Tag: Your Government Doesn’t Love You

Anarchist Freedom

Religious freedom has been in the been the political hot potato as of late. According to Republicans people should be free to discriminate against others so long as they’re doing it for religious reasons. I’ve decided to take a page from their book and will begin preaching about anarchist freedom.

What is anarchist freedom? It’s like religious freedom but for anarchists. The people currently beating the religious freedom drum have been pointing out that a person shouldn’t have to go against their deep religious beliefs by associating with sinners. As a devout anarchist it is my belief that agents of the state are wicked extortionists. Being forced to associate with them goes against my strongly held conviction that extortionists should be kept at arm’s reach.

Since Republicans seem to be a fan of discriminatory freedom I’m sure they will support my freedom to not associate with state agents. This means that I should be free to not pay taxes (disassociating with tax collectors, who were considered the lowest of the low even in Jesus’ time), be pulled over by police officers (disassociating with murderers, thieves, and general aggressors), or follow laws passed by politicians (disassociating with people who believe themselves to be owners of other human beings). It’s really that simple. Once Republicans support my anarchist freedoms I will acknowledge that they are sincere about this whole religious freedom thing.

People are Wising Up

Your masters want you to vote because that gives them legitimacy. The few people who vote the less legitimate their rules appears to be. This is why wonderful bastions of democracy like Australia and North Korea make voting mandatory. So when the number of voters drops dramatically the rulers get worried. Here in Minnesota the rulers noticed that, in particular, St. Cloud experienced a dramatic drop in the number of voters between the last presidential election and 2014’s election and the Minnesota Secretary of State wants answers:

In St. Cloud’s Ward 1 Precinct 1, which includes a large portion of St. Cloud State University, 1,100 voters showed up to cast a vote in the 2012 presidential election.

Two years later, in the 2014 election, that number fell by more than half, to just 343 votes.

A decline in voter turnout during midterm elections isn’t new, but that plunge was even steeper than usual, and Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon wants to know why. Is it a mechanical problem of voter access to the polls? Or disillusionment about the political process itself?

I can tell you that the drop in voter participation isn’t due to mechanical problems or access to polling places. People are just wising up. More of them are realizing that they are going to get fucked no matter who gets elected. Going to the polls takes time. Why would you waste valuable drinking time traveling across town, standing in line, and filling in ovals on a piece of paper? That time could be more productively used by sleeping in, clipping your fingernails, or drinking beer.

Voter participation is only going to continue to drop as people wake up to the fact that being under the boot of another person isn’t ideal. As voter participation goes down the rulers will try to develop schemes to encourage people to go to the polls. These schemes may include raffles for prices, coupons for local businesses, or laws fining people for not going to the polls. Our politicians are jealous of the fact that Kim Jong-un was elected by 100% of his population and want the same claim of legitimacy.

That Should Teach Those Kids a Lesson

Kids make stupid mistakes. In the old days before an all pervasive police state parents usually handled correcting their children’s bad behavior. Today the police try to involve themselves in all matters including children acting stupidly. A group of children from Chicago recorded themselves having sex and uploaded it to Twitter. Police found out and decided to intervene. How did they handle the situation? By kidnapping them and charging them for manufacturing child pornography, of course:

Four Chicago-area teenagers faces felony child-pornography charges after uploading a video of themselves having sex to Twitter. The three boys and one girl, ages 14-16, are being held in juvenile custody until a court hearing later this month.

Both the sex and the posting of the video were consensual—this is not a rape or “revenge porn” scenario. But under Illinois law (as in many other states), minors who post sexually-oriented images of themselves online or even share them privately with one another can be charged as child pornographers.

That should teach those kids a lesson. A felony record will ensure they are never able to get a job and that will likely push them towards a life of crime to survive. Since they would be living a life of crime they would likely have continuous run-ins with the police as they check in and out of jail like some traveling salespeople do hotels. This will ensure that the state has a unending source of forced labor and us tax victims will be forced to pay for their housing, clothing, food, and medical care.

