Tag: You’re Doing it Wrong

The Only Prison for Libertarians is On the Right

As a libertarian one of the things that greatly amuses me is how elements on both the “left” and “right” sides of the political spectrum attempt to court us. One minute we’re an ineffective minority of extremists and the next we’re supposed to have a lot of common ground with whatever side is trying to appeal to us.

One of the more entertaining articles that tries to court libertarians to the “right” is this fine piece. You know the article is going to be a doozy when it starts with “The talented National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke…” If there’s are two things that don’t go together it’s talent and the National Review. The laughs don’t stop there. The author, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, claims:

The political calculus for libertarians is relatively straightforward: They are a small minority — albeit an influential one — and are not completely at home in either party, but can get a lot done if they ally with one in particular.

See, when we’re being courted we’re influential! Gobry’s assertion that libertarians could get a lot done if they allied with one of the two major parties is particularly funny. A lot of libertarians decided to do exactly this and jumped onto the Republican Party ship only to get kicked off and boarded by many unsavory scoundrels. During this libertarian expedition they were told how valuable their views were and how they were welcomed with open arms. Then the Republican National Convention started getting closer and it appeared the libertarians captured a sizable number of seats in several states. This forced the Republican Party to show its true nature and it threatened to banish Nevada’s delegates if too many were going to vote for Ron Paul, had Ron Paul supporters arrested in Louisiana, and prohibited Ron Paul supporters in Maine from participation by forcing them to sign an oath of loyalty to Romney. As a final blow the Republican Party moved to change the rules to dissuade libertarians within the party from participating and even went so far as to hold up one state’s delegates to prevent them from hindering the rule change. Needless to say participating in the Republican Party didn’t do jack shit for libertarianism.

The article then makes the best argument against libertarians participating in either major party’s political process:

And self-delusion it was: On every issue of importance, the left has betrayed libertarians (if “betrayed” is the right word, given that they never actually bothered to promise them anything). Obama’s treatment of the Constitution has been as roughshod as any of his predecessor’s.

Saying Obama’s treatment of the Constitution, which libertarians are supposedly upholders of according to the author, was as roughshod as Bush’s really drives the point home that both parties give no fucks about any supposed restrictions to their powers. If both Republicans and Democrats are doing the same thing then why should libertarians support either of them? Here’s where the real laughs come in:

The reason why liberaltarianism was always doomed to fail is because, at the end of the day, progressivism is an all-encompassing ideology. And while libertarians won’t agree with conservatives on everything, the two can certainly agree on a lot, because of a key bedrock principle of libertarianism that is shared with conservatives but not progressives: the importance of localism.

Holy hell, that’s rich! Conservatives recognize the importance of localism? Is that whey the Republican Party is always pushing for national laws prohibiting same-sex marriages? Is that why they’re looking to replace the Affordable Care Act with another national healthcare scheme? Is that why they’re constantly supporting drug prohibitions on a national level? Is that why they’re always arguing that we need to keep “illegals” out of this country instead of allowing each border state to decide what it wants to do for itself? Conservatives lost the right to claim they supported local politics long ago. But the best laugh was saved for last:

It is exactly this sort of ideological, moralistic progressive urge that makes progressivism and libertarianism like oil and water and makes the conservative movement the natural home of libertarians. At the end of the day, an alliance with the conservative movement is the only plausible way for libertarians to effect meaningful political change in America.

According to Gobry the natural home for libertarians is an abusive one because, as I pointed out above, libertarians were living in that home and were beaten harshly for it. I think the biggest joke of this article though is implying libertarians want to effect political change. While some libertarians certainly do I am not one of them. I am part of the branch of libertarianism that wants to eliminate the state entirely. My goal, and those who share my goal, don’t want to put the right people in power, we want to remove everybody from power. In my opinion libertarianism’s natural home is in counter-economics. That’s because counter-economics allow individuals to act on their own accord and not as part of some political collective. Individualism is at the core of libertarianism so any collectivist strategy is going to be a poor fit.

