you must merely those individuals are exploiting a loophole:

California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. But one wouldn’t know that going to the firing range these days. AR-15s and AK-47s are the must-have guns of choice. How can that be?

Every time California tightens up the assault weapons ban, the gun industry finds a way around it. The latest example involves a tiny device.

[…]

That’s because the most popular guns at the range these days are semi-automatic rifles. In a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, how is it these military-style guns are legal?

Brian Normandy is an instructor at Jackson Arms. “As long as we don’t have a detachable magazine in it, it’s actually a legal firearm,” Normandy said.

Other states allow people to use their finger to pop out the magazine and quickly reload. It is called a detachable magazine, which is illegal in California.

The intent is to slow down the process of reloading the weapon. But many target shooters don’t like the reloading hassle. “For me to use this on the range, I would have to open up the receiver and top load it,” said Normandy.

To get around this, gun manufacturers are selling firearms to Californians with what is called a “bullet button.”

The user uses the tip of a bullet to release the empty magazine and pop in a new one. The button doesn’t work with one’s finger, so the magazine is considered “fixed.”

What? People owning firearms that are legal under California law? They must be exploiting a loophole! Wow… that sounds incredibly stupid when I type it out. When you think about it the people crying out against this “bullet button loophole” are really saying, “These people own something I don’t approve of and it’s entirely legal! I don’t like how the law is written therefore they must be exploiting a loophole!” It’s almost like claiming somebody is exploiting a loophole is a loophole in of itself. In fact I think I’m going to start calling this the loophole loophole.

This does demonstrate the fact that gun control advocates will never be satisfied. No matter how many hoops we jump through, not matter how cumbersome we make firearms to use, no matter how many days we make people wait to purchase a firearm the anti-gunners will never be happy. We can’t negotiate with these people because they only want one thing: a complete abolition of firearm ownership. There is no meeting these people halfway so we shouldn’t even consider doing so. In their eyes the only common sense gun control laws are blanket prohibitions. Why should be placate them? I say we give them a big middle finger and refuse to implement any of their beloved gun control laws. They won many victories in the ’90’s and kept coming back for more and we finally pushed back. Unfortunately many gun owners now believe we’re at a point where we can stop pushing, I say we keep pushing until every single gun control law currently on the books is entirely overturned. Every. Last. One.

Tales of the Bloody Obvious

In order to get people to believe the state is wise they were trying to make us believe the bailouts were a great idea because they would make the United States money. Guess what? They lied (shocking, I know):

US taxpayers are unlikely to get all their money back from a $700bn (£432bn) bailout of the country’s stricken banking and automotive sectors, according to a report.

[…]

The Office of the Special Inspector General for Tarp has published its latest report to Congress.

It said: “After three-and-a-half years, the Tarp continues to be an active and significant part of the Government’s response to the financial crisis.

“It is a widely held misconception that Tarp will make a profit. The most recent cost estimate for Tarp is a loss of $60bn. Taxpayers are still owed $118.5bn.”

This was the only possible outcome. In the business world failing is a sign that the business was not fulfilling the wants of enough individuals. When this happens there are only two options: change the business or face insolvency. At least in a free market those are the only two options, when the state gets involved there is the third option of receiving stolen money. That third option removes responsibilities from politically well-connected entities. They know failure isn’t a big deal because their friends in the political body will merely hand out some money and all will continue… for a while. Eventually the house of cards collapses as the number of bad decision makers increase and the state is no longer able to shovel enough money to keep their friends afloat.

When a company fails it’s time for it to go away. If it looks possible to turn around a failing business then investors will enter the game, if it doesn’t look possible then investors will stay out of the game. Investors, unlike the state, earn their money by giving capital to those who look like capable money makers so they’re more careful who they invest in. Sometimes they make bad investments and, like any other service provider, when they make too many bad decisions they have to exit the capital market when their money runs out.

It’s too bad the same conditions don’t apply to the state. If the state had to go away when it ran out of money we’d have rid ourselves of the federal government ages ago (and quite a few individual state governments as well).

Implementation of Socialism and Capitalism

As you can imagine I get into numerous debates with advocates of socialism. While I think Ludwig von Mises demonstrated that socialism will always fail in his book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis the debate will continue to rage on for eternity. One thing I often bring up is the conditions experienced in socialist countries like the former Soviet Union, communist Cambodia, North Korea, etc. When I bring this up the devout socialist I’m debating is always quick to rebute my statement by claiming those countries didn’t implement socialism correctly. I’m willing to conceded this point but when I make the same argument about capitalism the devout socialism will usually argue that America proves capitalism can’t succeed.

Here’s the thing, if you are going to use the argument that socialism hasn’t succeeded because it wasn’t implemented correctly you must also recognize that argument regarding capitalism. The United States isn’t a capitalist country, it’s a fascist country that married the state and private corporations long ago.

OccupyGOP

I reported a short while back that the Minnesota Republican Party has been unable to pay the rent on their headquarters. From individuals connected to the party I’ve learned that the Minnesota Republican Party aren’t planning on paying the rent and they’re also planning on fighting any potential eviction. At this point I believe it’s time to declare a new occupation, OccupyGOP. To help get this initiative off its feet I’ve decided to offer some ideas to help get OccupyGOP rolling.

