It is not often that we are reminded of the evils of Socialism. This is because the media often ignores those countries around the world that still practice such government. It has also been a long time since super power countries of the world were socialistic. Because of this we see many individuals still pursuing the goal of socialism and if not that far many individuals calling for government to be more strict on individual liberties. I think it was due time that we be given a glimpse of the true colors of what socialism brings and the newest installment of The Dark Knight has done exactly that.
Aside from Bane's purely evil plot of the destruction of Gotham he has done exactly what is necessary to install a socialistic State.
It is not even necessary to start with bringing down a democratic State like Bane does when he takes over the city.
Socialism aims at destroying the class hierarchy that is "so ever apparent" in a capitalist society. But a very distinctive attribute of socialism is missed by those who wish to destroy class hierarchy. It's the very attribute that in order to destroy the class hierarchy of the bourgeois and the proletariat you MUST install a new hierarchy. The new hierarchy that has to be implemented is that of the new State and the rest of the people.
The bourgeois and the proletariat of the capitalist society are replaced with the bourgeois and the proletariat of the socialist society. The new bourgeois are those that are part of the State and enforce the rules on everyone else. They are better off than the bourgeois of the capitalist society because they are in control of the resources not by market forces but by the forces of a gun. The new proletariat are those that must live under the threat of a gun. They are worse off than the proletariat of the capitalist society because instead of being to better themselves through market forces they must stay exactly where they are at the point of a gun.
Bane insures that this happens by taking over Gotham and setting up martial law. Live as free people he says as long as you follow his rules, if you don't you are killed. Bane's men are the bourgeois who can live parasitically off the proletariat they now control. The proletariat that are in celebration of living in the wealth of others could only do so for a short period of time because after they have used up the resources of others they will be as poor as those they have thrown into the streets. Bane uses guns and force to set up the socialist State which must be done to give rise to such a State. Without the use of guns a socialist state could never exist because they have to be used to stop man from attempting to better himself as he has always done with the use of his productive abilities.
So you see socialism doesn't bring about the destruction of class hierarchy it only replaces that hierarchy with a more dangerous form of hierarchy.
But rejoice not those who are believers in the democratic State because this very same hierarchy is existent still. Those who are connected to the State and those who are not. Those who reap the benefits through the use of force from those who cannot and choose not to use force. It seems to me that the choice is obvious but when will others see this choice?
When they open their eyes.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Peaceful Parenting, Peaceful World
When it comes to most libertarians it is easy to acknowledge that we, in general, dislike those who believe they have some kind of authority over us. We generally don't want other people telling us what to do and how to live our lives. We often say that we just want to be left alone so that we as individuals can best choose our path, regardless if it is a good path or not.
Most people would agree with this, libertarian or not, but the subject of individuality and no authority often becomes mute when the issue is raising children. Most of my friends are completely shocked when I mention that I have zero intentions of spanking my children as discipline. They usually say that this type of discipline is effective and necessary. It might very well be effective but is it necessary for raising well behaved children? I believe the answer is no.
Now I'll be the first to admit that my experience is very limited in this regard since I have no children of my own. I also have trouble following my own rules at times. I don't think this detracts from the message though.
As rampant is the problem of children who don't listen, constantly misbehave, and even hit others it is usually said it's the lack of a good spanking these days. Back in the day when you got out of hand it wasn't taboo to get a good whack to be set straight. But is this the only way to get children to be good?
Even if it was is it justified in a libertarian mindset? Again I think the answer is no.
What exactly are you doing when you decide to discipline your children in such ways? In my mind you're doing exactly the opposite of what your true beliefs are. Even those who are not libertarians it is acknowledged that initiating violence is wrong and a peaceful world is usually wanted.
How can you possibly try to teach your children that violence is bad with the very use of violence? How can you teach your children that they are individuals and no person has a higher power of them other than themselves when you use power over them?
People wonder why the use of violence is so prevalent in our society. As children we are raised knowing violence can stop bad behavior. We know that someone can claim higher power than ourselves over us. So it follows that later in life the use of violence is not that big of a deal.
Raise your children so that they know initiating violence is always the wrong choice. (Self-defense is not initiating violence it is instead responding to the initiation of violence.) We can't possibly have a world with peace without teaching that peace is the answer.
How do you go about disciplining bad behavior then? Children do not act out because we want to discipline them, it seems that in their learning environment they are merely trying to find out what they can do. This is definitely something I do not have an answer to since I don't have children of my own. I found this short post to be something I'd like to follow in the future.
I'd like to add something I've thought about and something I might try as well in the future. It seems as us capitalists we realize that certain actions lead to reward and others to failures, and some actions have a risk that lead to an uncertain future. This is something I'd like to teach my children. Learning from an early age that doing good isn't good for me as a parent but good for the child. It seems to me that it would follow later in life with grades and the like that they can find out that good grades and such are good for them, not necessarily just because I want to see good grades as a parent, but because they're conscious choices that lead to better outcomes.
Why not allow for a profit loss incentive for children? It would help them understand that their choices have consequences, some good some bad. I don't connect this with bribing your children for goodies though.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that will be for me to find out and adapt my situation for the better of my future children.
We can't have peace when we teach violence and we won't have violence when we teach peace.
Most people would agree with this, libertarian or not, but the subject of individuality and no authority often becomes mute when the issue is raising children. Most of my friends are completely shocked when I mention that I have zero intentions of spanking my children as discipline. They usually say that this type of discipline is effective and necessary. It might very well be effective but is it necessary for raising well behaved children? I believe the answer is no.
Now I'll be the first to admit that my experience is very limited in this regard since I have no children of my own. I also have trouble following my own rules at times. I don't think this detracts from the message though.
As rampant is the problem of children who don't listen, constantly misbehave, and even hit others it is usually said it's the lack of a good spanking these days. Back in the day when you got out of hand it wasn't taboo to get a good whack to be set straight. But is this the only way to get children to be good?
Even if it was is it justified in a libertarian mindset? Again I think the answer is no.
What exactly are you doing when you decide to discipline your children in such ways? In my mind you're doing exactly the opposite of what your true beliefs are. Even those who are not libertarians it is acknowledged that initiating violence is wrong and a peaceful world is usually wanted.
How can you possibly try to teach your children that violence is bad with the very use of violence? How can you teach your children that they are individuals and no person has a higher power of them other than themselves when you use power over them?
People wonder why the use of violence is so prevalent in our society. As children we are raised knowing violence can stop bad behavior. We know that someone can claim higher power than ourselves over us. So it follows that later in life the use of violence is not that big of a deal.
Raise your children so that they know initiating violence is always the wrong choice. (Self-defense is not initiating violence it is instead responding to the initiation of violence.) We can't possibly have a world with peace without teaching that peace is the answer.
How do you go about disciplining bad behavior then? Children do not act out because we want to discipline them, it seems that in their learning environment they are merely trying to find out what they can do. This is definitely something I do not have an answer to since I don't have children of my own. I found this short post to be something I'd like to follow in the future.
I'd like to add something I've thought about and something I might try as well in the future. It seems as us capitalists we realize that certain actions lead to reward and others to failures, and some actions have a risk that lead to an uncertain future. This is something I'd like to teach my children. Learning from an early age that doing good isn't good for me as a parent but good for the child. It seems to me that it would follow later in life with grades and the like that they can find out that good grades and such are good for them, not necessarily just because I want to see good grades as a parent, but because they're conscious choices that lead to better outcomes.
Why not allow for a profit loss incentive for children? It would help them understand that their choices have consequences, some good some bad. I don't connect this with bribing your children for goodies though.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that will be for me to find out and adapt my situation for the better of my future children.
We can't have peace when we teach violence and we won't have violence when we teach peace.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Why Regulations Are Bad For Everyone.
I think it is very important to have discussion over the role regulations should have in our lives. It seems that we are content with whatever the major government regulation agencies do and ultimately rule on. It seems that most people don't think twice about the implications of having government regulators and exactly what and why they regulate. I don't have a problem with standards that should be followed by private companies but I do have a problem with "standards" forced by the government on private companies. Standards are good but regulations set forth by government agencies are bad for everyone, and I hope to show you why.
Government agencies like the EPA, FDA, OSHA, and many others that enforce regulations on the environment, food, drugs, saftey, minimum wage laws, work age laws, and so many others seem to have our interest at heart, or so they say. But what exactly does this do to the market or to the consumers? Does it actually help consumers or does it hurt them?
Again I'll mention that I do want standards when it comes to these very things, just not at the point of a gun.
When we typically talk about regulations our brain is instantly hard wired into believing they're good and are to protect us. Discussion otherwise is usually looked down upon.
We don't typically talk about how these certain regulations come to be. We don't talk about who is behind the creation of these regulations. We don't talk about the incentive these people have in creating these regulations. We don't talk about how you're ultimately hurt with these regulations.
It comes down to one simple idea, so simple it is easy to let is pass our eyes. This is why you see those lobbying for new regulations are directly connected to large corporations. As a large corporation who has millions if not billions of dollars that can be used to pay for the costs of regulations it doesn't matter if they come into law. The idea is then that since these large corporations can already pay for them it is easier to snuff out competition through enforcing regulations than it is to actually compete with them in the market.
Smaller companies who don't have millions to throw away can therefor not even bring their products to the market. A product that could be much safer for you, much healthier for you, and much cheaper to you.
This is why large pharm-corporations lobby for tight regulations on new drugs entering the market, they can afford to throw away resources while emerging companies can't. This is why large food corporations want to enforce strict "health" regulations because again they can afford to throw away those resources while other can't.
Government backed regulations is nothing short of a method used to protect monopoly privileges, something those who want regulations are so much against.
On top of that the larger corporations are able to bribe regulators while smaller companies can't. They can get away with breaking the law while others would go to jail.
So many times we've heard of good products that work for certain things can't make it to the market when current products do nothing for those things. They can't make it because they're not up to "code". They can't make it because the large corporations know if they do they will not be able to compete in a fair market so they cheat to get their way.
For those Constitutional people out there these federal agencies shouldn't even exist. The Federal government has no right restricting entry into the market place, that's if you believe what's in the Constitution.
So how exactly do we provide for good standards when it comes to food, drugs, the environment, and the like without the government?
It's simple and as usual comes down to protecting private property rights. On one hand it is bad business to make bad products in a society that protects property rights. If a company releases food or a drug that ends up killing people there are heavy repercussions. And we know food and drugs protected by regulations still kill people, so you pay them with taxes to set regulations and continue to pay them when they've failed.
Now assuming this wouldn't be enough to keep those pesky evil companies at bay then a hole in the market has just been created. Private companies could now emerge to set certain standards. Through competition companies with the most attractive standards will be utilized for their well recognized seal of approval. Companies that make food and drugs, and other stuff, would want their products to have this seal of approval because consumers want to see it. Any mischievousness in the process will likely be found and publicized quickly forever tarnishing the respect of the company making the product, the standards company, or both depending on who was at fault.
This can't happen you say? We already have private companies like Consumer Reports who does this very thing. Why do they even exist though since we have federal agencies supposedly doing what they're doing? Because the federal agencies fail at doing it and are still backed by tax payer dollars further diminishing their want to provide a good service, while private companies have incentive to do as well as possible to stay afloat in the market.
Now that we know standards can quickly be made without the need of government we can talk about restriction of entry into the market. Without the government backed agencies all companies can enter the market with their products if consumers want them. It would be up to the consumers to decide what they want to buy and not federal agencies forcing consumers to buy the products their buddies have lobbied for. It always comes down to the individual. Do you believe the individuals should have the right to decide what they want? If you don't then you've justified to its fullest extent a complete totalitarian government telling you not only what you should buy or not buy but what to do in every aspect of your life. This is not the freedom I believe in and I doubt it is the freedom you believe in.
But you don't trust private companies without federal regulations to make quality products? Fine, but if you don't then how can you trust the men large corporations employ to set forth those very regulations you want?
You can't.
Government agencies like the EPA, FDA, OSHA, and many others that enforce regulations on the environment, food, drugs, saftey, minimum wage laws, work age laws, and so many others seem to have our interest at heart, or so they say. But what exactly does this do to the market or to the consumers? Does it actually help consumers or does it hurt them?
Again I'll mention that I do want standards when it comes to these very things, just not at the point of a gun.
When we typically talk about regulations our brain is instantly hard wired into believing they're good and are to protect us. Discussion otherwise is usually looked down upon.
We don't typically talk about how these certain regulations come to be. We don't talk about who is behind the creation of these regulations. We don't talk about the incentive these people have in creating these regulations. We don't talk about how you're ultimately hurt with these regulations.
It comes down to one simple idea, so simple it is easy to let is pass our eyes. This is why you see those lobbying for new regulations are directly connected to large corporations. As a large corporation who has millions if not billions of dollars that can be used to pay for the costs of regulations it doesn't matter if they come into law. The idea is then that since these large corporations can already pay for them it is easier to snuff out competition through enforcing regulations than it is to actually compete with them in the market.
Smaller companies who don't have millions to throw away can therefor not even bring their products to the market. A product that could be much safer for you, much healthier for you, and much cheaper to you.
This is why large pharm-corporations lobby for tight regulations on new drugs entering the market, they can afford to throw away resources while emerging companies can't. This is why large food corporations want to enforce strict "health" regulations because again they can afford to throw away those resources while other can't.
Government backed regulations is nothing short of a method used to protect monopoly privileges, something those who want regulations are so much against.
On top of that the larger corporations are able to bribe regulators while smaller companies can't. They can get away with breaking the law while others would go to jail.
So many times we've heard of good products that work for certain things can't make it to the market when current products do nothing for those things. They can't make it because they're not up to "code". They can't make it because the large corporations know if they do they will not be able to compete in a fair market so they cheat to get their way.
For those Constitutional people out there these federal agencies shouldn't even exist. The Federal government has no right restricting entry into the market place, that's if you believe what's in the Constitution.
So how exactly do we provide for good standards when it comes to food, drugs, the environment, and the like without the government?