Venezuela Going Full Dictatorship

It was bound to happen. As the failure of centrally planned economics wrecks the lives of Venezuelans and the United States places more sanctions on the country to make those miserable wretches even more miserable somebody was going to demand absolute power in the name of fixing everything. That demand was made by the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro, and was granted:

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has been granted the power to govern by decree until 31 December.

The measure was approved by the National Assembly, where Mr Maduro has a majority.

He requested the approval of the Enabling Law after the United States issued new sanctions against Venezuelan officials.

The opposition says he is using the incident to amass power and divert attention from the economic crisis.

Mr Maduro said he needed the special powers to deal with the threat posed by the United States, which he accuses of meddling in Venezuela’s affairs.

The opposition, that is to say the members of the National Assembly who aren’t completely ignorant of history, called it. Maduro is just exploiting a horrible situation to amass power. This is the exactly same playbook used by a million despots before him and will likely continue to be successful in the foreseeable future. What can Venezuela expect? It depends on how drunk with power Maduro gets. In the best case scenario little changes and his power to rule by decree goes away at the end of the year. But the worst case, which is also the more commonly case, involved his opponents all dying and his ability to rule by decree lasting indefinitely.

I really hate to see the lives of so many people become as miserable as the Venezuelans have. But our species seems entirely unwilling to learn from the mistakes of centrally planned failures. Even when we get reminders such as Venezuela the common reaction seems to be blaming the entire mess on not enough centralized power being wielded.

Your Survival Tip of the Day

This is a survival tip for all of my brothers and sisters who choose to carry a firearm openly. If you want to openly carry a firearm it’s probably not a good idea to antagonize people with a history of violence and a shield against accountability:

Police did not identify the man, who was not arrested, charged, or injured in the encounter – which he recorded on video and posted online.

“While out on an open carry walk, I was followed by the Madison Heights police department,” said the man, who calls himself Nunya Beeswax online. “They followed me from a distance, which was troubling, because they could clearly see that no laws were being broken. After initially declining to speak with the police, I decided to approach them and ask why they were essentially stalking a law abiding citizen. I did not appreciate the fact that one of these trigger happy morons placed his hand on his pistol when he approached me.”

The man approaches officers and asks why they’re following him, and he tells police he won’t answer any of their questions.

He asks one of the officers to remove his hand from his holstered weapon and demands to know whether the officer will shoot him.

“I’m talking now,” the man says, interrupting one of the officers. “That shiny little badge he has on his chest doesn’t give him any more rights than I have. Actually, you all work for me and the taxpayers, right?”

“You come over here with your hand on your gun, that’s reason for me to think that you feel ill will towards me,” the man continues. “If I were to do the same thing, you’d probably pull your gun out and point it at me, am I right? I’m talking to you, tough guy.”

There’s nothing wrong with open carry but being an antagonistic asshole isn’t a good way to make friends and can be dangerous if the people you are antagonizing are members of the largest, move violent gang in the country. In this case the person open carrying admitted that he initiated conversation with the police, which breaks the cardinal rule of never talking to the police.

Not only is being an antagonistic asshole a poor survival tactic but it can also become a legal nightmare down the road. The idiot antagonist filmed his antics and posted them online so that it can never be erased. Should he ever be involved in a self-defense situation this video could be used for a nasty bit of character assassination. If avoiding conflict isn’t reason enough for you to not be an asshat then possible court case is another reason you should consider.

Or you could just choose to not be a dick because being a dick seldom leads to anything positive.

It’s Because He’s in the Big Club

David Petraeus received a slap on the wrist because he leaked classified documents to his mistress. His punishment has raised a very important question:

Surely a person’s punishment for leaking classified material should not be greater when they act for selfless reasons (however misguided) rather than personal gain. So, why do Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden get the book thrown at them and General David Petraeus is let off with a fine and a promise not to do it again?