First some slogans are going to be needed. One of the biggest fights Occupy has selected is trying to get local municipalities to allow tents erected on public property. Occupy’s argument is that housing is a human right so I believe the OccupyGOP needs to adopt a new slogan: office space is a human rights. The idea is simple, the Minnesota Republican Party currently occupiers office space and they don’t want to pay for it. What is one to do when they want something but don’t want to pay for it? Declare it a human right! People sick of paying for Internet access have petitioned the United Nations (UN) to declare Internet access a human right, which they happily did. Now when somebody wants Internet access but doesn’t want to pay for it they can just argue that they are owed Internet access by “society” because it’s a human right (positive rights theory is so convenient that way). Since OccupyGOP is already occupying a building there is no need to erect tents, although it would add to the movement if they fought endlessly for the right to erect tents on their property.

Next OccupyGOP needs to raise awareness. OccupyMN has been attempting to raise awareness by marching down major streets and obstructing traffic. Perhaps OccupyGOP can attempt something similar, but with a slight twist. Instead of marching down busy streets to annoy people OccupyGOP could march into polling places this November and attempt to prevent people from voting. This would raise awareness by annoying politically minded individuals who are trying to vote and it won’t require the passage of a constitutional amendment like the Republican Party’s current voter ID initiative does.

What about the police? Eventually the police are going to be called by the landlords to evict the occupation. OccupyGOP is in a better position than any other occupation since OccupyGOP actually has political connections. While screaming “WE’RE RESISTING ARREST!” several members of OccupyGOP could work with “representatives” at the capitol to pass legislation that will cut the pay of Minnesota police officers. This could lead to the police making a deal with OccupyGOP: in exchange for keeping their pay the police can refuse to evict OccupyGOP from the building they’re not paying rent on.

Overall it’s rather ironic that the Occupy movement, which has traditionally been considered a left-leaning movement, has more in common with the Minnesota Republican Party than the Minnesota Democratic Party.

So This is What We’ve Resorted To

We’re in the midsts of what some are calling the most important election in the history of the United States and so far the main issues being brought up are Romney strapping his dog to the top of his car during a trip vs. Obama eating dog meat as a child and Romney’s 13.9% tax rate vs. Obama’s 20.5% tax rate. This country is fucked.

No, seriously, consider getting out while you still can. This country is starting to look more and more like Idiocracy every day. What are the next big issues that people will be concerning themselves with? How about who has better fashion sense? Perhaps we can investigate eat candidate’s choice in toilet paper. One thing is for certain, people don’t seem to give a damn about the debt, civil liberties, the government arming Mexican drug cartels, or anything else that actually matters.

Feinstein National Carry Reciprocity Bill

I doubt anybody is surprised about this but everybody’s favorite hater of individual liberty has blocked the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012, oh and she’s citing the Trayvon Martin case because she likes to take entirely unrelated events and use them as justification for preventing individuals from having rights:

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Tuesday placed a hold on two controversial pieces of legislation that would force states that allow the concealed carrying of guns to recognize each other’s permits.

Feinstein informed party leadership that she would oppose the quick passage of two concealed carry reciprocity bills that critics argue would cause a “race to the bottom” in terms of concealed weapon law in the United States. The senator cited the shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager killed in Florida, as one of the reasons she was applying the legislative brakes.

“Besides putting domestic violence victims in danger, the concealed carry reciprocity bills would also create potentially life threatening situations for law enforcement officers,” Feinstein wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

“In recent weeks, our nation has witnessed tragic gun violence in Sanford, Florida and in Oakland, California, which is only a short drive from my home. Notably, George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, had been issued a concealed carry permit under Florida law, even though he had previously been subject to a court order for domestic abuse of his ex-fiancée. Congress should heed the warnings of law enforcement and not force states to recognize the permits issued to individuals by other states.”

I’m a logical human being which is probably why I’m unable to understand Feinstein’s justification. How would the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act put domestic violence victims in danger or create life threatening situations for law enforcement officers? I’ll also hand her some exploitations of the tragedies bonus points for weaseling the Martin case into her statement.

Nowhere in the bill’s text is there any loosening of restrictions on those involved in domestic violence cases. Obviously this is par for the course when Feinstein is playing but she could at least try to give a sensible justification for hating individual rights. I’m also not sure how the bill would create a life threatening situation for police officers. How many permit holders have murdered police officers? I’m guessing the number hovers somewhere around zero. If somebody has so much disregard for life that they’re willing to murder another human being they certainly aren’t going to give two shits about laws prohibiting them from carrying firearms.

Furthermore Feinstein seems to believe that the lives of police officers are more valuable that you or mine. She doesn’t believe the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act could create life threatening situations for regular individuals, no, only for police officers.

As a voluntaryist I’ve explained my support for the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. It really boils down to the fact that the state can legitimately own property so any restriction they put on our right as self-owners is unjust, immoral, and unacceptable. No state has the right to prohibit me from carrying a gun, only rightful property owners can do that and only while I’m on their property. Carrying a firearm isn’t a violent act yet the state often reactions to people peacefully carrying firearms with violence. Feinstein would prefer the state continue to insert violence into an otherwise non-violence situation. It’s actually rather sickening when you realize how much politician love violence.