It's simple and as usual comes down to protecting private property rights. On one hand it is bad business to make bad products in a society that protects property rights. If a company releases food or a drug that ends up killing people there are heavy repercussions. And we know food and drugs protected by regulations still kill people, so you pay them with taxes to set regulations and continue to pay them when they've failed.
Now assuming this wouldn't be enough to keep those pesky evil companies at bay then a hole in the market has just been created. Private companies could now emerge to set certain standards. Through competition companies with the most attractive standards will be utilized for their well recognized seal of approval. Companies that make food and drugs, and other stuff, would want their products to have this seal of approval because consumers want to see it. Any mischievousness in the process will likely be found and publicized quickly forever tarnishing the respect of the company making the product, the standards company, or both depending on who was at fault.
This can't happen you say? We already have private companies like Consumer Reports who does this very thing. Why do they even exist though since we have federal agencies supposedly doing what they're doing? Because the federal agencies fail at doing it and are still backed by tax payer dollars further diminishing their want to provide a good service, while private companies have incentive to do as well as possible to stay afloat in the market.
Now that we know standards can quickly be made without the need of government we can talk about restriction of entry into the market. Without the government backed agencies all companies can enter the market with their products if consumers want them. It would be up to the consumers to decide what they want to buy and not federal agencies forcing consumers to buy the products their buddies have lobbied for. It always comes down to the individual. Do you believe the individuals should have the right to decide what they want? If you don't then you've justified to its fullest extent a complete totalitarian government telling you not only what you should buy or not buy but what to do in every aspect of your life. This is not the freedom I believe in and I doubt it is the freedom you believe in.
But you don't trust private companies without federal regulations to make quality products? Fine, but if you don't then how can you trust the men large corporations employ to set forth those very regulations you want?
You can't.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Knives Galore
On to the second part of my mini series and as the title suggests it's specifically about knives. Knives as a tool and a weapon have been a pivotal part of the human evolution. Being able to kill game and process it as well as basic cutting needs are a few of the important roles of knives in our life. Most of us these days don't use knives to kill game or even on a daily basis. I hope to at least make my readers want to carry a knife on a daily basis because of how useful a knife can be in life's random situations. I'll add as a side note that I don't believe knives to be an effective tool for self-defense purposes. This is because it is very hard to use a knife effectively when being attacked and usually you're going to get cut up pretty bad as well. Among knife experts there's a saying I've heard about the end result of a fight with 2 skilled knife fighters- "One is dead and the other is dying on the way to the hospital." Besides a firearms is much more suitable.
In any event I'm biased towards three brands of knives from my research and handling. These knives are Benchmade, Zero Tolerance, and ESEE knives. So the knives I'm going to talk about are going to be made by these companies. They are in my mind some of the best knives for the money, they're somewhat pricey but very much worth it.
Folding Knives: When it comes to a daily carry knife that isn't going to see much abuse like repeated prying, screwing, hammering I think you can't go wrong with any of the folding knives made by Benchmade and some by Zero Tolerance. Don't get me wrong these knives can take a beating but I feel the knife I bring up next will be your best bet when needing a knife that takes beatings day in and day out. The knife I would recommend for the money for a decent carry tool is going to be the Benchmade Griptilian, Mini Griptilian, or the Zero Tolerance ZT350. All these knives are a good size for your pocket or purse with the ZT350 being the biggest of the three. When it comes to thinking about a partially serrated or non serrated knife I believe this really depends on application. For someone who needs a daily carrier you're most likely not going to be cutting rope a lot. If that's the case I personally would go with a non serrated blade. If you do need the serration then obviously get a serrated blade.
For someone who needs a knife for day in day out beatings I recommend the Zero Tolerance ZT301, the bigger brother of the ZT350. Now this knife can and will take a lot of abuse but comes with a bigger price tag and a heftier size. The knives above are considered liner locked which means when opened the knife is locked in place by a lining metal on the inside of the handle. The ZT301 is frame locked which means it's locked by the frame of the handle when opened. The part that keeps it locked is machined titanium and the other side is a G10 material. This provides for an exceptionally strong locking mechanism where you don't ever have to worry about the knife closing during hard use.
Fixed Blades Now what about survival situations or even camping and backpacking trips? When it comes to times like these where you don't have to worry about the weight in your pocket you can afford to carry something bigger and stronger than a folding knife. This is when I recommend a fixed full tang knife over a folder but you should still carry a folding knife with you.
There are three different types of knives I believe you should have each with its own application. These don't take up that much room so they should be considered.
First up is the ESEE 5. This is a monster of a fixed blade knife and can do just about anything you need it to. If it came down to it it could be used as an axe to chop wood for a fire. You CANNOT destroy this knife and if you do ESEE has a lifetime warranty. This knife would typically be in your pack possibly on your leg while out in the wilderness since a smaller knife would be more practical for other uses. But when you need a big piece of metal to perform this one will.
The "essential" knife you should have on you when out and about in the wilderness is the ESEE 3. This is the knife you're typically want to pull out for your regular needs around camp and the like. It will be much easier to use because of its smaller size but it can also take a beating.
The next knife I would say is optional but has a very good use for caping game when on a hunt and it's the ESEE Candiru. It's a small blade and can be utilized for intricate cuts that need something that is maneuverable.
With any of the knives made by ESEE you're going to want to take extra care of them because they're made of carbon steel. They've chosen this steel for it's strength and exceptional ability to keep an edge, carbon steel is often used in professional kitchen cutlery. The downside is that carbon steel can rust very easily if not taken care of so you're going to want to make sure this sucker is well oiled when not in use.
As with all knives you want to take care of them and not be dumb with them. Having said that you can probably try really hard to break these knives and will probably fail to do it. After a lot of use you're going to want to keep putting an edge on the blade to keep it continuously sharp. I'm obsessed with knives because there's so many different kinds available with all kinds of different handle materials and steel materials. I feel without spending hours and hours doing research these knives will do you just fine and will be able to keep up to any task you give them.
In any event I'm biased towards three brands of knives from my research and handling. These knives are Benchmade, Zero Tolerance, and ESEE knives. So the knives I'm going to talk about are going to be made by these companies. They are in my mind some of the best knives for the money, they're somewhat pricey but very much worth it.
Folding Knives: When it comes to a daily carry knife that isn't going to see much abuse like repeated prying, screwing, hammering I think you can't go wrong with any of the folding knives made by Benchmade and some by Zero Tolerance. Don't get me wrong these knives can take a beating but I feel the knife I bring up next will be your best bet when needing a knife that takes beatings day in and day out. The knife I would recommend for the money for a decent carry tool is going to be the Benchmade Griptilian, Mini Griptilian, or the Zero Tolerance ZT350. All these knives are a good size for your pocket or purse with the ZT350 being the biggest of the three. When it comes to thinking about a partially serrated or non serrated knife I believe this really depends on application. For someone who needs a daily carrier you're most likely not going to be cutting rope a lot. If that's the case I personally would go with a non serrated blade. If you do need the serration then obviously get a serrated blade.
For someone who needs a knife for day in day out beatings I recommend the Zero Tolerance ZT301, the bigger brother of the ZT350. Now this knife can and will take a lot of abuse but comes with a bigger price tag and a heftier size. The knives above are considered liner locked which means when opened the knife is locked in place by a lining metal on the inside of the handle. The ZT301 is frame locked which means it's locked by the frame of the handle when opened. The part that keeps it locked is machined titanium and the other side is a G10 material. This provides for an exceptionally strong locking mechanism where you don't ever have to worry about the knife closing during hard use.
Fixed Blades Now what about survival situations or even camping and backpacking trips? When it comes to times like these where you don't have to worry about the weight in your pocket you can afford to carry something bigger and stronger than a folding knife. This is when I recommend a fixed full tang knife over a folder but you should still carry a folding knife with you.
There are three different types of knives I believe you should have each with its own application. These don't take up that much room so they should be considered.
The "essential" knife you should have on you when out and about in the wilderness is the ESEE 3. This is the knife you're typically want to pull out for your regular needs around camp and the like. It will be much easier to use because of its smaller size but it can also take a beating.
The next knife I would say is optional but has a very good use for caping game when on a hunt and it's the ESEE Candiru. It's a small blade and can be utilized for intricate cuts that need something that is maneuverable.
With any of the knives made by ESEE you're going to want to take extra care of them because they're made of carbon steel. They've chosen this steel for it's strength and exceptional ability to keep an edge, carbon steel is often used in professional kitchen cutlery. The downside is that carbon steel can rust very easily if not taken care of so you're going to want to make sure this sucker is well oiled when not in use.
As with all knives you want to take care of them and not be dumb with them. Having said that you can probably try really hard to break these knives and will probably fail to do it. After a lot of use you're going to want to keep putting an edge on the blade to keep it continuously sharp. I'm obsessed with knives because there's so many different kinds available with all kinds of different handle materials and steel materials. I feel without spending hours and hours doing research these knives will do you just fine and will be able to keep up to any task you give them.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Firearms FTW!
I've decided to kind of deviate from my regular posts to give some more informational posts about different things I feel are useful. This will probably be a small series and if received well I'll continue. Although I'm no expert on firearms, knives, and survival I feel that I can at least give some insight on the subjects to better inform you. Hopefully for those of you that don't know all that much about these topics you'll gain at least a little bit of knowledge.
Aside from being the anarcho-capitalist that I am I feel that we should all be armed for self-defense, hunting, and survival. Although I don't find this list to be an extensive list of firearms you should own, I find that having these firearms in your collection will prove to be useful in many situations.
RIFLES When it comes to rifles I feel that there are three types of rifles you should have. The first two I'll talk about are pretty much interchangeable. You don't have to have both, you should have one, but both won't hurt. I feel that many of the experts would agree that an AR15 and/or a AK47 would be great firearms with many uses. The AR15 and AK47 have an abundance of cheap ammo available in 5.56 mm and 7.62x39 mm respectively. These firearms could come in handy for self-defense and hunting. For self-defense it is obvious that these semi-automatic weapons will be of great use to you. In a hunting application these firearms will prove very useful for hunting larger game at farther distances than the next rifle I'll be talking about. Either of these rifles will be able to take a beating and still perform when you need them to. As for brands for these rifles I can sit here naming my favorite brands and someone will come and say why this brand is better than the other. Your own research will lead you to a firearm of your liking, but remember you get what you pay for (for the most part). I built my AR15 from scratch from quality parts mostly to have a unique rifle, but if I had to recommend a pre-built AR15 I would take a look into Palmetto State Armory for their quality and price. I have not had much experience with AK47's but the Russian VEPR that I've shot is a damn good shooter and for the price not too bad. Of course your mileage may very.
The next rifle I find to be essential to any collection is a good ol' .22. What's the point of having such a small caliber rifle? It's pretty simple, for hunting and survival needs. When it comes down to having to pack up and get going you usually don't have unlimited amounts of space to carry with you. The beauty with such small bullets is it is relatively easy to carry a few thousand rounds in a pocket of a pack. These small bullets are great for small game and can even kill larger game with a well place shot to the head. A good shooting rifle will allow you to conserve your ammunition for a long time to come. The .22 rifle I would recommend is the Ruger 10-22 and now that they've come out with a take down model that is the one I would recommend the most. This take down model allows you to separate the barrel from the receiver and consolidate the rifle into a smaller package for carrying. Ruger is well known for making one of the longest lasting .22s on the market.
HANDGUNS Handguns have their place in any collection. For discreet carrying around the city or on a hike they are very useful for self-defense. In a survival situation they are best suited to "shooting your way to your rifle" because the rifles are much easier to use in a SHTF situation. When dealing with what kind of handgun you should carry you'll probably get an even bigger range of answers with everyone yelling why they're right and everyone else is wrong. I feel a good deal of research will again lead you to the handgun that is best suited for you. The most important aspect to think about is your ability to control the handgun safely and be able to shoot it accurately. Without having those two down it doesn't matter how much bigger your caliber is over your friends. Personally with semi-automatic handguns I'd stick to the 9mm, .40, and .45 caliber variety. With revolvers you can't go wrong with a .357 or .44. As of right now the two handguns I would have with me would be the Ruger SR40 and the Ruger SP101 in .357. Your mileage may vary with what you feel comfortable shooting so I suggest buying something and trying it or grab a friend with some guns and try theirs!
Hopefully you've learned at least one thing new by reading this and if not good for you you're probably very well prepared for many situations. If there's one thing I cannot stress enough about firearms though is that if you don't practice how to use them effectively they could very well become dead weight for you or even worse turned against you. If you decided that a firearm is for you, which it is, then you must take the necessary steps to be able to use one correctly so that innocent people aren't hurt by your negligence.
In any case, there's nothing like being able to take care of yourself and not having to depend on people that probably can't take care of you anyways.
My next post will be on knives, stay tuned!
Aside from being the anarcho-capitalist that I am I feel that we should all be armed for self-defense, hunting, and survival. Although I don't find this list to be an extensive list of firearms you should own, I find that having these firearms in your collection will prove to be useful in many situations.
RIFLES When it comes to rifles I feel that there are three types of rifles you should have. The first two I'll talk about are pretty much interchangeable. You don't have to have both, you should have one, but both won't hurt. I feel that many of the experts would agree that an AR15 and/or a AK47 would be great firearms with many uses. The AR15 and AK47 have an abundance of cheap ammo available in 5.56 mm and 7.62x39 mm respectively. These firearms could come in handy for self-defense and hunting. For self-defense it is obvious that these semi-automatic weapons will be of great use to you. In a hunting application these firearms will prove very useful for hunting larger game at farther distances than the next rifle I'll be talking about. Either of these rifles will be able to take a beating and still perform when you need them to. As for brands for these rifles I can sit here naming my favorite brands and someone will come and say why this brand is better than the other. Your own research will lead you to a firearm of your liking, but remember you get what you pay for (for the most part). I built my AR15 from scratch from quality parts mostly to have a unique rifle, but if I had to recommend a pre-built AR15 I would take a look into Palmetto State Armory for their quality and price. I have not had much experience with AK47's but the Russian VEPR that I've shot is a damn good shooter and for the price not too bad. Of course your mileage may very.
