Your Government Doesn’t Love You – Page 138

Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t

Damn I love government. Well, OK, I hate government but it gives me a never ending fountain of things to write about. For example, California has been suffering from major droughts (because turning a bunch of arid desert into farming land was a stellar idea). Because of this Michael Korte and Laura Whitney, wanting to be good citizens, decided to cut back on watering their grass. You would think the local government would be ecstatic about the idea. This could convince other fine citizens to stop watering their grass and save scarce water for most important uses. But that’s not how the local government responded. Instead it is planning to punish the couple because their grass isn’t green enough (must be part of the government’s green initiative):

(Reuters) – A Southern California couple who scaled back watering their lawn amid the state’s drought received a warning from the suburb where they live that they might be fined for creating an eyesore – despite emergency statewide orders to conserve.

Michael Korte and Laura Whitney, who live near Los Angeles in Glendora, said on Thursday they received a letter from the city warning they had 60 days to green up their partially brown lawn or pay a fine ranging from $100 to $500.

Talk about mixed signals. On the one hand the government is complaining that there is a drought and water needs to be conserved. On the other hand the government bitches when somebody’s grass isn’t green enough. What the fuck is a person caught in that situation supposed to do? It’s almost like the entire system is rigger so that no matter what you do the government gets to take your fucking money.

You Need the State to Protect Your Rights; You Need to Fight the State to Protect Your Rights

As an anarchist that hangs out with statist libertarians I am often involved in political and philosophical debates. When I mention my belief that we humans don’t need to be ruled my more statist cohorts have to quickly jump in to tell me how wrong I am. According to them government is absolutely critical for a free society (because nothing says free like being ruled). When I ask why they almost always claim that a government is necessary to protect the rights of the citizenry.

This reason has always amused me. Governments have it easy. They get to make all of the rules, including what is considered a right under their legal system. You would think that they would write a set of rules that they intend to follow. But governments are the biggest violators of the very rights they declare. When I point this out my statist friends reply by saying that we need to stand up to the government whenever it violates our rights.

So the theory of statism goes like this. We need a government to protect our rights and we must protect our rights against the government. If we’re worried about our rights why would we want to charge the biggest violator of those rights with protecting them? That makes as much sense as charging the fox with guarding your chickens.

Being forced to choose between defending my rights against smaller groups of vicious people or one large, centralized organization with a monopoly on violence and perceived legitimacy by a sizable portion of the population I’d choose the former. It’s much easier to defend yourself against small mostly disorganized groups who nobody considered a legitimate authority. When you have to defend yourself against a government, which is nothing more than a very large gang, you end up not only having to fight the government but all of the people who believe it to be a legitimate entity (because, after all, it’s their gang so it must be the right one).

New Executive Order Places Sanctions On All Kalashnikov Concern Products

I’m sure you’ve already heard the news but in case some of you haven’t a new executive order was issued that effects gun owners. Obama, as part of his pissing match with Putin, has placed further sanctions on Russia included all Kalashnikov Concern products:

374. If I own a Kalashnikov product, is that product blocked by sanctions? Am I able to resell a Kalashnikov product at a gun show or other secondary market?

If a U.S. person is in possession of a Kalashnikov Concern product that was bought and fully paid for prior to the date of designation (i.e., no payment remains due to Kalashnikov Concern), then that product is not blocked and OFAC sanctions would not prohibit the U.S. person from keeping or selling the product in the secondary market, so long as Kalashnikov Concern has no interest in the transaction. New transactions by U.S. persons with Kalashnikov Concern are prohibited, however, and any property in which Kalashnikov Concern has an interest is blocked pursuant to OFAC’s designation of Kalashnikov Concern on July 16, 2014. If a U.S. person has an inventory of Kalashnikov Concern products in which Kalashnikov Concern has an interest (for example, the products are not fully paid for or are being sold on consignment), we advise that U.S. person to contact OFAC for further guidance on handling of the inventory. [7-16-2014]

There goes Saiga rifles and shotguns as well as Vepr rifles. This prohibition isn’t retroactive, most likely because enforcing such a thing would be impossible, so if you already own a Saiga shotgun or rifle you can keep it (unlike your health insurance). But importing new ones is strictly verboten so supplies will go down and prices will go up.