That is a very good question and I know the answer. The reason Petraeus received a slap on the wrist whlie Manning is rotting in a cage and Snowden is in exile is because those two aren’t in the big club.

Petraeus was a high ranking member within the state and with rank comes privileges. Meanwhile Manning and Snowden were both low ranking grunts. Another difference is that Petraeus caused little damage to the state. His leaks were far more controlled and didn’t give the state as many black eyes. Manning’s leaks gave the state one hell of a black eye by exposing actual war crimes it had committed. Snowden leaked a lot of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) dirty little secrets that it relied on to spy on people and allowed the people it was spying on (you and I) to adopt better tools to help protect against it.

In this world whether you’re punished severely or not often depends on where you rank. Remember the state has a monopoly on “justice” and tends to treat its own far better than it treats us lowly proles.

Social Conservative Argues Why Social Conservatives Should Support Prison Abolition

Within social conservative circles there is a man championed as a hero of the movement. That man is Dr. Ben Carson. While Caron’s credentials as a medical professional are impressive his politics aren’t. However he did, albeit unintentional, make an argument for why social conservatives should climb down from their tough on crime pedestal and join us[*] proles in the prison abolition movement:

Dr. Ben Carson, the conservative activist who is considering a run for president in 2016, said Wednesday that he could prove that being gay is a choice since people “go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay.”

Appearing on CNN’s “New Day,” he said that people “absolutely” had a choice over their sexuality. Anchor Chris Cuomo then asked him why he thought that.

“Because a lot of people go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay,” Carson said. “So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.”

If there’s one thing social conservatives hate more than people who violate the arbitrary decrees issued by the state it’s homosexuals. Therefore, if as Carson claims, homosexuality is a choice and prisons create homosexuals then, to remain ideologically consistent, social conservatives should support prison abolition as a means of fighting homosexuality.

This does put social conservatives in a tough spot. Either they must admit their tough on crime attitude is breeding homosexuals or they must admit that Carson isn’t the ideological intellectual they hold him up to be. Whichever path they choose to follow I will certainly derive a great deal of amusement from it.

* Just kidding, guys. We don’t want you.

Google Backs Away from Encrypting Android 5.0 Device By Default

When Snowden leaked the National Security Agency’s (NSA) dirty laundry a lot of companies’ faces were red. The leaks showed that they were either complacent in the NSA’s surveillance apparatus or helpless to stop the agency from exploiting their systems. In an attempt to rebuild customer confidence many technology companies scrambled to improve the security on their devices. Apple, being the manufacturer of very popular handsets, announced several major security improvements in iOS 8, including disabling its ability to bypass a user’s set passcode. Much to the approval of Android users Google announced that Android 5.0, also known as Lollipop, would ship with device encryption enabled by default.

But some bad news appeared yesterday. Google has backed down from enabling encryption by default in Lollipop:

Last year, Google made headlines when it revealed that its next version of Android would require full-disk encryption on all new phones. Older versions of Android had supported optional disk encryption, but Android 5.0 Lollipop would make it a standard feature.

But we’re starting to see new Lollipop phones from Google’s partners, and they aren’t encrypted by default, contradicting Google’s previous statements. At some point between the original announcement in September of 2014 and the publication of the Android 5.0 hardware requirements in January of 2015, Google apparently decided to relax the requirement, pushing it off to some future version of Android. Here’s the timeline of events.

This, in my seldom humble opinion, is a very bad idea. The justification appears to be performance related. Namely the performance of many Android devices without hardware cryptography acceleration support tend to take a huge performance dive when device encryption is enabled.

If a user wants to disable device encryption that’s their choice but I firmly believe that this option should be enabled by default even if performance noticeably suffers on some devices. We’ve seen too many stories where abusive spouse, police officers, and federal agents have retrieved data from unencrypted devices without the consent of the owner or, in the case of law enforcement, warrants. With the amount of personal data people store on their mobile devices it’s far too risky to leave that data unprotected from prying eyes. Especially when we live in a surveillance state.