The next rifle I find to be essential to any collection is a good ol' .22. What's the point of having such a small caliber rifle? It's pretty simple, for hunting and survival needs. When it comes down to having to pack up and get going you usually don't have unlimited amounts of space to carry with you. The beauty with such small bullets is it is relatively easy to carry a few thousand rounds in a pocket of a pack. These small bullets are great for small game and can even kill larger game with a well place shot to the head. A good shooting rifle will allow you to conserve your ammunition for a long time to come. The .22 rifle I would recommend is the Ruger 10-22 and now that they've come out with a take down model that is the one I would recommend the most. This take down model allows you to separate the barrel from the receiver and consolidate the rifle into a smaller package for carrying. Ruger is well known for making one of the longest lasting .22s on the market.
HANDGUNS Handguns have their place in any collection. For discreet carrying around the city or on a hike they are very useful for self-defense. In a survival situation they are best suited to "shooting your way to your rifle" because the rifles are much easier to use in a SHTF situation. When dealing with what kind of handgun you should carry you'll probably get an even bigger range of answers with everyone yelling why they're right and everyone else is wrong. I feel a good deal of research will again lead you to the handgun that is best suited for you. The most important aspect to think about is your ability to control the handgun safely and be able to shoot it accurately. Without having those two down it doesn't matter how much bigger your caliber is over your friends. Personally with semi-automatic handguns I'd stick to the 9mm, .40, and .45 caliber variety. With revolvers you can't go wrong with a .357 or .44. As of right now the two handguns I would have with me would be the Ruger SR40 and the Ruger SP101 in .357. Your mileage may vary with what you feel comfortable shooting so I suggest buying something and trying it or grab a friend with some guns and try theirs!
Hopefully you've learned at least one thing new by reading this and if not good for you you're probably very well prepared for many situations. If there's one thing I cannot stress enough about firearms though is that if you don't practice how to use them effectively they could very well become dead weight for you or even worse turned against you. If you decided that a firearm is for you, which it is, then you must take the necessary steps to be able to use one correctly so that innocent people aren't hurt by your negligence.
In any case, there's nothing like being able to take care of yourself and not having to depend on people that probably can't take care of you anyways.
My next post will be on knives, stay tuned!
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
The State Is the Antithesis to Justice
In my posts I've attempted to map out the inner workings of a free society. I've attempted to give adequate accounts on private property, homesteading, and responding to criminal behavior. I've tried to show that a free society is not a utopian ideal but one that can work very well, or at least much better than any system of governance around today. But what is the point of writing on such things without making the endpoint of living in a truly just society. A free society is exactly that, a just society. I now plan to give an account on why every form of State "justice" is a farce.
There is no justice when the State exists.
Free market anarchists are often attacked on the efficacy of privately owned judicial and protective services. The attackers constantly claim that corruption will be widespread and only those well connected would benefit from such private services. I have no problem saying that this might occur in a free society, but there's no economic reasoning to believe this would be a widespread issue given such the fact of market competition.
It's precisely when monopoly privileges are given by the State when corruption occurs and there's no market competition to stop it. It's well known that judges and police are bribed by the very wealthy in order to get away with certain things. Inequality in justice then becomes obvious because the poor who cannot afford to bribe the judges and police are left to the side and end up being jailed for crimes other people can get away with. This is why the richest drug cartels get away with selling millions of dollars worth of drugs but the small drug peddler gets 20 years. This is why blacks are arrested and eventually imprisoned much more than whites, for the mere possession of drugs. This is not justice.
When this corruption is evident the only hope we have as individuals to curtail it is hope charges are brought against the corrupt, they resign, or hopefully replace them the next election cycle.
If this very same corruption were to occur in judicial/protective services in a free society individuals have a much stronger say in who will survive. Granted the corruption wouldn't be over drug issues but could happen in the cases of theft and the like.
When this corruption is evident we have a much greater arsenal to make sure it doesn't happen again. In any arbitration service there will likely be an appeal process if the the verdict was unfair, and would be your chance to achieve the correct verdict. This is an opportunity to show the corruption involved which would bring certain demise to the corrupt. Why? Well that's because once corruption is evident market forces will now come into play. People now knowing that that arbiter does not give fair and impartial opinions will no longer seek to purchase their services. Arbiters now have an economic interest aside from a moral one to seek fair decision or else they will no longer have a job. Naturally, the next attack would be to say that a monopoly of corrupt arbiters would be created to benefit the wealthy. Sure, but non-government granted monopolies do not last long because typically members of that cartel will see that more profit can be made by undercutting the agreed upon monopoly price. Even if this doesn't happen when monopolies aren't granted by the government someone outside of this cartel will see the ability to profit from undercutting and will do just that by offering fair and impartial arbitration.
Free markets are well known to produce products with better efficiency and better quality for any given product than the government can produce, judicial and protective services are no different.
The next big point is an attack on State run protective services and how they perform minimal amount of justice compared to their free market counterparts. There are two areas of concern I will discuss: police brutality and restitution.
Police brutality and wrongful murder is a widespread and well documented problem that occurs in America and I'm sure around the rest of the world. Now I will not claim that every police officer commits such heinous acts but it does happen and these people are usually protected. They're protected because of two reasons, they're backed by unions and they are not held liable to the same set of laws as citizens are. Unions make it practically impossible to fire bad cops when they do bad things. Cops that are caught doing these bad things are usually put on paid administrative leave. They are rewarded with paid vacation time for hurting innocent people! Had a regular citizen done the same to another citizen or even a cop the results would be much different, and it's because police are not held liable to the same set of laws we all are. If they were they would be much more consciences in their decisions since they too could be imprisoned for initiating force on innocent people. Police are also funded by taxes so no matter who does what they are still going to get their paycheck.
A private protection agency would act much differently when it comes to rendering their services. Protection agents would be MUCH less likely to be mean and hurtful to people. This is because those who hire them would want courteous employees to attract as many customers as possible. If customers saw Agency A hire mean people that constantly harassed individuals, they would not survive on the market for very long. Only those companies who go about rendering their services in a professional and courteous manner have a chance in surviving free market competition. Also, since in a free society all individuals are held liable to the same set of laws if a protection agent were to use force wrongfully he would become a criminal and tried as such. Motivated by profit earned from paying consumers protection agencies have economic reasoning to be courteous to individuals, for if they aren't other agencies will take hold of the profit incentive and fill the gap.
Restitution is another area that most people are not accustomed to hearing about, but was the prime way justice was given to victims of theft and the like long before the State instituted its own form of "justice".
Currently if someone steals your car or breaks in your house you do the routine of calling the cops. The cop then does a report and files it and all you can hope for is that they catch the criminal and or your insurance will replace the stolen goods. The police who are supposed to protect you from theft can only file reports and your stolen goods are usually gone forever. On top of that you have not only paid the police for their failed services of protection but you are still forced to continue to pay them even though your goods are gone, what kind of justice is that?
In a free market protective services would be tied to a kind of insurance contract. The protection agency would be paid not only to keep you safe but to make sure your goods are not stolen. What happens if your goods are stolen then? This is where the insurance contract comes into play. If the protection agency fails to keep your goods safe then they must indemnify you by replacing whatever is stolen. If your car or tv is stolen they must replace that car or tv. The protection agency now has an economic incentive to retrieve any stolen goods or else they have to shell out the extra costs of replacing stolen goods. It is a well known fact that insurance agencies today are much more efficient at finding stolen goods than the police can ever dream to be. Restitution is justice that can only be served by private protection agencies.
I hope to have shown how the State is a complete failure to providing for a just society and that it is in fact the exact opposite in its actions regardless of what its intentions are.
Therefore, we must accept that the only just society that can exist is a free society.
There is no justice when the State exists.
Free market anarchists are often attacked on the efficacy of privately owned judicial and protective services. The attackers constantly claim that corruption will be widespread and only those well connected would benefit from such private services. I have no problem saying that this might occur in a free society, but there's no economic reasoning to believe this would be a widespread issue given such the fact of market competition.
It's precisely when monopoly privileges are given by the State when corruption occurs and there's no market competition to stop it. It's well known that judges and police are bribed by the very wealthy in order to get away with certain things. Inequality in justice then becomes obvious because the poor who cannot afford to bribe the judges and police are left to the side and end up being jailed for crimes other people can get away with. This is why the richest drug cartels get away with selling millions of dollars worth of drugs but the small drug peddler gets 20 years. This is why blacks are arrested and eventually imprisoned much more than whites, for the mere possession of drugs. This is not justice.
When this corruption is evident the only hope we have as individuals to curtail it is hope charges are brought against the corrupt, they resign, or hopefully replace them the next election cycle.
If this very same corruption were to occur in judicial/protective services in a free society individuals have a much stronger say in who will survive. Granted the corruption wouldn't be over drug issues but could happen in the cases of theft and the like.
When this corruption is evident we have a much greater arsenal to make sure it doesn't happen again. In any arbitration service there will likely be an appeal process if the the verdict was unfair, and would be your chance to achieve the correct verdict. This is an opportunity to show the corruption involved which would bring certain demise to the corrupt. Why? Well that's because once corruption is evident market forces will now come into play. People now knowing that that arbiter does not give fair and impartial opinions will no longer seek to purchase their services. Arbiters now have an economic interest aside from a moral one to seek fair decision or else they will no longer have a job. Naturally, the next attack would be to say that a monopoly of corrupt arbiters would be created to benefit the wealthy. Sure, but non-government granted monopolies do not last long because typically members of that cartel will see that more profit can be made by undercutting the agreed upon monopoly price. Even if this doesn't happen when monopolies aren't granted by the government someone outside of this cartel will see the ability to profit from undercutting and will do just that by offering fair and impartial arbitration.
Free markets are well known to produce products with better efficiency and better quality for any given product than the government can produce, judicial and protective services are no different.
The next big point is an attack on State run protective services and how they perform minimal amount of justice compared to their free market counterparts. There are two areas of concern I will discuss: police brutality and restitution.
Police brutality and wrongful murder is a widespread and well documented problem that occurs in America and I'm sure around the rest of the world. Now I will not claim that every police officer commits such heinous acts but it does happen and these people are usually protected. They're protected because of two reasons, they're backed by unions and they are not held liable to the same set of laws as citizens are. Unions make it practically impossible to fire bad cops when they do bad things. Cops that are caught doing these bad things are usually put on paid administrative leave. They are rewarded with paid vacation time for hurting innocent people! Had a regular citizen done the same to another citizen or even a cop the results would be much different, and it's because police are not held liable to the same set of laws we all are. If they were they would be much more consciences in their decisions since they too could be imprisoned for initiating force on innocent people. Police are also funded by taxes so no matter who does what they are still going to get their paycheck.
A private protection agency would act much differently when it comes to rendering their services. Protection agents would be MUCH less likely to be mean and hurtful to people. This is because those who hire them would want courteous employees to attract as many customers as possible. If customers saw Agency A hire mean people that constantly harassed individuals, they would not survive on the market for very long. Only those companies who go about rendering their services in a professional and courteous manner have a chance in surviving free market competition. Also, since in a free society all individuals are held liable to the same set of laws if a protection agent were to use force wrongfully he would become a criminal and tried as such. Motivated by profit earned from paying consumers protection agencies have economic reasoning to be courteous to individuals, for if they aren't other agencies will take hold of the profit incentive and fill the gap.
Restitution is another area that most people are not accustomed to hearing about, but was the prime way justice was given to victims of theft and the like long before the State instituted its own form of "justice".
Currently if someone steals your car or breaks in your house you do the routine of calling the cops. The cop then does a report and files it and all you can hope for is that they catch the criminal and or your insurance will replace the stolen goods. The police who are supposed to protect you from theft can only file reports and your stolen goods are usually gone forever. On top of that you have not only paid the police for their failed services of protection but you are still forced to continue to pay them even though your goods are gone, what kind of justice is that?
In a free market protective services would be tied to a kind of insurance contract. The protection agency would be paid not only to keep you safe but to make sure your goods are not stolen. What happens if your goods are stolen then? This is where the insurance contract comes into play. If the protection agency fails to keep your goods safe then they must indemnify you by replacing whatever is stolen. If your car or tv is stolen they must replace that car or tv. The protection agency now has an economic incentive to retrieve any stolen goods or else they have to shell out the extra costs of replacing stolen goods. It is a well known fact that insurance agencies today are much more efficient at finding stolen goods than the police can ever dream to be. Restitution is justice that can only be served by private protection agencies.
I hope to have shown how the State is a complete failure to providing for a just society and that it is in fact the exact opposite in its actions regardless of what its intentions are.
Therefore, we must accept that the only just society that can exist is a free society.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Re: Secession & Nullification - Neo Confederates by Jaime Abeytia
Another local blogger which I've been told is followed by many in our city has come out with this ridiculous post.
I plan on rebutting every false claim he's made, which the whole post is nothing more than false claims.
I'll start with his first paragraph.
Nullification didn't go out of fashion, it is in fact being used today. What made it go away is the propaganda that it doesn't even exist. Go ahead and start a poll asking the average American what nullification is and you won't be surprised by the results.
In the same time period of Calhoun Jaime has decided to leave out other areas in which nullification was used. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a COMPROMISE (as Jaime likes to use) between the North and the South to return runaway slaves found in the North to the South. Vermont and Wisconsin finding that this Federal Law was unconstitutional effectively nullified it with jury nullification. This is where the slaves were tried in these states but the jury said they were not guilty because this federal law was no law at all. I suppose Jaime would approve of forcing these states to return slaves to the South? I sure hope not.
Going farther into our history we can see even more where Jaime claims secession and nullification as unpatriotic is just plain false. The founding of this country was based off nullification and secession from the tyrannical monarchy of England. Without this secession we wouldn't be the United States of America. So you're wrong Jaime, secession and nullification is as American as apple pie.
Even today nullification has been used to stop federal charges against people in marijuana cases, like in the great state of New Hampshire. I suppose Jaime would support the Federal Government jailing these people anyways even though they were shown to be not guilty?
Colorado and Washington have effectively nullified Federal drug laws and have made marijuana decriminalized in their states. I suppose Jaime would support Federal thugs(agents) arresting people for using marijuana?
I suppose Jaime also supports medical marijuana raids done to state licensed businesses offering products peacefully to those who are willing to purchase them?