All of this because our government feels as though it absolutely must get into another conflict with Russia.

Who Needs a Warrant When You Can Fabricate a 911 Call

Warrants are such a pesky formality for police officers. When they want to search a house and the owner isn’t stupid enough to just let them walk right in the police have to make a phone call to a judge, wait a few minutes for him to issue a warrant, and finally search the home. Some cunning officers in North Carolina have apparently come up with a way to bypass that inconvenient formality:

A North Carolina police chief has officially barred officers from making up phony 911 calls in order to gain access to private residences without a search warrant.

Several officers with the Durham Police Department lied about 911 hang-up calls to convince residents to consent to searches of their homes, an officer said under oath in late May, a local ABC affiliate reported.

The allegations prompted Police Chief Jose Lopez to send out an internal memo barring the practice.

“It has recently been brought to my attention that some officers have informed citizens that there has been a 911 hang-up call from their residence in order to obtain consent to enter for the actual purpose of looking for wanted persons on outstanding warrants,” he said in the memo, Raw Story reported. “Effective immediately no officer will inform a citizen that there has been any call to the emergency communications center, including a hang-up call, when there in fact has been no such call.”

Statists often tell me that my anarchist views are crazy because we need government to protect our rights. I find it peculiar to charge the biggest violator of rights with the task of protecting rights and this story demonstrates why. The state has written up its own set of rules, which it claims protects our rights, and then bypasses those same rules, meaning it must be violating our rights.

They’ve Got Us By the Net Neutrality Balls

I have bad news everybody. In the battle for net neutrality no matter who wins we all lose. I’ve discussed the issue of net neutrality as it pertains to libertarianism before. The main problem is that no actual competition exists in the market of providing Internet access. This near monopoly situation is the product of the state, which used its regulatory powers to protect its favored Internet Service Providers (ISP) from competition. So it shouldn’t surprise anybody that the state has set itself up to win no matter what.

Members of the Democratic Party have primarily been advocating to give the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulatory power over ISPs to “protect” net neutrality. Meanwhile the Republican Party has been busy discussing the need to take power away from the FCC to protect the “free” market:

US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) wants to make sure the Federal Communications Commission never interferes with “states’ rights” to protect private Internet service providers from having to compete against municipal broadband networks.

Twenty states have passed laws making it difficult for cities and towns to offer their own broadband Internet services, and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has pledged to use his agency’s authority to “preempt state laws that ban competition from community broadband.”

Since ISPs have a state granted near monopoly no free market exists so Mrs. Blackburn’s claim that she is working to protect it is absurd. But this story does demonstrate on concerning fact: in the chess game of net neutrality we are one move away from being checkmated.

Tom Wheeler, the currently appointed chairman of the FCC, was a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries before being given his current position. He has already shown his hand by ruling that ISPs can provide fast and slow lanes for Internet traffic. So we know if the FCC gains the power to regulate ISPs it will kill net neutrality.

On the other hand if the FCC isn’t given more power to regulate ISPs the individual states, 22 of which have already moved to protect the handful of ISPs’ near monopoly, will allow their corporate partners like Comcast to destroy net neutrality by destroying their competition.

No matter who wins we lose. There is one last glimmer of hope but it’s not going to be easy. We need to work on cutting out the ISP middleman. I’ve briefly discussed the work I’ve been involved in to get mesh networks running in the Twin Cities. Building mesh networks is probably the only move that will save use from being checkmated. Because the state has set the board up in such a way that we’ll lose regardless of what powers the FCC has.

Federal Judge Rules California’s Death Penalty Unconstitutional

In a strange twist of fate a federal judge has ruled that California’s death penalty is unconstitutional, unless it’s being performed by a police officer at the scene. But what really got me was the justification:

LA QUINTA, Calif. — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that California’s death penalty system is so arbitrary and plagued with delay that it is unconstitutional, a decision that is expected to inspire similar arguments in death penalty appeals around the country.