South Carolina Republicans Demand Oath of Purity

Although I hate both the Democrats and Republicans equally I have to say that the Republicans certainly give me more material to work with. The Democrats tend to keep their stupidity aimed at policy whereas the Republicans spread their stupidity out to include their policies and the things many of their members say. Case in point, the Republicans like to make public statements about their social conservatism. In the Republican Party in one South Carolina county took such statements to the next level when demanded its members take a pledge of purity. This pledge included some real gems:

“You must oppose abortion, in any circumstances.

“You must uphold the right to have guns, all kinds of guns.

“You must endorse the idea of a balanced state and federal budget, whatever it takes, even if your primary responsibility is to be sure the county budget is balanced.

“You must be faithful to your spouse. Your spouse cannot be a person of the same gender, and you are not allowed to favor any government action that would allow for civil unions of people of the same sex.

“You must have:

“A compassionate and moral approach to Teen Pregnancy;

“A commitment to Peace Through Strength in Foreign Policy; and

“A high regard for Unites States Sovereignty.”

Now I question a the sincerity of many of these points. For example, I doubt they mean members must uphold the right to have all kinds of guns. In my experience Republicans, while claiming to support gun rights, tend to get very squeamish around things such as grenade launchers.

The statement about spouses really takes the cake though. Republicans, at least the ones I know, seem to have a problem with faithfulness. I know several local Republicans that ended up having affairs at the last Republican National Convention and a few even ended up getting divorced. From what I’ve been told this is a common problem within the party. The fact that members of the party must also pledge against supporting any government action that would allow for same-sex marriages is laughable. Republicans always claim to be the party of small government. Getting the government entirely out of the marriage game would greatly reduce the size and power of government but would necessarily allow for same-sex marriages. Catch-22, Republicans.

I also enjoy the quip about a peace through strength foreign policy. Do you know what that makes me think of? Kane:

peace-through-power

Granted, unlike Republicans, Kane was actually competent at fulfilling his goals. But it’s nice to see the Republican Party’s rhetoric reflects that of the supreme bad guy of the original Command and Conquer series.

Besides being incredibly pathetic this pledge also demonstrates why the Republican Party is having such a tough time getting new suckers members under the age of 500 billion years old. My generation cares far less about social issues than the one before it and it’s likely the generation after mind is going to care even less. So as long as the Republican Party continues pushing social issues it will find itself becoming more and more irrelevant in this country’s politics.

Gabrielle Giffords Just Forfeit the Right to Arguing in Favor of Gun Control

For some time now Gabrielle Giffords has been one of the more vocal advocates of gun control. While I don’t agree with her opinion I do feel she has a justifiable reason to hold it since she was shot in the head during a failed assassination attempt. At least I felt that she had a justifiable reason until today. The Navy just launched a new warship named the USS Gabrielle Giffords:

A Navy warship named for the former Arizona congresswoman hit the water for the first time Thursday, Giffords announced on Twitter.

The U.S.S. Gabrielle Giffords entered the river outside Austal Shipbuilding in Mobile, Ala., as workers placed finishing touches before its August launch, a picture showed.

This ship has a pretty decent array of weaponry including a 57mm cannon and four .50 caliber guns. Obviously, as a woman who takes a stern stance against violence, Giffords is outraged by the fact that her name is attached to a war machine, right? It doesn’t appear so:

I guess guns are bad unless they can take out a sizable chunk of real estate with a single shell. Hypocrisy like this really annoys me. As somebody who was the victim of a politically motivated attack I would think Giffords would take a stand against the primary use of naval warships, politically motivated attacks. If I were in her position, heck even without being in her position, I would be offended to have a warship named after me.