I suppose Jaime is not as liberal as he thinks he may be.
Hell this statement alone shows Jaime is completely ignorant of the history and creation of this country. At the onset of our country it was well known that each state was a sovereign state. The Declaration of Independence notes, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government," You'd be a fool to believe that when writing this Jefferson thought only the colonies had a right to secede from the monarchy of England yet they wouldn't have this right under the newly formed government. Thomas Dilorenzo writes, "Secession or the threat of secession was always intended as a possible means of maintaining both the American union and constitutional government."
Your claims are backed by nothing Jaime.
The Federal Government isn't the boss of you, it only claims to be. State governments also aren't the bosses of you. Only you are the boss of you. I'm not sure what Jaime means by there aren't any limits to the extent of nullification. The only laws the state's want to nullify are the ones not explicitly granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government.
The only international relations we should be having with other countries is free trade.
We had a government that functioned when nullification was used and is still used today.
I'd like to see some facts showing that nullification is anti-constitutional.
As Jaime said he didn't want to dignify nullification with a post it was hard for me to dignify his post with a reply, but I had to. He's so lost when it comes to the history of our government and the checks and balances the people have against intrusive policy.
Jaime, I await your reply.
I plan on rebutting every false claim he's made, which the whole post is nothing more than false claims.
I'll start with his first paragraph.
(SIDEBAR - Apologies to my Libertarian friends on the right, but lets be honest. You are on the right. You aren't this perfect utopian mix of the best of Liberalism and the best of Conservatism. You are conservatives. You never hear of the Libertarian wing of the Democratic Party. You only hear of the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Why? Cuz you're Republicans essentially. Sorry, but someone has to say it.It is very strange to hear such things. My first question is how are we not a mix of Liberal and Conservative ideals? We are the greatest proponents of freedom. From the Liberal side we fight strong and hard for civil liberties like gay marriage, marijuana, and are against invasive policies like the PATRIOT ACT and the NDAA. From the Conservative side we fight equally for economic freedom like less taxes, less regulations, and less bureaucrats running our lives. Your failed attempt to label us falsely as Republicans only comes from the fact that Ron Paul has an R next to his name. Ron Paul isn't a Republican, we aren't Republicans, we believe in freedom that's it. There are "left-libertarians" by the way, they're called anarcho-syndicalists.
I know people want to romanticize the idea of nullification, an idea that went out of fashion more than a century and a half ago, but lets have a little fidelity to history shall we? John C. Calhoun and other people from the south used the idea to promote the further extension of slavery in the United States. But aside from reliving the Civil War, nullification represent the surrender of America. And its uniquely unpatriotic. Nullification is counter-productive to the greatest of American political values - COMPROMISE. You know, that silly little thing that was used to create this nation? Nullification says if I don't like a law, screw it, I don't have to follow it. It literally takes the United out of United States of America.
Nullification didn't go out of fashion, it is in fact being used today. What made it go away is the propaganda that it doesn't even exist. Go ahead and start a poll asking the average American what nullification is and you won't be surprised by the results.
In the same time period of Calhoun Jaime has decided to leave out other areas in which nullification was used. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a COMPROMISE (as Jaime likes to use) between the North and the South to return runaway slaves found in the North to the South. Vermont and Wisconsin finding that this Federal Law was unconstitutional effectively nullified it with jury nullification. This is where the slaves were tried in these states but the jury said they were not guilty because this federal law was no law at all. I suppose Jaime would approve of forcing these states to return slaves to the South? I sure hope not.
Going farther into our history we can see even more where Jaime claims secession and nullification as unpatriotic is just plain false. The founding of this country was based off nullification and secession from the tyrannical monarchy of England. Without this secession we wouldn't be the United States of America. So you're wrong Jaime, secession and nullification is as American as apple pie.
Even today nullification has been used to stop federal charges against people in marijuana cases, like in the great state of New Hampshire. I suppose Jaime would support the Federal Government jailing these people anyways even though they were shown to be not guilty?
Colorado and Washington have effectively nullified Federal drug laws and have made marijuana decriminalized in their states. I suppose Jaime would support Federal thugs(agents) arresting people for using marijuana?
I suppose Jaime also supports medical marijuana raids done to state licensed businesses offering products peacefully to those who are willing to purchase them?
I suppose Jaime is not as liberal as he thinks he may be.
Hell nullification would essentially create 50 little kingdoms off doing their own thing with only a loose association with one another. Oh great, the Americas version of the European Union.
Hell this statement alone shows Jaime is completely ignorant of the history and creation of this country. At the onset of our country it was well known that each state was a sovereign state. The Declaration of Independence notes, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government," You'd be a fool to believe that when writing this Jefferson thought only the colonies had a right to secede from the monarchy of England yet they wouldn't have this right under the newly formed government. Thomas Dilorenzo writes, "Secession or the threat of secession was always intended as a possible means of maintaining both the American union and constitutional government."
Your claims are backed by nothing Jaime.
And don't give me this crap that nullification is only for when the feds over-step their bounds. Who decides if they over-step their bounds. And oh by the way, we already have a solution for that...its called the Supreme Court. You remember the judicial branch of government right? Its that branch of government created through...wait for it...COMPROMISE! Nullification is predicated on the idea that the federal government is not the boss of me. So by definition, there is really no limit to the extent of nullification. Which makes people who believe that is a rational solution for America, the Mayor of Crazytown! And don't get me started on international relations. The US would not be able to speak with foreign governments as though it speaks with one voice when there are 50 little kingdoms.Nullification is the weapon needed when the Supreme Court decides un-Constitutional laws are Constitutional. You'd be crazy to think that a Federally appointed set of life tenured men and women have any interest in reducing their own power. When the Supreme Court fails to do their job, which happens all the time, nullification is the only weapon we the people have left in our arsenal.
The Federal Government isn't the boss of you, it only claims to be. State governments also aren't the bosses of you. Only you are the boss of you. I'm not sure what Jaime means by there aren't any limits to the extent of nullification. The only laws the state's want to nullify are the ones not explicitly granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government.
The only international relations we should be having with other countries is free trade.
You can't have a government that is being undermined by what constituted the government in the first place. Nullification is anti-constitutional.
We had a government that functioned when nullification was used and is still used today.
I'd like to see some facts showing that nullification is anti-constitutional.
As Jaime said he didn't want to dignify nullification with a post it was hard for me to dignify his post with a reply, but I had to. He's so lost when it comes to the history of our government and the checks and balances the people have against intrusive policy.
Jaime, I await your reply.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
State Secession? No, Individual Secession.
In wake of all the commotion about having individual states secede from the union to stop the great evils of the Federal Government, I think many are completely missing the point and the history that goes along with it.
I disagree with those that call sympathizers of state secession foolish or traitors. It should be obvious that secession is as American as apple pie is. It should be obvious that the Founding Fathers of this country seceded from a tyrannical monarchy. In a sense those who want to rip off the hands of the Federal Government are in original terms true Patriots.
This is where my sympathy for "pro-secessionists" stops.
It is not because I believe we shouldn't rip off the hands of the Federal Government. It is not because I believe the Federal Government isn't doing its "job". It is most certainly not because I believe we don't need a Federal Government to live our lives.
You surely shouldn't be surprised when I say my sympathy stops because those who favor secession merely want to replace one form of government with another. Sure, the intentions are all well and good but what has history shown us?
The Founding Fathers wanted to replace a tyrannical Monarchy with a "limited government" in order to safeguard the liberties of the citizens in the new territories. This was done with The Articles of Confederation and then ultimately the Constitution. These intentions were all well and good as well, but one very important problem was never really curtailed from the beginning. This is the issuance of power by one class of individuals (politicians, presidents, judges) over another class of individuals (not politicians, presidents, judges).
The Constitution didn't limit any powers a Federal Government could have over us it CREATED the powers it could have over individuals without the consent of individuals. These powers, however limited their intentions, have ultimately led us to where we are now and our disgust of the Federal Government.
Ending the rant about the Federal Government our own American history has shown the path the secessionists are eventually to follow. For if they were to successfully secede from the Union and create a new "limited government" history will repeat itself.
The process of creating a new government will not fix problems. It's a common saying that government doesn't fix problems it creates them. You can't expect any government to fix social issues, the economy, or anything else for that matter.
Thus the individuals of the states are foolish to believe they have any chance of being more free just by giving a new form of government power. They are foolish to believe creating a separate class, however limited they may wish to believe, to have power over them will not become as tyrannical as the very government they're trying to escape from.
What is my advice to those that promote state secession? Abandon that cause for it is truly futile. Instead promote a different type of secession. A secession that the Federal Government will have much more trouble stopping than it would with state secession. A secession that creates no classes based on power.
Promote secession from all forms of government for individual secession from the State is the only way to obtain a truly free and just world.
I disagree with those that call sympathizers of state secession foolish or traitors. It should be obvious that secession is as American as apple pie is. It should be obvious that the Founding Fathers of this country seceded from a tyrannical monarchy. In a sense those who want to rip off the hands of the Federal Government are in original terms true Patriots.
This is where my sympathy for "pro-secessionists" stops.
It is not because I believe we shouldn't rip off the hands of the Federal Government. It is not because I believe the Federal Government isn't doing its "job". It is most certainly not because I believe we don't need a Federal Government to live our lives.
You surely shouldn't be surprised when I say my sympathy stops because those who favor secession merely want to replace one form of government with another. Sure, the intentions are all well and good but what has history shown us?
The Founding Fathers wanted to replace a tyrannical Monarchy with a "limited government" in order to safeguard the liberties of the citizens in the new territories. This was done with The Articles of Confederation and then ultimately the Constitution. These intentions were all well and good as well, but one very important problem was never really curtailed from the beginning. This is the issuance of power by one class of individuals (politicians, presidents, judges) over another class of individuals (not politicians, presidents, judges).
The Constitution didn't limit any powers a Federal Government could have over us it CREATED the powers it could have over individuals without the consent of individuals. These powers, however limited their intentions, have ultimately led us to where we are now and our disgust of the Federal Government.
Ending the rant about the Federal Government our own American history has shown the path the secessionists are eventually to follow. For if they were to successfully secede from the Union and create a new "limited government" history will repeat itself.
The process of creating a new government will not fix problems. It's a common saying that government doesn't fix problems it creates them. You can't expect any government to fix social issues, the economy, or anything else for that matter.
Thus the individuals of the states are foolish to believe they have any chance of being more free just by giving a new form of government power. They are foolish to believe creating a separate class, however limited they may wish to believe, to have power over them will not become as tyrannical as the very government they're trying to escape from.
What is my advice to those that promote state secession? Abandon that cause for it is truly futile. Instead promote a different type of secession. A secession that the Federal Government will have much more trouble stopping than it would with state secession. A secession that creates no classes based on power.
Promote secession from all forms of government for individual secession from the State is the only way to obtain a truly free and just world.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
On Voluntary Slavery
Many of the what would seem to be small parts of the Libertarian philosophy where there doesn't seem to be much discussion. There's one idea that, to me, can have very grave consequences and that's the idea of the possibility of voluntarily choosing to become a slave. Two of the questions that are argued over are as follows:
1) Can one sell himself in a contract? i.e. Is the self-ownership of your body alienable?
and
2) Are contracts of voluntary slavery enforceable? i.e. If the "slave" at some future points decides he no longer wants to be a "slave", can the "owner" of the "slave" use force to enforce the voluntarily made contract?
There are many Libertarian scholars that are in the debate of the possibility of people choosing to be slaves or not. The two I will consider here, that I believe bring the most to the argument, are Murray Rothbard and Walter Block. Rothbard has said,
Block on the other hand contends that voluntary slavery is not only permissible within Libertarian Philosophy it is essential for making an internally consistent system-
Block goes further to say,
It should be noted that I highly respect the opinions and writings of both of these individuals. Rothbard, when alive, at the top of the Libertarian pole and now Block very near, if not there already. I believe both bring great points to the argument and that both should be highly considered when coming to your own conclusions.
Next we shall investigate how each of the arguments attempt to answer the questions posed above.
Rothbard holds that it is impossible to sell the "self-ownership" of one's body because no matter what contract is made that person is still in complete control of their body. They just choose to follow the orders of some person, but the choice is still there's and not the choice of the owners. Following this the second question becomes very easy to answer. Since the will and/or self-ownership of yourself cannot be transferred through any means the contract is null and void from the get go, therefor force would be illegitimate in the enforcement.
Block very ingeniously points out that how can you possibly say you own something without the ability to sell it?2 If "own" a piece of land but cannot sell it then I really don't own it because I can't do what I want with it, so long as I don't infringe on the rights of others with its very use! It then follows that since if you do really own yourself then you can sell yourself. If you can legally sell yourself then any contract in which you transferred said property it as enforceable as any other contract, therefor the slave owner could use force to enforce this contract.
I find it very important to distinguish the types of contracts that are enforceable. Rothbard is correct in stating that the only contracts that are enforceable are to be those where transfer of title can be done. So then why cannot a man decide to be someone slaves for the transfer of 1 million dollars, perhaps in order to save the life of his dying son as Block mentions?
Perhaps I fail to see the distinction in Rothbard's argument between the use of the will now as to the use of the will in the future. For I might voluntarily agree to take out a loan now and say in some future time I will pay it back. But can I not say in the future I no longer want to pay it back, and since I still have the use of my will it then becomes not voluntary? This would be an obvious act of theft from the bank and should I should be forced to pay if I choose not to. But if I accept the 1 million dollars for my enslavement, and no longer have it, then decide to no longer be a slave is this not also a case of theft?
I concede that a mere promise is not an enforceable contract. If I promise to give you 100 dollars tomorrow you cannot force me to do so because initially no title transfer has happened. If this is true, then me merely promising you to be your slave is also not enforceable.
I believe Block to be correct with one caveat. If I take the 1 million dollars for the enslavement and at a later date decide to run away I have stolen. But for the same loan I have made voluntarily that I choose not to pay at some future point the bank has no right into making me their slave.
The caveat lies here, where I believe we can in a way combine Block's and Rothbard's respective analyses.