OK, now it’s time to be serious for a moment. Making kids felons is not an appropriate way of handling these types of situations. Felonies haunt people for life and labeling somebody a felon before they even have a chance to get a job is fucked up. This is especially true when you consider kids make really stupid decisions because they lack the life experience necessary not to. But bullshit like this will continue to happen so long as police are allowed to involve themselves in situations that really should be handled by parents.

Finally, A Gun Control Group That Makes Sense

Gun control groups usually claim they want to reduce violent crime but then turn around and try to take firearms primarily from peaceful people. But there is finally a group that is targeting a major sources of violence in this country, the New York Police Department (NYPD):

An anti-police activist group calling itself “Disarm NYPD” is aiming to strip officers of their firearms and boot them from certain neighborhoods entirely.

Disarm NYPD writes on its website that its aim is “combatting police violence through direct action in NYC and beyond.”

Instead of cops, the group wants to form what they call “conflict resolution bodies” made up of residents, attempting to make the police force obsolete.

OK, Disarm NYPD isn’t actually a gun control group but if it manages to get the NYPD disbanded it would disarm some of the most violent gang members int he country. Not only do members of the NYPD gang have a history of violence but they are go unpunished in most cases because, well, they’re an officially recognized and endorsed gang by the city government.

Ignorance of the Laws is Not an Excuse

As Murray Rothbard once said, “The state is a gang of thieves writ large.” The only purpose of the state is to forcibly transfer wealth from the general population to members of the state and its cronies. People like to argue others, probably because they suffer from Stockholm syndrome. But the United States government long ago lost any right to claim it was anything other than a gang of thieves. That’s because the state’s method of wealth transfer is the law and the law is so expansive that there’s no way of even knowing when you’re violating it:

If you walk down the sidewalk, pick up a pretty feather, and take it home, you could be a felon — if it happens to be a bald eagle feather. Bald eagles are plentiful now, and were taken off the endangered species list years ago, but the federal law making possession of them a crime for most people is still on the books, and federal agents are even infiltrating some Native-American powwows in order to find and arrest people. (And feathers from lesser-known birds, like the red-tailed hawk are also covered). Other examples abound, from getting lost in a storm and snowmobiling on the wrong bit of federal land, to diverting storm sewer water around a building.

“Regulatory crimes” of this sort are incredibly numerous and a category that is growing quickly. They are the ones likely to trap unwary individuals into being felons without knowing it. That is why Michael Cottone, in a just-published Tennessee Law Review article, suggests that maybe the old presumption that individuals know the law is outdated, unfair and maybe even unconstitutional. “Tellingly,” he writes, “no exact count of the number of federal statutes that impose criminal sanctions has ever been given, but estimates from the last 15 years range from 3,600 to approximately 4,500.” Meanwhile, according to recent congressional testimony, the number of federal regulations (enacted by administrative agencies under loose authority from Congress) carrying criminal penalties may be as many as 300,000.

That’s not all. The vast number of laws alone wouldn’t be so bad if you had to knowingly be violating them to be charged but that too as gone by the wayside:

And it gets worse. While the old-fashioned common law crimes typically required a culpable mental state — you had to realize you were doing something wrong — the regulatory crimes generally don’t require any knowledge that you’re breaking the law. This seems quite unfair. As Cottone asks, “How can people be expected to know all the laws governing their conduct when no one even knows exactly how many criminal laws exist?”

There might be some legitimacy to the claim that the state exists to preserve order if the common law practice of culpable mental state still existed. After all, if you unknowingly violate a law and are then informed of that law’s existence you can take action to avoid continuing to violate it and order would be preserved. But that’s not how the system works. Once you’ve violated a law, it doesn’t matter if you know of the laws existence, the state gets to transfer wealth from you to itself. And since there are so many laws on the books it’s impossible to not do something the state can use to justify a forcible wealth transfer.

Voluntary Association Versus Selective Discrimination

There seems to be some confusion amongst libertarian circles over the difference between voluntary association and selective discrimination. Don’t worry though, Padre Chris is here to clear things up.