The state has placed hundreds of people on death row, but has not executed a prisoner since 2006. The result, wrote Judge Cormac J. Carney of United States District Court, is a sentence that “no rational jury or legislature could ever impose: life in prison, with the remote possibility of death.”

That sense of uncertainty and delay, he wrote, “violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.”

So it’s cruel and unusual punishment to sentence somebody to death and then never kill him? It seems to me that sentencing somebody to death and then fucking killing him would be more cruel (although not unusual in this country).
I know if I was on death row I’d be totally cool with not being executed.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad this ruling was handed down since I don’t believe an organization crime syndicate such as the state has the right to execute somebody. But the reason given is just bizarre in my opinion.

It was Bound to Happen

Remember that substandard police training I was talking about? It was finally combined with modern policing’s love of puppycide to its logical conclusion. Via Uncle I learned that Douglas, Georgia shot a 10 year-old kid while trying to gun down the family dog:

Sheriff Wooten said a deputy, who was not named, was on approaching the property when a dog ran up to him. The deputy fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child. It was not immediately clear if the gun was accidently fired by the deputy.

It was only a matter of time until this happened. When you combine inadequate weapons training, an almost complete absence of consequences for wrongdoing, and a standard operating procedure to shoot any dog on sight you have a recipe for an innocent bystander getting shot.

If history is any indicator the offending officer will receive a paid vacation while this story blows over. After the weekly news cycle has forgotten about the kid the officer will return to active duty so he can shoot another kid while attempting to gun down another family pet. Because this is America and taking responsibility for your actions is only for the people without badges.

The Fix is In

Speaking of democracy Afghanistan apparently doesn’t understand how to do it. The country recently had a presidential vote. It was a close election, as elections between two worthless twats often are, but the Afghan people apparently chose incorrectly because we had to send John Kerry in to fix things:

Afghanistan’s current President Hamid Karzai, who came to office after the US-led overthrow of the Taliban, is stepping down after more than 10 years.

He has welcomed the audit and agreed to delay his successor’s inauguration to allow time for the review, which is expected to take several weeks.

At a news conference with the two candidates, Mr Kerry said that every single ballot would be audited.

“This is the strongest possible signal by both candidates of a desire to restore legitimacy to the process and to Afghan democracy,” he said.

The thing I don’t understand is that the supposed winner, Ashraf Ghani, seems pretty pro-American. Perhaps we’re just unhappy that he won by such a small margin and are looking to make the margin larger. Who knows. Either way it appears that Afghanistan doesn’t know how to do democracy how we want them to do it.

Salon Goes Full Retard Again

You writers at Salon are like an enteral fountain of stupid ideas. That’s probably because…

More to the point, you’re all a bunch of state worshiping socialists. As far as you’re concerned the only problem in this world is that we don’t have a state boot stomping on our faces quite enough yet. And that leads you to say really stupid things like this:

They’re huge, they’re ruthless, and they touch every aspect of our daily lives. Corporations like Amazon and Google keep expanding their reach and their power. Despite a history of abuses, so far the Justice Department has declined to take antitrust actions against them. But there’s another solution.

Is it time to manage and regulate these companies as public utilities?

No. No it’s not. And I’m going to tell you why it’s not by using your own stupid arguments against you. You see, every argument you use against Google and Amazon can be equally applied to the state.

Big Tech was created with publicly-developed technology.

Publicly-developed technology are built by private companies. Think of the state’s major technologies. Fighter jets, bombers, tanks, drones, missiles, and aircraft carriers are all built by private companies. The technology that runs the Internet? Yup, it’s all made by private companies such as Cisco, Dell, HP, and IBM (which has quite a history of building things for governments). When the state wants something it throws money at private companies that actually build it. Without private companies there would be no “publicly-developed” technology.

Big Tech’s services have become a necessity in modern society.