Since this is not merely a promise of slavery and it is in fact an actual transfer of title force could be justified to amend the situation. They key lies in answering the second question that was posed above. Should the slave owner be allowed to use force to continue the enslavement?
Now, finally, for that caveat. Here I agree with Rothbard, that force should NOT be used to enforce the enslavement unless there's no other way in which to repay the original owner. That is why I disagree with Block on the account that IF the slave COULD repay the owner by returning to whatever work he pleased this should be done.
So, you can contractually become a slave and transfer title. If at some later date you decide you do not want to become a slave the will and control of your body allows you to do so. But this comes with the consequence of paying back the slave owner for whatever time you owe.
Perhaps this is exactly what both are saying though and if so I hope to have at least given you a thorough analysis on the possibility of voluntary slavery, one in which you can come up with your own conclusions.
1Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty, pp. 40-41
2Block,TOWARD A LIBERTARIAN THEORY OF INALIENABILITY: A CRITIQUE OF ROTHBARD, BARNETT, SMITH, KINSELLA, ORDON, AND EPSTEIN
1) Can one sell himself in a contract? i.e. Is the self-ownership of your body alienable?
and
2) Are contracts of voluntary slavery enforceable? i.e. If the "slave" at some future points decides he no longer wants to be a "slave", can the "owner" of the "slave" use force to enforce the voluntarily made contract?
There are many Libertarian scholars that are in the debate of the possibility of people choosing to be slaves or not. The two I will consider here, that I believe bring the most to the argument, are Murray Rothbard and Walter Block. Rothbard has said,
The distinction between a man’s alienable labor service and his inalienable will may be further explained; a man can alienate his labor service, but he cannot sell the capitalized future value of that service. In short, he cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced—for this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance. In short, a man can naturally expend his labor currently for someone else’s benefit, but he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man’s permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement. The concept of “voluntary slavery” is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master’s will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary.1
Block on the other hand contends that voluntary slavery is not only permissible within Libertarian Philosophy it is essential for making an internally consistent system-
by showing that contract, predicated on private property reach to the furthest realms of human interaction, even to voluntary slave contracts.2
Block goes further to say,
The underlying point of the libertarian critique is that if I own something, I can sell it (and should be allowed by law to do so). If I can’t sell it, then, and to that extent, I really don’t own it. Take my own liberty as perhaps the paradigm case of the debate over inalienability. The claim is that if I really own my liberty, then I should be free to dispose of it as I please, even if, by so doing, I end up no longer owning it.2
It should be noted that I highly respect the opinions and writings of both of these individuals. Rothbard, when alive, at the top of the Libertarian pole and now Block very near, if not there already. I believe both bring great points to the argument and that both should be highly considered when coming to your own conclusions.
Next we shall investigate how each of the arguments attempt to answer the questions posed above.
Rothbard holds that it is impossible to sell the "self-ownership" of one's body because no matter what contract is made that person is still in complete control of their body. They just choose to follow the orders of some person, but the choice is still there's and not the choice of the owners. Following this the second question becomes very easy to answer. Since the will and/or self-ownership of yourself cannot be transferred through any means the contract is null and void from the get go, therefor force would be illegitimate in the enforcement.
Block very ingeniously points out that how can you possibly say you own something without the ability to sell it?2 If "own" a piece of land but cannot sell it then I really don't own it because I can't do what I want with it, so long as I don't infringe on the rights of others with its very use! It then follows that since if you do really own yourself then you can sell yourself. If you can legally sell yourself then any contract in which you transferred said property it as enforceable as any other contract, therefor the slave owner could use force to enforce this contract.
I find it very important to distinguish the types of contracts that are enforceable. Rothbard is correct in stating that the only contracts that are enforceable are to be those where transfer of title can be done. So then why cannot a man decide to be someone slaves for the transfer of 1 million dollars, perhaps in order to save the life of his dying son as Block mentions?
Perhaps I fail to see the distinction in Rothbard's argument between the use of the will now as to the use of the will in the future. For I might voluntarily agree to take out a loan now and say in some future time I will pay it back. But can I not say in the future I no longer want to pay it back, and since I still have the use of my will it then becomes not voluntary? This would be an obvious act of theft from the bank and should I should be forced to pay if I choose not to. But if I accept the 1 million dollars for my enslavement, and no longer have it, then decide to no longer be a slave is this not also a case of theft?
I concede that a mere promise is not an enforceable contract. If I promise to give you 100 dollars tomorrow you cannot force me to do so because initially no title transfer has happened. If this is true, then me merely promising you to be your slave is also not enforceable.
I believe Block to be correct with one caveat. If I take the 1 million dollars for the enslavement and at a later date decide to run away I have stolen. But for the same loan I have made voluntarily that I choose not to pay at some future point the bank has no right into making me their slave.
The caveat lies here, where I believe we can in a way combine Block's and Rothbard's respective analyses.
Since this is not merely a promise of slavery and it is in fact an actual transfer of title force could be justified to amend the situation. They key lies in answering the second question that was posed above. Should the slave owner be allowed to use force to continue the enslavement?
Now, finally, for that caveat. Here I agree with Rothbard, that force should NOT be used to enforce the enslavement unless there's no other way in which to repay the original owner. That is why I disagree with Block on the account that IF the slave COULD repay the owner by returning to whatever work he pleased this should be done.
So, you can contractually become a slave and transfer title. If at some later date you decide you do not want to become a slave the will and control of your body allows you to do so. But this comes with the consequence of paying back the slave owner for whatever time you owe.
Perhaps this is exactly what both are saying though and if so I hope to have at least given you a thorough analysis on the possibility of voluntary slavery, one in which you can come up with your own conclusions.
1Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty, pp. 40-41
2Block,TOWARD A LIBERTARIAN THEORY OF INALIENABILITY: A CRITIQUE OF ROTHBARD, BARNETT, SMITH, KINSELLA, ORDON, AND EPSTEIN
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
The Philosophy of Liberty
In an interesting turn of events I've found myself rejoined with an old friend. Apart from the usual hoopla of discussing my own beliefs of liberty, the only one might I add, with my usual group of the New Mexico State chapter of Young Americans for Liberty who are fellow libertarians I dwindled into a group of young philosophizers. It's interesting because with my typical group of Constitutional Libertarians I have quite the task at hand already denouncing the State in general. With the new group of students who study ethics, morality, and logic I've encountered a whole new obstacle in not only believing my own beliefs but being able to give a coherent and logical defense of the beliefs, something I strive to do and something I hope is the reason you read my posts.
Being an engineering student I don't have the ability to take formal classes in philosophy like I'd like to, so discussing at lengths the beliefs of liberty with these people have opened my eyes to new ideas. Something I'm more then joyful to receive as I love nothing more than to learn.
As most of you, which also includes me, have probably done is flow down from listening to Ron Paul, learning about what he talks about, start dwelling into Austrian Economics, and finally Anarcho-Capitalism. For me the next step has been trying to define the ethics involved for showing liberty to be the right path. Then after this is defining from the nitty gritty of philosophy, the logical arguments for that ethic.
For many of you reading the idea of Self-Ownership, the axiom of which our philosophy is based off, is obvious. Even many of the scrutinizing philosophers have no problem admitting Self-Ownership is probably true. But Self-Ownership DOESN'T tell us WHY murder, theft, and general aggression is wrong. It can only say it is wrong because if you use force on another person you've impeded on their right to Self-Ownership, which begs the question. When we discuss murder and theft it is usually obvious to everyone that it is wrong, but there is no defense to why it is wrong. Just because Self-Ownership is it doesn't follow that because of that we ought to not murder and steal.
So does this incompatibility necessarily dictate that we are wrong? Does Self-ownership then not give us a way to show how we should interact with other?
To me the answer is no, for if I claimed it did I probably wouldn't be writing this.
Then how can we use the axiom of Self-Ownership to bring about the ideas of our philosophy?
Now I am no philosophizer by any means, and I'm not trying to be, but Self-Ownership still holds. For you to even deny the existence of Self-Ownership you must control your body to make that claim.1 Although I still don't believe it holds why things should be, it gives us a rational starting point to how we should act.
This is why Self-Ownership is an axiom, it is the starting point that cannot be taken as false because your act of attempting to negate it implies Self-Ownership. Since it is true we can then deduce from it our philosophy of liberty. We say this should be the way we live because if not then as Murray Rothbard puts it, "the human race will cease to exist", and no such discourse could continue to occur. It is enough, at least for me, to say that since if we don't act in accordance to the principles of liberty bad things ensue for everyone regardless of why man should follow such principles.
So when we try to explain why to non-libertarians that liberty is the right choice or to non-anarchist libertarians why the State is wrong it's not because we can't explain the validity of our claims to be morally true or false, but that if we don't accept the path of liberty and the removal of the State we will all be worse off.
To continue my journey into the philosophy of liberty my next book is going to be a book by the formidable logician Gerard Casey, Libertarian Anarchy. Here is the review from the Mises Academy by David Gordon. I urge you to start reading these types of books not only to further understand the principles but to be able to argue for them effectively.
1Argumentation Ethics- Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Being an engineering student I don't have the ability to take formal classes in philosophy like I'd like to, so discussing at lengths the beliefs of liberty with these people have opened my eyes to new ideas. Something I'm more then joyful to receive as I love nothing more than to learn.
As most of you, which also includes me, have probably done is flow down from listening to Ron Paul, learning about what he talks about, start dwelling into Austrian Economics, and finally Anarcho-Capitalism. For me the next step has been trying to define the ethics involved for showing liberty to be the right path. Then after this is defining from the nitty gritty of philosophy, the logical arguments for that ethic.
For many of you reading the idea of Self-Ownership, the axiom of which our philosophy is based off, is obvious. Even many of the scrutinizing philosophers have no problem admitting Self-Ownership is probably true. But Self-Ownership DOESN'T tell us WHY murder, theft, and general aggression is wrong. It can only say it is wrong because if you use force on another person you've impeded on their right to Self-Ownership, which begs the question. When we discuss murder and theft it is usually obvious to everyone that it is wrong, but there is no defense to why it is wrong. Just because Self-Ownership is it doesn't follow that because of that we ought to not murder and steal.
So does this incompatibility necessarily dictate that we are wrong? Does Self-ownership then not give us a way to show how we should interact with other?
To me the answer is no, for if I claimed it did I probably wouldn't be writing this.
Then how can we use the axiom of Self-Ownership to bring about the ideas of our philosophy?
Now I am no philosophizer by any means, and I'm not trying to be, but Self-Ownership still holds. For you to even deny the existence of Self-Ownership you must control your body to make that claim.1 Although I still don't believe it holds why things should be, it gives us a rational starting point to how we should act.
This is why Self-Ownership is an axiom, it is the starting point that cannot be taken as false because your act of attempting to negate it implies Self-Ownership. Since it is true we can then deduce from it our philosophy of liberty. We say this should be the way we live because if not then as Murray Rothbard puts it, "the human race will cease to exist", and no such discourse could continue to occur. It is enough, at least for me, to say that since if we don't act in accordance to the principles of liberty bad things ensue for everyone regardless of why man should follow such principles.
So when we try to explain why to non-libertarians that liberty is the right choice or to non-anarchist libertarians why the State is wrong it's not because we can't explain the validity of our claims to be morally true or false, but that if we don't accept the path of liberty and the removal of the State we will all be worse off.
To continue my journey into the philosophy of liberty my next book is going to be a book by the formidable logician Gerard Casey, Libertarian Anarchy. Here is the review from the Mises Academy by David Gordon. I urge you to start reading these types of books not only to further understand the principles but to be able to argue for them effectively.
1Argumentation Ethics- Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
A peaceful rEVOLution is the only rEVOLution worth doing.
For most of us the goal of our discussions, blog posts, REAL debates, and back and forth bickering is education. The reasons I write and participate with local groups is because I hope to give some knowledge and insight to free society thought. If I have reached but only one mind and made that mind think for itself, question the status quo, and question the State then I truly believe I have been successful. Through my writings and through my hopeful education of others then my ultimate goal is to begin the revolution against the State and dissolve it completely.
This definitely is NOT to say that we need a violent overthrow of our current government. This has to be perfectly clear for those of us that want a free society. Why? One, because it would be an illegitimate use of aggression on our part which goes against our very foundation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Two, a violent attempt would most likely fail completely even if it were morally permissible. And three it would only justify extending the tyranny that is already held over us. I don't even really care about the latter two because the first is everything I need to understand violence isn't the answer.
Some might argue that since the State, or the individuals in control of the apparatus, have aggressed on individual rights they have lost their rights and therefor violent force would be legitimate. But we must remember that there is proportionality in the recourse one can make when aggressed upon. Rothbard has mentioned that if a person has stolen a stick of bubble gum from the store and the store owner shoots the person claiming his rights were infringed upon, the store owner himself is now the criminal. This is because when committing an act you only lose UP TO the rights you have infringed upon. If you have stolen a stick of bubble gum you should obviously repay the cost of that stick and most likely an extra stick which comes from common law. Proportionality obviously shows it would be wrong to kill the stealer.
So, although I agree are rights as individuals have been infringed upon a violent overthrow surely cannot be justified.
If a violent overthrow cannot possibly be justified the only other recourse we have is an intellectual rEVOLution.
"The pen is mightier than the sword."
Our ideas and convincing others to accept our ideas is the only way we can become free. Once people start realizing the evils of the State we can begin a complete system of ignoring the State. Once the masses have ignored the State's coercion it will no longer exist.
As this will obviously take time our objective now is to continue to discuss, continue to read, continue to blog, and continue to bicker.
In order to be completely free you must be able to think for yourself, never stop learning and never stop spreading what you learn.
This definitely is NOT to say that we need a violent overthrow of our current government. This has to be perfectly clear for those of us that want a free society. Why? One, because it would be an illegitimate use of aggression on our part which goes against our very foundation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Two, a violent attempt would most likely fail completely even if it were morally permissible. And three it would only justify extending the tyranny that is already held over us. I don't even really care about the latter two because the first is everything I need to understand violence isn't the answer.