Voluntary association is the principle that everybody is free to choose who they want to associate with and who they don’t want to associate with. Period. This means a bigoted asshole can choose not to associate with Muslims and decent human beings can choose to not associate with that bigoted asshole. Selective discrimination differs in that individuals can only choose to disassociate with somebody if their reason is on an approved list. In this case the bigoted asshole can only choose to not associate with Muslims if the people who create the list of criteria put “being Muslim” as an approved reason to discriminate. Other people may also only choose to not associate with a bigoted asshole if the list contains “being a bigoted asshole”.

Libertarianism, due to the non-aggression principle (the only way you can prevent somebody from voluntarily associating with another is to put a gun to their heads and make them associate), mandates voluntary association. However many libertarians mistakenly believe that cases of selective discrimination are forms of voluntary association. That’s what happened with libertarians who supported Indiana’s SB 101. They heralded the law as a good piece of legislation because it allows businesses to not associate with people based on religious reasons. But the legislation contains a clause that lets the state decide whether or not to prosecute somebody for discriminating even if it’s based on religious reasons.

Herein lies the problem. Under the state there can only be selective discrimination. Nobody, for example, is free to not associate with state agents. Furthermore the state periodically either prohibits or mandates certain types of discrimination. In the South many states mandated racial discrimination under Jim Crow laws. Today racial discrimination is mostly prohibited for non-state actors but many states are enabling, and sometimes mandating through marriage and bathroom usage laws, discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender individuals. The only thing that has really changed between then and now is that race has been removed from the list of acceptable reasons to discriminate and religion has been moved up the list (I would say added but it’s almost always been there).

Libertarianism, at least the anarchist branch of it, advocates equality under the law. Nobody can have privileges others do not enjoy. In the case of discrimination equality under the law would require that everybody be free to voluntary associate or disassociate with anybody else or nobody be free to do so. None of these “religious freedom” laws accomplish that. They merely grant people of certain religions privileges that others do not enjoy. Libertarians shouldn’t involve themselves in the political discrimination battle unless the result would create equality under the law. In the case of religious freedom a libertarian should only involve themselves if the bill would allow anybody of any religion, or lack of religion in the case of atheists, the freedom to discriminate based on their beliefs and left not exception for the state to intervene.

People should be free to choose who they want to associate and disassociate with. That freedom can only exist under anarchy. But we currently suffer under a state so libertarians must not get suckered into supporting legislation that appears to enable voluntary association but really only allows discrimination in a manner approved by the state.

Focus Your Wrath on the Politicians of Indiana Not the People

A lot of dust has been kicked up after Indiana passed a bill that would allow businesses to discriminate based on the owner’s religious beliefs. As the bill was written by Republicans it’s no surprise the bill was aimed at enabling business to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals (LGBT).

In response to this news Salesfore has cancelled all events in Indiana, Gen Con has threatened to pull out of the state, and more people than I care to count have said they will no longer do any business in Indiana. I feel that it’s necessary for me to point out something that seems to be getting missed. The bill in question was passed by a handful of suit-clad individuals in a marble building. Most of the state had no say in the matter. All they could do is sit idly by while their overlords passed the legislation. Some may claim that the people of Indiana should be held accountable because they voted in these overlords but I will point you to the state’s 2014 election turnout that notes only 30% of registered votes were stupid enough to show up to the polls [PDF]. So 70% of registered votes didn’t have anything to do with the current rulers getting elected.

The bottom line is that punishing everybody in a state for the actions of a handful of fuckwits is not an appropriate response. A far better response would be to create a database of businesses that choose to discriminate against LGBT individuals and boycott them specifically. It would also be appropriate to boycott the politicians themselves but that’s always appropriate because they’re a bunch of sick fuckers who rule us at the point of a gun.

For my libertarian friends that claim this legislation better allows business to freely choose who they will and will not do business with I will point you to the text of the bill. It has some wonderful weasel language:

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

It seems to me that this bill gives the state the option of not prosecuting a business for discriminating based on the owner’s religious beliefs but keeps the door open if the state choose to prosecute. Namely if the state can claim prosecuting a business is in its interest and no other means of forwarding its interests would be less restrictive then it can prosecute. This would open the door for a lot of abuse. For example, the state could decide to prosecute a business owned by a Muslim under the guise of forwarding the state’s interest and having no less restrictive way of proceeding.