Then why ruin it by giving it over to the state? The only thing the state does competently is steal and break shit. While it does throw some money at private companies to build substandard roads much of its resources are invested in militarizing the police so they can better murder our pets, building more efficient ways for our military to blow up people overseas, and protecting the politically connected private companies from its not as well connect competitors.

If Google and Amazon were nationalized the would use them to collect even more data on you and I. Gmail would exist to allow the state to know when we’re communicating about something illegal and our purchases on Amazon would be scrutinized to see if some tangible connection to terrorism could be made. Google Maps would probably be used to drop Hellfire missiles on whoever used it as well.

They’re at or near monopoly status – and moving fast.

The state is a monopoly. In fact it is the monopoly that makes all other monopolies possible.

They abuse their power.

And what does the state do? Let me think. It sends heavily armed men to kick down people’s doors at two in the morning, shoot their dogs, and kidnap them for possessing a fucking plant. Then you have the National Security Agency (NSA), which is the state’s apparatus for spying on our phone calls, e-mails, instant messages, and other communications. When it finds a little free time it also likes to put people to death even though the evidence supporting those people’s guilt is nonexistent. I haven’t even gotten to the number of foreigners it slaughters.

They got there with our help.

So did the state. It acquires its resources by stealing them from us. Sometimes it’s in the form of taxes other times its in the form of fines and other times its in the form of slave labor (which it rather humorously refers to as prison labor).

The real “commodity” is us.

Guess what? The state’s commodity is us. We’re nothing more than tax cattle and cannon fodder to it.

Our privacy is dying … or already dead.

Edward Snowden really brought this point to light. The NSA has been spying on our digital communications for years. While I dislike many of the data collection policies used by Google and Amazon there is a major difference between what they do and what the state does with my data. Google and Amazon use my data for personal profit and to find more shit for me to buy from them. The state uses my data to decide whether or not it will send armed thugs to my home at two in the morning so they can shoot my pets and kidnap me. I’d say that’s a pretty big difference.

Freedom of information is at risk.

Are you referring to the Cyber Information Sharing Act (CISA)?

The free market could become even less free.

And your solution is to preemptively restrict it by putting Google and Amazon under the state’s direct control? That’s not a solution to the hypothetical problem of the free market becoming less free; that’s making the hypothetical problem a reality.

They could hijack the future.

So could the state. The difference, of course, is that Google and Amazon hijacking the future doesn’t lead to people being locked in cages, bombed, and otherwise brutalized.

Expensive Porn

Lest somebody believe that the Republican Party has a monopoly on candidates saying really stupid and offensive shit I present you the words of Mike Dickinson, a Democratic candidate for the Virginia House:

Mike Dickinson, the Virginia liberal Democrat seeking the House seat currently held by Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., despite not being on the ballot, offered a $100,000 reward for nude photos and videos of Kendall Jones, the 19-year-old Texas Tech cheerleader who recently made news with a series of hunting photos on her Facebook page.

“I have 100k to anyone who has nude photos or videos of #kendalljones at Texas tech (sic),” Dickinson tweeted. “She deserves to be a target.”

$100,000 for nude pictures of a teenage girl? Is this guy a fucking idiot? Does he not know that you can get all of the nude teenage pictures you want on the Internet for free? Somebody tell this man about Google stat!

OK, I admit that I’ve tried to stay out of this entire debate. My guess is that the outrage over Kendall Jones is mostly manufactured. I’m guessing she wants to do a hunting show or something like that and got ahold of a good marketing agency that started drumming up this controversy. Before all of this is said and done the people who oppose safaris will have the people who support safaris so fired up that they’ll buy whatever Mrs. Jones is selling just to spite their opposition. Is it cynical for me to think this? Absolutely!

However when you have candidates offering $100,000 to get nude pictures of a girl for the expressed purpose of embarrassing her just because he disagrees with what she does shit needs to be called out (at least if your hobby is making politicians look more like idiots than they normally do). Such activities indicate deep seated psychopathy, which was already indicated by the fact that he is running for office.