Some might argue that since the State, or the individuals in control of the apparatus, have aggressed on individual rights they have lost their rights and therefor violent force would be legitimate. But we must remember that there is proportionality in the recourse one can make when aggressed upon. Rothbard has mentioned that if a person has stolen a stick of bubble gum from the store and the store owner shoots the person claiming his rights were infringed upon, the store owner himself is now the criminal. This is because when committing an act you only lose UP TO the rights you have infringed upon. If you have stolen a stick of bubble gum you should obviously repay the cost of that stick and most likely an extra stick which comes from common law. Proportionality obviously shows it would be wrong to kill the stealer.
So, although I agree are rights as individuals have been infringed upon a violent overthrow surely cannot be justified.
If a violent overthrow cannot possibly be justified the only other recourse we have is an intellectual rEVOLution.
"The pen is mightier than the sword."
Our ideas and convincing others to accept our ideas is the only way we can become free. Once people start realizing the evils of the State we can begin a complete system of ignoring the State. Once the masses have ignored the State's coercion it will no longer exist.
As this will obviously take time our objective now is to continue to discuss, continue to read, continue to blog, and continue to bicker.
In order to be completely free you must be able to think for yourself, never stop learning and never stop spreading what you learn.
Fallacious "rights"
As I've mentioned in a previous post about the idea that freedom of speech as a right is a farce I've decided to extend this to other common fallacious claims about certain "rights" people claim to have. This is not to say that we don't possess any rights as humans but that we cannot just claim to have certain rights because we think we have those rights.
So then what rights do we actually have?
To keep this short and move on to farce rights the rights we have stem from self-ownership of our bodies. These are our property rights which extend from our body to our labor to the land from which our labor was mixed with. If it is only ourselves who can claim ownership over our body than it would be illegitimate and wrong for someone to try to claim ownership over your body and thus claim ownership of your labor or land from which your labor was mixed with.
Since you own yourself and it would be wrong for someone to force you to do something it follows that you then have the right to your own life and the right to live free of coercion so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.
The only rights you have then are over tangible objects like your body and objects you have legitimately obtained or not coerced from someone else.
So this leads us to talk about a couple of "rights" people commonly claim we have but actually don't.
Intellectual Property (IP) Rights:
IP is probably one of the biggest issues that many libertarians argue to the teeth over. Many believe that IP is legitimate property and therefor you have a right over that property. The problem thus becomes convincing these people, libertarians and non-libertarians, that IP is not actually property. As I've mentioned here property is a scarce physical object that no two people could possibly claim ownership at once. If you both could claim ownership to it at once then there would be no need to have property laws, i.e. the air we breath. Ideas are not tangible objects that are scarce. Ideas can be owned by multiple people at the same time. Ideas fail every test of what property is. Some will say that "well if we don't have IP then people won't produce because there's no incentive since someone can just sell their idea that they came up with and worked so hard on." Even if this were fact the utilitarian justification falls short at explaining why we should use force on other people who want to implement the same idea with their own legitimately obtained property. By imposing IP laws you are infringing on the natural rights of people. If an inventor is so worried about his idea being made public then he has one legitimate way of keeping his secret from people, keeping it in his head.
Right to a job/wage:
This is often yelled by those on the Left, socialists, and union workers. That for some reason we are entitled to a job and/or a certain wage. It could be that you are entitled to a job with a minimum wage based off an arbitrary number or off what people consider a living wage, where you get paid enough to live relative to the area you live in. Although it is true that you do have the right to attempt to obtain said job with whatever wage you do not have the right to force someone to give it to you. If you are using force to infringe on the rights of others you cannot possibly claim that your aim is a certain right.
Education:
This is another common "right" that the Left and socialists love to spew. For the very same reason as a job you don't have the right to an education. You do have the right to pursue an education but you in no way have the right to force someone into giving you an education.
Welfare:
The next issue the Left and socialists claim as rights is general welfare. For those that don't work or fully work are somehow entitled to things that work would give them. Housing and food are obvious examples of welfare that are given to the poor. Although a noble cause for sure helping the poor doesn't give the poor a right to such things. That is because they must be financed through force i.e. taxation. No one has the right to steal from another person for themselves or for the appropriation of others. I will also contend that doing this actually hurts the poor more than it helps them. But even if it did help them more than it hurts them the logic doesn't hold, for when illegitimate force is used to obtain a "right" it is no right at all.
Gun/Gay/Women/Children/Ethnic/Relgious Rights:
Now I lump all these into one big group that both the Right and the Left fight so dearly for. The first mistake is to believe that certain groups of individuals have rights. This type of collectivism is misleading and leads to completely wrong conclusions about the essence of rights. Each of these groups have the same characteristic though that is often overlooked, that is they all comprise of only individuals. So it is not to say that since groups don't have rights you don't have a right to guns, to being treated equally regardless of sexual preference, sex, and ethnicity, or to practice or non-practice of a religion. It's exactly that since the group comprises of individuals each individual has individual rights that cannot be infringed upon. As an individual you have the right to obtain (legitimately) guns, to be treated the same as all other individuals, and to pursue spiritually whatever you want. I don't often quote Ayn Rand but she hit the nail on the head when she said this about minorities, "The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
Now it's especially interesting to talk about rights that are refused to us even though they are rights. Here are a few...
Libel/Slander:
We currently have laws against certain types of speech. Libel and slander are perfect examples of where force will be used to censor your ability to speak. Now in my post about freedom of speech it's not really a right. What you do have a right to do though is express what you want as long as it's on your own property, printed in a newspaper that you can give away or sell, or rent a hall to give a lecture about. Now just because I have said something that is false and malicious towards you doesn't mean you have some right to stop me from saying it. Since I own my body and anything that comes from it I can say whatever I please, so long as I don't infringe on your rights. The only way I would infringe on your rights by speaking is by entering your property and speaking after you've told me to stop. In order for your rights to be infringed upon by my speech then your actual property must be transgressed upon. My actual lie about you does not infringe on your property and the only legitimate recourse you have is to ignore it or produce a counterargument.
Blackmail:
Blackmail is another right that has been taken away by the State. If A knows something about B that B doesn't want people to know A cannot ask for compensation from B to keep the secret. Even if B believes that the cost of paying A is worth less compared to the secret going out, making it a mutually beneficial transaction between A and B. A could go and just tell everyone about the secret though as long as he doesn't ask for compensation, this hardly makes sense. The justification used for the illegality of blackmail is based on the reputation that is "owned" by the person being blackmailed. But as Murray Rothbard and Walter Block have both pointed out is that reputations aren't owned by the person being judged, they are owned by the people who are doing the judging. Since the person cannot claim ownership over his reputation the justification falls on its face.
Bribes:
Now bribes is a little more tricky to understand and I go with Rothbard's train of though on this, which he talks about in The Ethics of Liberty. There is nothing wrong, in a legal sense, to offer someone a bribe in order to get something. You have not violated natural laws by giving someone 100,000$ to favor my product over another. In the example of DJ's who have a contract to play the music that best fits the taste of the consumers there's nothing wrong with me giving him 100,000$ to play the type of music I'd like him to play. The illegality does come into play when the DJ has, by contract, stated he would only play what best suited the consumers. Now, by playing music outside of this scope he has not only broken his contract but deprived the ability of other music to be played even though they paid and agreed to the same contract as everyone else.
Insider Trading:
Now insider trading is something we don't really hear much about but I think it is definitely worth mentioning. What is the justification for making it illegal to tell someone something you know about a company and for that person to act on it? I really don't think there is one other than well it's not fair because not everyone is privy to that information. Well what kind of justification is that? People make investments, which are inherent with risk, without fully knowing what's going to happen. People make or don't make investments because they think there is or isn't going to be a return. Someone might have made a large investment into Product A but little did they know Product B was about to be released that would destroy the value of Product A. Well, then by the same logic, since that person wasn't privy to the information that Product B would make his investment a net loss shouldn't we stop the bringing of Product B to the market? Obviously the answer should be no. So just because not everyone knows about the information can you justify the use of force on someone to stop them from investing in whichever way they like based off whatever reasoning they have or don't have.
So then what rights do we actually have?
To keep this short and move on to farce rights the rights we have stem from self-ownership of our bodies. These are our property rights which extend from our body to our labor to the land from which our labor was mixed with. If it is only ourselves who can claim ownership over our body than it would be illegitimate and wrong for someone to try to claim ownership over your body and thus claim ownership of your labor or land from which your labor was mixed with.
Since you own yourself and it would be wrong for someone to force you to do something it follows that you then have the right to your own life and the right to live free of coercion so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.
The only rights you have then are over tangible objects like your body and objects you have legitimately obtained or not coerced from someone else.
So this leads us to talk about a couple of "rights" people commonly claim we have but actually don't.
Intellectual Property (IP) Rights:
IP is probably one of the biggest issues that many libertarians argue to the teeth over. Many believe that IP is legitimate property and therefor you have a right over that property. The problem thus becomes convincing these people, libertarians and non-libertarians, that IP is not actually property. As I've mentioned here property is a scarce physical object that no two people could possibly claim ownership at once. If you both could claim ownership to it at once then there would be no need to have property laws, i.e. the air we breath. Ideas are not tangible objects that are scarce. Ideas can be owned by multiple people at the same time. Ideas fail every test of what property is. Some will say that "well if we don't have IP then people won't produce because there's no incentive since someone can just sell their idea that they came up with and worked so hard on." Even if this were fact the utilitarian justification falls short at explaining why we should use force on other people who want to implement the same idea with their own legitimately obtained property. By imposing IP laws you are infringing on the natural rights of people. If an inventor is so worried about his idea being made public then he has one legitimate way of keeping his secret from people, keeping it in his head.
Right to a job/wage:
This is often yelled by those on the Left, socialists, and union workers. That for some reason we are entitled to a job and/or a certain wage. It could be that you are entitled to a job with a minimum wage based off an arbitrary number or off what people consider a living wage, where you get paid enough to live relative to the area you live in. Although it is true that you do have the right to attempt to obtain said job with whatever wage you do not have the right to force someone to give it to you. If you are using force to infringe on the rights of others you cannot possibly claim that your aim is a certain right.
Education:
This is another common "right" that the Left and socialists love to spew. For the very same reason as a job you don't have the right to an education. You do have the right to pursue an education but you in no way have the right to force someone into giving you an education.
Welfare:
The next issue the Left and socialists claim as rights is general welfare. For those that don't work or fully work are somehow entitled to things that work would give them. Housing and food are obvious examples of welfare that are given to the poor. Although a noble cause for sure helping the poor doesn't give the poor a right to such things. That is because they must be financed through force i.e. taxation. No one has the right to steal from another person for themselves or for the appropriation of others. I will also contend that doing this actually hurts the poor more than it helps them. But even if it did help them more than it hurts them the logic doesn't hold, for when illegitimate force is used to obtain a "right" it is no right at all.
Gun/Gay/Women/Children/Ethnic/Relgious Rights:
Now I lump all these into one big group that both the Right and the Left fight so dearly for. The first mistake is to believe that certain groups of individuals have rights. This type of collectivism is misleading and leads to completely wrong conclusions about the essence of rights. Each of these groups have the same characteristic though that is often overlooked, that is they all comprise of only individuals. So it is not to say that since groups don't have rights you don't have a right to guns, to being treated equally regardless of sexual preference, sex, and ethnicity, or to practice or non-practice of a religion. It's exactly that since the group comprises of individuals each individual has individual rights that cannot be infringed upon. As an individual you have the right to obtain (legitimately) guns, to be treated the same as all other individuals, and to pursue spiritually whatever you want. I don't often quote Ayn Rand but she hit the nail on the head when she said this about minorities, "The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
Now it's especially interesting to talk about rights that are refused to us even though they are rights. Here are a few...
Libel/Slander:
We currently have laws against certain types of speech. Libel and slander are perfect examples of where force will be used to censor your ability to speak. Now in my post about freedom of speech it's not really a right. What you do have a right to do though is express what you want as long as it's on your own property, printed in a newspaper that you can give away or sell, or rent a hall to give a lecture about. Now just because I have said something that is false and malicious towards you doesn't mean you have some right to stop me from saying it. Since I own my body and anything that comes from it I can say whatever I please, so long as I don't infringe on your rights. The only way I would infringe on your rights by speaking is by entering your property and speaking after you've told me to stop. In order for your rights to be infringed upon by my speech then your actual property must be transgressed upon. My actual lie about you does not infringe on your property and the only legitimate recourse you have is to ignore it or produce a counterargument.
Blackmail:
Blackmail is another right that has been taken away by the State. If A knows something about B that B doesn't want people to know A cannot ask for compensation from B to keep the secret. Even if B believes that the cost of paying A is worth less compared to the secret going out, making it a mutually beneficial transaction between A and B. A could go and just tell everyone about the secret though as long as he doesn't ask for compensation, this hardly makes sense. The justification used for the illegality of blackmail is based on the reputation that is "owned" by the person being blackmailed. But as Murray Rothbard and Walter Block have both pointed out is that reputations aren't owned by the person being judged, they are owned by the people who are doing the judging. Since the person cannot claim ownership over his reputation the justification falls on its face.
Bribes:
Now bribes is a little more tricky to understand and I go with Rothbard's train of though on this, which he talks about in The Ethics of Liberty. There is nothing wrong, in a legal sense, to offer someone a bribe in order to get something. You have not violated natural laws by giving someone 100,000$ to favor my product over another. In the example of DJ's who have a contract to play the music that best fits the taste of the consumers there's nothing wrong with me giving him 100,000$ to play the type of music I'd like him to play. The illegality does come into play when the DJ has, by contract, stated he would only play what best suited the consumers. Now, by playing music outside of this scope he has not only broken his contract but deprived the ability of other music to be played even though they paid and agreed to the same contract as everyone else.