Opening the door for the state to pick and choose who it prosecutes is not the same as allowing a business to pick and choose who it does business with. One gives the state the power to decide how businesses can discriminate and the other doesn’t. This bill, based on my layman’s reading (shocker, for those who don’t know, I’m not a lawyer), is a case of the former and not the latter.

Killing is the Only Thing the State Excels At

European manufactures of drugs used in lethal injection have been holding out on the United States. This has many states very concerned because they’re running out of the drugs but not people to kill. To solve this problem Virginia has been looking into bringing a classing killing instrument back. Utah, not wanting to be outdone, is bringing back the firing squad:

Utah became the only state that allows firing squads for executions when Gov. Gary Herbert signed a law Monday approving the method for use when no lethal injection drugs are available, even though he has called it “a little bit gruesome.”

The Republican governor has said Utah is a capital punishment state and needs a backup execution method in case a shortage of the drugs persists.

Do you know what else Utah could do if it ran out of lethal injection drugs? Stop killing people. Numerous people sentenced to death have later been exonerated. That means those sentenced to death are not guaranteed to actually be guilty. Since guilt can’t be guaranteed the death sentence should be entirely unacceptable as a person should have the right to continue fighting their case as they very well may be innocent.

But the state is only good at one thing and that’s killing people. It’s not going to let anything interfere with that, especially pesky people who think prisoners have rights and shouldn’t be executed.

The DEA’s Hookers and Blow Parties

What kind of parties does the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) throw on our dime? Hookers and blow parties, what else?

Agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration reportedly had “sex parties” with prostitutes hired by drug cartels in Colombia, according to a new inspector general report released by the Justice Department on Thursday.

In addition, Colombian police officers allegedly provided “protection for the DEA agents’ weapons and property during the parties,” the report states. Ten DEA agents later admitted attending the parties, and some of the agents received suspensions of two to 10 days.

Isn’t it funny how these agencies always get caught up in scandals related to what they’re trying to stop? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) was caught providing firearms to drug cartels, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) creates terrorists, and the National Security Agency (NSA) purposely tries to break Internet security for everybody.

The only thing that surprises me is that people still trust government agencies in any way. Every single one seems to eventually get caught up in a scandal where it provides resources to the criminals it’s supposed to be fighting. This shouldn’t surprise anybody since criminal gangs like to work together but it should erode any trust the public has in these agencies.

More State Manipulation of Statistics

I have another example of the state manipulating statistics to create a desired narrative but this time it’s domestic. It turns out that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has manipulated the statistics on the number of mass shootings:

FBI figures released last September appear to show so-called “mass shooter” attacks and deaths have dramatically increased since 2000. The report asserted there were a total 160 such incidents in public places between 2000 and 2013, with attacks dramatically increased to 17 in 2013 from just one in 2000. The statistics also showed murders jumping to 86 from just seven over the span.

But Lott’s group said a major flaw is the fact that the data was gleaned from news reports, and noted recent accounts were more accessible, and thus over-represented. Recent cases of the far more common “active shooting incidents” were added to legitimate cases of mass shooting incidents, making the more recent years covered by the report appear to have a large increase in both mass shootings and deaths from them.

The media most often took the numbers at face value, allowing for the perception of an increase in mass shootings and deaths from them, Lott said. A counter report by the CPRC shows that if the biases and errors were corrected, the Bureau’s data would show that the annual growth rate for homicides in mass shootings had been cut in half, Lott said.

Why would the FBI do this? In all likelihood it did this to create a narrative that violent crime is increasing so it can justify demanding more funding from Congress. It’s also possible that they are trying to help the state justify additional gun control measures since armed individuals pose a threat to the members of the violent FBI gang. But, in all honesty, I think it’s more the former than anything since the FBI has a history of creating phony crimes for it to solve so it can make a case for additional funding.