Why I Self-Host

For many years this site has been hosted on a server sitting in my dwelling. I did this in part for educational purposes, hosting your own site does teach you a lot about server administration. The other reason I did this was so I could be free of any third-party’s terms of use agreement. While many hosts; including my original one, WordPress.com; have very permissive use agreements those agreements are subject to change. Google just announced a major change to its use agreement that will leave some blogs reeling:

TORONTO — Google is cracking down on adult content posted to its popular Blogger service.

The company started notifying users on Monday that they have until March 23 to delete “images and video that are sexually explicit or show graphic nudity.”

Google said it will not delete existing blogs that haven’t been purged of explicit content by March 23 but warned it will set them to “private” — meaning only the user and people with whom he/she has directly shared the blog will be able to view it.

I don’t host any adult content on my site but I do discuss firearms, anarchism, and other subjects that can be unpopular with many companies. It isn’t impossible to imagine a host decided it doesn’t want to allow anybody to use its service to discuss weapons or how terrible statism is. But since I host this site on my own server I don’t have to worry about such bullshit!

Why I Hate Public School History Courses

I love history. In fact I’m writing this post after spending about an hour reading The Secret History of the Mongol Queens (it’s a great book and if you have an interest in Mongol history I highly recommend it). This love didn’t develop until well after I graduated. During my public career I didn’t give two shits about history. It wasn’t not because I was lazy, it was because none of the history we learned was interesting. The most interesting history is the controversial history but that’s what they avoid teaching in public schools like the plague (which, interestingly enough, was likely introduce to Europe by the Mongols). I believe this is because the people drawing up the history curriculum want to avoid dealing with the idiot politicians who chomp at the bit whenever something slightly different from their party’s ideology is taught.

Whoever wrote the history curriculum in Oklahoma is learning this valuable lesson. Apparently they decided to cover some of the more sinister, and therefore more interesting, parts of this country’s history because some of that state’s Republicans are flipping their shit:

State Rep. Dan Fisher (R) introduced a bill at the beginning of the month that keeps the state from funding AP U.S. History unless the College Board changes the curriculum. The bill also orders the state Department of Education to establish a U.S. History program that would replace the AP course.

Since the College Board released a new course framework for U.S. history in October 2012, conservative backlash against the course has grown significantly. The Republican National Committee condemned the course and its “consistently negative view of American history” in August. Numerous states and school districts have now taken action to denounce the exam.

Fisher said Monday that the AP U.S. History course emphasizes “what is bad about America” and complained that the framework eliminated the concept of “American exceptionalism,” according to the Tulsa World.

This pisses me off for three reasons. First, the idea of “American exceptionalism” is nationalistic bullshit. The United States, like every other country on the face of the planet, has done some terrible shit. Nothing it has done has been exceptional in regards to the world at large. It really is just another country in the long history of countries. And if you really dig deep enough the United States is little more than a discount Roman Republic.

The second reason this pisses me off is because sweeping the bad parts of American history under the rug prevents the next generation form learning from those mistakes. Slavery, genocide, mass incarceration, institutionalized bigotry, and many other rather nasty things populate American history. If all of those things are just swept under the rug then they won’t be discussed critically and the lessons learned will be forgotten. Forgetting past fuck ups is not smart.

The third reason this pisses me off is because it dissuades teachers from covering controversial history. Without controversy history classes are places where students go to learn names and dates just long enough to pass tests. A lot of people bitch that kids these days don’t know history. Well it’s not their fault. They’re fed a bunch of bland facts with no critical analysis. Since that’s their introduction to history they believe it’s a born area of study and avoid it. If you taught them some of the really good shit they would likely take a real interest in the topic and pursue it.

What makes history interesting are the stories. Interesting people doing interesting shit is the backbone of any story whether it’s fiction or nonfiction. But telling interesting historical stories is difficult in a political environment where one or the other major party will jump down your throat because the stories shine a negative light on their bullshit ideology.