Insider Trading:
Now insider trading is something we don't really hear much about but I think it is definitely worth mentioning. What is the justification for making it illegal to tell someone something you know about a company and for that person to act on it? I really don't think there is one other than well it's not fair because not everyone is privy to that information. Well what kind of justification is that? People make investments, which are inherent with risk, without fully knowing what's going to happen. People make or don't make investments because they think there is or isn't going to be a return. Someone might have made a large investment into Product A but little did they know Product B was about to be released that would destroy the value of Product A. Well, then by the same logic, since that person wasn't privy to the information that Product B would make his investment a net loss shouldn't we stop the bringing of Product B to the market? Obviously the answer should be no. So just because not everyone knows about the information can you justify the use of force on someone to stop them from investing in whichever way they like based off whatever reasoning they have or don't have.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
What social contract?
One of the most common and most ridiculous arguments for the justification of the State's actions is "social contract". From the left we see them yell for the social contract to justify taxes on the rich to help the poor. From the right we see them yell for the social contract to justify "helping" spread democracy world wide. We even hear it from Constitutional libertarians justifying the monopoly the State has on defense and judicial services.
But what exactly is the social contract that they claim has power over individuals? What justification is used to apply this social contract in government legislation? Is there even a justification for a social contract?
To be short the social contract is a utilitarian justification. The greater good of all of society justifies its very use. If taking from the rich and giving to others increases the greater good of everyone else it's justified.
To even attempt to give a justification to the social contract we should first start with trying to define what society exactly is.
Here there will lie some disagreeing on what society is. But what you cannot argue is that society itself only contains the individuals that comprise it. Basically, society could not exist without individuals. Society therefor is an imaginary construct of the mind, there is no physical characteristics of "society". When we use the word society it is only to save time in describing any given group of individuals. For example when talking about a baseball team, we say baseball team because it is much easier to express than naming every individual that partakes in the actions of hitting a ball, throwing a ball, and catching a ball. There is no such physical entity as a baseball team, only a physical entity of the individuals that partake in the actions associated with the sport of baseball. In this regard it is then simpler to realize that society doesn't exist, it's only an expression used to talk about the multitude of individuals within some certain area.
Next it is as vitally important to discuss what contract is and how it is formed.
When two or more individuals express an interest in cooperating with one another for any given circumstance they are voluntarily (without coercion) accepting some type of agreement. If this agreement wasn't mutually beneficial for everyone involved it would simply not be agreed upon. When these agreements are made these individuals have formed a contract.
For example, Matt agrees to pay 100$ to Sam to renovate his yard. The payment can come before the labor is done or after, it doesn't matter. If Sam believes this 100$ is a greater want than the labor and time he will have to expend he'll agree to the terms and vice-versa if Matt believes the labor for the renovation is a greater want than the 100$ he too will agree to the terms. The two have entered a voluntary contract and neither are forced partake in the contract. So Sam will do the work and Matt will pay him. If Sam takes the money before the labor and doesn't renovate the yard he has stolen from Matt and if Matt doesn't pay Sam after the labor is done he has stolen from Sam. In both cases contracts have been violated.
The main point to be made here is that contract can only be made to protect physical properties. In our case it would be Sam's physical labor and Matt's money which comes from his physical labor.
Therefor, if society doesn't even exist outside of an imaginary construct then it cannot possibly have any physical properties to which a contract can be created. Society only comprises of individuals who can make contract with other individuals but society itself cannot hope to create a contract with society itself or over other individuals.
You disagree that society can't claim a contract over others? Fine. But there's also the other crucial entity that lies within any type of legal contract, the absence of coercion. You cannot possibly have a legal contract when someone is forced into it. Matt cannot point a gun at Sam's head and tell him if he doesn't renovate his yard he will shoot him. Sam would most likely choose to renovate the yard instead of getting shot, but since he was coerced into the situation Matt cannot claim he had a contract with Sam. Matt's threat of violence has infringed on the rights of Sam and therefore the contract is illegitimate.
So to those that say "social contract" is legitimate are completely wrong merely on the fact that if I disagree with this "contract" I must be forced to abide by it violating what contracts really are.
Furthermore, this "social contract" is a completely subjective term. Since it is a subjective term then my idea of a "social contract" or another person's idea of what it is has the same moral and legitimate claim to force it over you. It wouldn't matter if you thought my idea was right or wrong since there is no right or wrong in subjectivity.
The only legitimate contracts are those made by individuals voluntarily. If this is true then the most important law to uphold is the axiom of self-ownership. Since all individuals have self-ownership the greater good of all (which is utilitarian logic) can only be held if self-ownership is protected.
1Social Contract
But what exactly is the social contract that they claim has power over individuals? What justification is used to apply this social contract in government legislation? Is there even a justification for a social contract?
Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.1
To be short the social contract is a utilitarian justification. The greater good of all of society justifies its very use. If taking from the rich and giving to others increases the greater good of everyone else it's justified.
To even attempt to give a justification to the social contract we should first start with trying to define what society exactly is.
Here there will lie some disagreeing on what society is. But what you cannot argue is that society itself only contains the individuals that comprise it. Basically, society could not exist without individuals. Society therefor is an imaginary construct of the mind, there is no physical characteristics of "society". When we use the word society it is only to save time in describing any given group of individuals. For example when talking about a baseball team, we say baseball team because it is much easier to express than naming every individual that partakes in the actions of hitting a ball, throwing a ball, and catching a ball. There is no such physical entity as a baseball team, only a physical entity of the individuals that partake in the actions associated with the sport of baseball. In this regard it is then simpler to realize that society doesn't exist, it's only an expression used to talk about the multitude of individuals within some certain area.
Next it is as vitally important to discuss what contract is and how it is formed.
When two or more individuals express an interest in cooperating with one another for any given circumstance they are voluntarily (without coercion) accepting some type of agreement. If this agreement wasn't mutually beneficial for everyone involved it would simply not be agreed upon. When these agreements are made these individuals have formed a contract.
For example, Matt agrees to pay 100$ to Sam to renovate his yard. The payment can come before the labor is done or after, it doesn't matter. If Sam believes this 100$ is a greater want than the labor and time he will have to expend he'll agree to the terms and vice-versa if Matt believes the labor for the renovation is a greater want than the 100$ he too will agree to the terms. The two have entered a voluntary contract and neither are forced partake in the contract. So Sam will do the work and Matt will pay him. If Sam takes the money before the labor and doesn't renovate the yard he has stolen from Matt and if Matt doesn't pay Sam after the labor is done he has stolen from Sam. In both cases contracts have been violated.
The main point to be made here is that contract can only be made to protect physical properties. In our case it would be Sam's physical labor and Matt's money which comes from his physical labor.
Therefor, if society doesn't even exist outside of an imaginary construct then it cannot possibly have any physical properties to which a contract can be created. Society only comprises of individuals who can make contract with other individuals but society itself cannot hope to create a contract with society itself or over other individuals.
You disagree that society can't claim a contract over others? Fine. But there's also the other crucial entity that lies within any type of legal contract, the absence of coercion. You cannot possibly have a legal contract when someone is forced into it. Matt cannot point a gun at Sam's head and tell him if he doesn't renovate his yard he will shoot him. Sam would most likely choose to renovate the yard instead of getting shot, but since he was coerced into the situation Matt cannot claim he had a contract with Sam. Matt's threat of violence has infringed on the rights of Sam and therefore the contract is illegitimate.
So to those that say "social contract" is legitimate are completely wrong merely on the fact that if I disagree with this "contract" I must be forced to abide by it violating what contracts really are.
Furthermore, this "social contract" is a completely subjective term. Since it is a subjective term then my idea of a "social contract" or another person's idea of what it is has the same moral and legitimate claim to force it over you. It wouldn't matter if you thought my idea was right or wrong since there is no right or wrong in subjectivity.
The only legitimate contracts are those made by individuals voluntarily. If this is true then the most important law to uphold is the axiom of self-ownership. Since all individuals have self-ownership the greater good of all (which is utilitarian logic) can only be held if self-ownership is protected.
1Social Contract
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Is the State a gang of thieves writ large?
"The State is a gang of thieves writ large" is a popular quote by Murray Rothbard. Rothbard is regarded as the founder of common libertarian thought and Anarcho-Capitalism. Was he right with this very controversial statement? I think the statement is exactly correct. Especially when people generalize gangs to be bad, the distinction of the State as a gang is spot on. The hidden part lays in the fact of why gangs, as we are accustomed to thinking about, come into play in society and the positive aspects they do have.
Why do gangs exist? I don't think many people question this enough and provide an adequate answer when they do. We typically hear that gangs have existed in the past because certain things were illegal. Although this is true I think we miss the important economic factor that creates gangs.
That economic factor is simply the fact that SINCE a certain product is illegal that is wanted by consumers, regardless of its legality, you have created a need in the market. A need that cannot be accommodated by a "legal" market so the black market is going to supply it. Entrepreneurs see a need in the market and they work to get it filled. Typically those entrepreneurs that are willing to take the risk in this market to provide the need are violent and will use violence to keep their share of the market from those intruding in their area.
Those products that are provided by gangs are prostitution, drugs, and high interest loans. The moral aspects of these products really have no say in the legitimacy of the services rendered. All that matters is that since there is a market for these products they are going to be provided. People voluntarily choose to purchase these products from the gangs.
There lies the essential difference between a gang and the State. With a gang you are not forced to buy their products but with the State you are. For the most part gangs aren't trying to provide some type of service to you and if you don't pay send strangers into your house kidnap you and throw you in jail or simply seize all your property. This is exactly what the State does. For those few times that gangs do do this and you deplore such an aggressive act you should deplore the very same act done by the State for the process is one in the same.
Just because the State says they are taxing you to provide a service doesn't justify it. Tax is theft and can only be taken through coercion.
So is the State a gang of thieves writ large? I think the answer is yes, but much worse than your regular ole gang down the street. The violence we see from gang warfare, although horrible for sure, is nothing compared to the violence committed by the State to society writ large.
Why do gangs exist? I don't think many people question this enough and provide an adequate answer when they do. We typically hear that gangs have existed in the past because certain things were illegal. Although this is true I think we miss the important economic factor that creates gangs.
That economic factor is simply the fact that SINCE a certain product is illegal that is wanted by consumers, regardless of its legality, you have created a need in the market. A need that cannot be accommodated by a "legal" market so the black market is going to supply it. Entrepreneurs see a need in the market and they work to get it filled. Typically those entrepreneurs that are willing to take the risk in this market to provide the need are violent and will use violence to keep their share of the market from those intruding in their area.
Those products that are provided by gangs are prostitution, drugs, and high interest loans. The moral aspects of these products really have no say in the legitimacy of the services rendered. All that matters is that since there is a market for these products they are going to be provided. People voluntarily choose to purchase these products from the gangs.
There lies the essential difference between a gang and the State. With a gang you are not forced to buy their products but with the State you are. For the most part gangs aren't trying to provide some type of service to you and if you don't pay send strangers into your house kidnap you and throw you in jail or simply seize all your property. This is exactly what the State does. For those few times that gangs do do this and you deplore such an aggressive act you should deplore the very same act done by the State for the process is one in the same.
Just because the State says they are taxing you to provide a service doesn't justify it. Tax is theft and can only be taken through coercion.
So is the State a gang of thieves writ large? I think the answer is yes, but much worse than your regular ole gang down the street. The violence we see from gang warfare, although horrible for sure, is nothing compared to the violence committed by the State to society writ large.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Is religion compatible with a free society?
It seems to me that many of those interested in pursuing the knowledge of a free society have also come to other conclusions outside of our actual acting world. Not all of us have reached these conclusions because ultimately there is no logical deduction to be made to get there as there is with everything else that justifies the free society. These logical deducible axioms aren't abstract fixations on a could be world, no they are natural observations that can be made by acting men about acting men.
It seems though, that along with the idea of our society being of "Rules without Rulers" many others have taken the idea a step further. The new saying a lot of Voluntarists/Anarcho-Capitalists are using is "No Gods No Rulers" obviously showing what their spiritual beliefs are. Now, not all of those that believe in a free society are atheists and that includes me so that should be mentioned.
But why such the broad distaste for religion? Why should a purely individual choice, like so many other choices, be broadcasted with the message? Why turn off individuals that see the evils of the State from our philosophy?
I haven't quite figured that one out yet but it seems it stems from the belief that if you are to have total control and free will over your body, like the axiom of self-ownership implies, then no outside supernatural power should be able to claim it or have the power to do so. If this supernatural entity does then you are obviously not completely free and the axiom crumbles, along with every other conclusion that uses it as its premise.
Can you reconcile this paradox so that you might be able to still justify a free society off this essential axiom? I say yes, and I'm not religious one bit. Here's a great justification for those that believe in a higher being and still want to be able to conform to the idea of self-ownership.
So there is absolutely no need to leave behind your faith, judge others for their own faith, or worse turn the religious off by portraying your dislike in religion so zealously. We can all make our own personal choices in life especially as something as important and no less individualistic than other choices as religion.
1 Feser, Edward, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 18, no. 3, pg.97, Mises Institute
It seems though, that along with the idea of our society being of "Rules without Rulers" many others have taken the idea a step further. The new saying a lot of Voluntarists/Anarcho-Capitalists are using is "No Gods No Rulers" obviously showing what their spiritual beliefs are. Now, not all of those that believe in a free society are atheists and that includes me so that should be mentioned.
But why such the broad distaste for religion? Why should a purely individual choice, like so many other choices, be broadcasted with the message? Why turn off individuals that see the evils of the State from our philosophy?
I haven't quite figured that one out yet but it seems it stems from the belief that if you are to have total control and free will over your body, like the axiom of self-ownership implies, then no outside supernatural power should be able to claim it or have the power to do so. If this supernatural entity does then you are obviously not completely free and the axiom crumbles, along with every other conclusion that uses it as its premise.
Can you reconcile this paradox so that you might be able to still justify a free society off this essential axiom? I say yes, and I'm not religious one bit. Here's a great justification for those that believe in a higher being and still want to be able to conform to the idea of self-ownership.
Regarding the second point, self-ownership is no more inconsistent with God's ownership of us than our ownership of private property is inconsistent with God's ownership of the entire universe. Though the religious believer takes God to own everything, this nevertheless is compatible with the belief that He also allows us to take portions of the external world for our own exclusive use. Relative to Him, we are but stewards of what we possess and He owns; but relative to each other, we are owners of what we possess. (Indeed, there are two Commandments Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods giving divine sanction to claims of private ownership.) But surely the same thing is true, and indeed more obviously true, of ourselves: relative to God, we are but stewards of His property, but relative to each other, we are self-owners. (And of course, this entails that, though we may not be answerable to each other with respect to every use we make of our selves, we are answerable to God for every use.8)1
So there is absolutely no need to leave behind your faith, judge others for their own faith, or worse turn the religious off by portraying your dislike in religion so zealously. We can all make our own personal choices in life especially as something as important and no less individualistic than other choices as religion.
1 Feser, Edward, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 18, no. 3, pg.97, Mises Institute
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Why not voting is voting and actually voting isn't voting at all
It always seems that people are pestering other people about voting. Not really caring who you vote for as long as you participate in the voting process. The term civil duty is often used to show that we have some sort of duty to society to vote. Voting is the magic key that is going to better our nation one vote at a time!
But why does it seem that every election cycle, no matter who is on the ballot, nothing really changes for the better? In fact it seems that most things get getting worse and worse. When a Republican is president after his term no one likes him, so he's replaced with a Democrat. When that Democrat's term is over nothing has really changed from the previous administration and no one likes him. So a Republican often replaces him and the cycle continues. Each new President has promised something often to change something from the past administration. It never happens though, history shows this. President Obama promised to eliminate The PATRIOT Act and instead signed the continuation of it and even instituted legislation much worse, the NDAA. He also promised to be laxer on Medical Marijuana dispensaries but under his administration has raided more dispensaries than Bush did in 8 years. Our soldiers were supposed to be brought home but they weren't and are now being moved to even more countries. Don't take this as some kind of love for Republicans because Romney has said he'll take away Obamacare. If he gets presidency will he? Absolutely not. Nothing will change. Your vote means nothing.
So what has your vote done to better America? Absolutely nothing. Instead your vote has legitimatized every bad piece of legislation that has stripped individuals of their freedoms. Your vote has only helped justify our system of injustice.
Can voting ever be good?
In rare circumstances I believe voting can help. This rare circumstance is when you are voting for someone who actually wants to change the status quo, someone who wants to reduce as much of the State as humanly possible. This is when your vote counts. But it seems most people only vote for those who don't really want us to be free men and women.
So don't vote unless there is someone truly worth voting for. Voting for the lesser of two evils is what has gotten us into the constant spiral of voting for the lesser of two evils.
When you don't vote you are truly voting because you are sending a message to those in power. The message that we no longer believe that they have any ability to wield power for the greater good. The message that we are in disgust with what those in power do. The message that truly has power behind it because when you don't vote you are showing that you don't consent to being ruled.
When the populace as a whole no longer consents to being ruled there are no more rulers, there are only individuals deciding peacefully among each other how to live their own lives.
Live freely, don't vote, don't justify the State.
But why does it seem that every election cycle, no matter who is on the ballot, nothing really changes for the better? In fact it seems that most things get getting worse and worse. When a Republican is president after his term no one likes him, so he's replaced with a Democrat. When that Democrat's term is over nothing has really changed from the previous administration and no one likes him. So a Republican often replaces him and the cycle continues. Each new President has promised something often to change something from the past administration. It never happens though, history shows this. President Obama promised to eliminate The PATRIOT Act and instead signed the continuation of it and even instituted legislation much worse, the NDAA. He also promised to be laxer on Medical Marijuana dispensaries but under his administration has raided more dispensaries than Bush did in 8 years. Our soldiers were supposed to be brought home but they weren't and are now being moved to even more countries. Don't take this as some kind of love for Republicans because Romney has said he'll take away Obamacare. If he gets presidency will he? Absolutely not. Nothing will change. Your vote means nothing.
So what has your vote done to better America? Absolutely nothing. Instead your vote has legitimatized every bad piece of legislation that has stripped individuals of their freedoms. Your vote has only helped justify our system of injustice.
Can voting ever be good?
In rare circumstances I believe voting can help. This rare circumstance is when you are voting for someone who actually wants to change the status quo, someone who wants to reduce as much of the State as humanly possible. This is when your vote counts. But it seems most people only vote for those who don't really want us to be free men and women.
So don't vote unless there is someone truly worth voting for. Voting for the lesser of two evils is what has gotten us into the constant spiral of voting for the lesser of two evils.
When you don't vote you are truly voting because you are sending a message to those in power. The message that we no longer believe that they have any ability to wield power for the greater good. The message that we are in disgust with what those in power do. The message that truly has power behind it because when you don't vote you are showing that you don't consent to being ruled.
When the populace as a whole no longer consents to being ruled there are no more rulers, there are only individuals deciding peacefully among each other how to live their own lives.
Live freely, don't vote, don't justify the State.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
NFL Referee strike: When going on strike is good for the market.
Whoa whoa whoa now. Going on strike is good? Don't we hate unions especially when they go on strike? Aren't unions the antithesis of a free market?
Yes going on strike can be good. No we shouldn't hate unions. No unions aren't the antithesis of the free market, but a part of a healthy market.
How could I possibly be saying such things? It's pretty simple, people have the freedom to associate with whomever they want including co-workers. These group of individuals which create a union could very well say that they want to go on strike for higher wages, to keep past benefits, or whatever.
The past NFL Referee strike is a perfect example of a union strike that promotes a healthy market. At the end of the agreement it was a win win for everyone involved. And most importantly this relationship was resolved without the use of force from the government. This is how the market works and how voluntary interactions between the owners, the refs, and the consumers can resolve issues peacefully.
How does this all work though? How can this really be a good thing?
Well if we look at the causes of all union strikes it's typically for better pensions or higher wages. The market has its own way of dictating what wages should be, how this is done is not the intent of this post. If the union decides to go on strike no one should be able to stop them. On the other hand you should not be able to stop other workers from filling in the voids, just as the NFL hired replacement refs.
But the market responds in interesting ways when people's satisfactions aren't being met. The replacement refs just were not up to par and hence were not efficient in overseeing the game. The drop in quality was affecting the game and bringing a poorer product to consumers who in turn brought it to the attention of the commissioner that they were angry.
Purely through market forces and no threat of force from the government a resolution was made.
So yes unions and union strikes are healthy for a market because they can insure that quality products are given to consumers, like the NFL referee debacle. Unions don't need the government to help keep their jobs. Union heads who want to use government aren't doing it for the good of the workers. No they do it to justify their top positions and radically high pay which is taken from the union members. Government cannot help you it only distorts the market and helps the politically connected.
Let's look up to the NFL agreement to realize that humans can interact peacefully to settle disputes. Have faith in each other not in the State.
Yes going on strike can be good. No we shouldn't hate unions. No unions aren't the antithesis of the free market, but a part of a healthy market.
How could I possibly be saying such things? It's pretty simple, people have the freedom to associate with whomever they want including co-workers. These group of individuals which create a union could very well say that they want to go on strike for higher wages, to keep past benefits, or whatever.
The past NFL Referee strike is a perfect example of a union strike that promotes a healthy market. At the end of the agreement it was a win win for everyone involved. And most importantly this relationship was resolved without the use of force from the government. This is how the market works and how voluntary interactions between the owners, the refs, and the consumers can resolve issues peacefully.
How does this all work though? How can this really be a good thing?
Well if we look at the causes of all union strikes it's typically for better pensions or higher wages. The market has its own way of dictating what wages should be, how this is done is not the intent of this post. If the union decides to go on strike no one should be able to stop them. On the other hand you should not be able to stop other workers from filling in the voids, just as the NFL hired replacement refs.
But the market responds in interesting ways when people's satisfactions aren't being met. The replacement refs just were not up to par and hence were not efficient in overseeing the game. The drop in quality was affecting the game and bringing a poorer product to consumers who in turn brought it to the attention of the commissioner that they were angry.
Purely through market forces and no threat of force from the government a resolution was made.
So yes unions and union strikes are healthy for a market because they can insure that quality products are given to consumers, like the NFL referee debacle. Unions don't need the government to help keep their jobs. Union heads who want to use government aren't doing it for the good of the workers. No they do it to justify their top positions and radically high pay which is taken from the union members. Government cannot help you it only distorts the market and helps the politically connected.
Let's look up to the NFL agreement to realize that humans can interact peacefully to settle disputes. Have faith in each other not in the State.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Freedom of speech? A natural right?
Those that consider themselves to be on the left often clamor to civil rights like freedom of speech. Libertarians alike claim the Constitution guarantees such rights and they can't be impeded on. On a Constitutional claim the 1st Amendment only guarantees such rights to not be infringed upon by the government.
But is there such a thing as a right to speak?
My answer to that is no and by the end of this post I hope my argument gives you reason to believe such a claim.
To start off rights are not something that government can claim to give us. Rights are inherent in us being human beings. Rights are natural things that cannot be granted nor taken, they are inalienable.
The rights WE do have are property rights and only property rights. Property rights also include the right to your own body. No one can steal your property, bring damage upon your property, or destroy your property without first infringing upon your natural rights.
But one could simply assert that your vocal cords are part of your body so being able to speak is simply an extension of your body, which is property, and property rights.
I could just as simply assert that your ability to move your arms would give you the right to hit another person. If this were to be stopped your rights to move your arms, an extension of your body, would be infringed upon.
Although a bit extreme I'll admit but it is the exact same logic used for the "right to speak".
You do have a right to move your body as you wish as long as it does not reach another person and infringes on their rights. So you can't swing at someone and hit them and by the same reasoning the sound your vocal chords make have no right to hit someone else.
So just as you can move your body and not hit someone you can speak but you have no right to be heard unless prior consent is given.
What does this mean though?
It means when not on your own property or another persons property where you have consent to speak you don't have the right to speak. If you say something on someone else's property and they don't want to hear it they can make you leave, if you don't you've infringed on their rights.
It also means as long as you are on your own property or property you have consent to use from another person you can speak as you wish. Anyone within said property can then hear whatever you have to say since they will have been consensually entering that property and can simply leave if they do not wish to hear what you have to way.
This leads to something especially interesting then. You have no "right to speak" unless property rights are recognized 100%. Without these property rights then it simply doesn't exist. If you want to speak freely then you have to respect property rights and all else that are tied to property rights. This means you can only have "freedom of speech" tied with the acceptance that no one can take from yours or anyone else's property. This means you MUST deny the the acceptance of all forms of theft of property which includes all taxes and forced servitude. Essentially you must reject the State if you want to truly speak freely and be a completely free person.
But is there such a thing as a right to speak?
My answer to that is no and by the end of this post I hope my argument gives you reason to believe such a claim.
To start off rights are not something that government can claim to give us. Rights are inherent in us being human beings. Rights are natural things that cannot be granted nor taken, they are inalienable.
The rights WE do have are property rights and only property rights. Property rights also include the right to your own body. No one can steal your property, bring damage upon your property, or destroy your property without first infringing upon your natural rights.
But one could simply assert that your vocal cords are part of your body so being able to speak is simply an extension of your body, which is property, and property rights.
I could just as simply assert that your ability to move your arms would give you the right to hit another person. If this were to be stopped your rights to move your arms, an extension of your body, would be infringed upon.
Although a bit extreme I'll admit but it is the exact same logic used for the "right to speak".
You do have a right to move your body as you wish as long as it does not reach another person and infringes on their rights. So you can't swing at someone and hit them and by the same reasoning the sound your vocal chords make have no right to hit someone else.
So just as you can move your body and not hit someone you can speak but you have no right to be heard unless prior consent is given.
What does this mean though?
It means when not on your own property or another persons property where you have consent to speak you don't have the right to speak. If you say something on someone else's property and they don't want to hear it they can make you leave, if you don't you've infringed on their rights.
It also means as long as you are on your own property or property you have consent to use from another person you can speak as you wish. Anyone within said property can then hear whatever you have to say since they will have been consensually entering that property and can simply leave if they do not wish to hear what you have to way.
This leads to something especially interesting then. You have no "right to speak" unless property rights are recognized 100%. Without these property rights then it simply doesn't exist. If you want to speak freely then you have to respect property rights and all else that are tied to property rights. This means you can only have "freedom of speech" tied with the acceptance that no one can take from yours or anyone else's property. This means you MUST deny the the acceptance of all forms of theft of property which includes all taxes and forced servitude. Essentially you must reject the State if you want to truly speak freely and be a completely free person.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Never compromise on principle, ever.
On our journey to reach a system of complete justice as set forth by natural law which is the basis for self-ownership, we never fail to find bumps along the way. It should be obvious as a pragmatic person that the State isn't quite going to cease overnight, within a year, and probably still not within the next couple of decades. Are we to just sit back and accept that the State will have rule over us? Are we to just sit and wait for the "inevitable" collapse of the State? Should we do nothing now to eliminate the over-reaching hands the State commands over us essentially throughout every moment of our lives?
The simple answer is no.
Probably to the disappointment of other believers in Anarcho-Capitalism I have no problem going through the system that we are forced to partake in.
I would much rather have the individuals that live in our country become so educated on the subject of freedom that we all band together to ignore the State. When you reject to being ruled then there are no such things as rulers.
But we must understand that this is not an idea that screams of efficacy.
What we must understand is that we must use the State apparatus ONLY to reduce the amount of fingers that are clenched around our throats.
We must take away as much of the State as possible.
In this sense we are forced to use the apparatus to become free. But with the use of this apparatus we must consciously make decisions that are going to be the best for not only ourselves but for everyone else as well. From a business point of view you would try to make the best product for consumers that will also bring you profit, so that everyone involved wins and no one loses.
What is our principle that can never be broken though? What is the ideas that we must cherish ever so dearly so that we are not, for even the slightest moment, to stray away from?
These are still the basic axioms of self-ownership and a extension of that the Non Aggression Principle.
So in whichever way you attempt to eliminate the State or simply bring it down as much as possible. Never compromise your principle to meet some kind of end. As Murray Rothbard has said it "Don't compromise for a new tax to eliminate another tax." as you are still expanding the powers of the State. Instead only do what you can to become more free and never choose to become less free in someway in attempt to be more free in another way.
Freedom will win in the end but what will you do to help mitigate the bumps?
The simple answer is no.
Probably to the disappointment of other believers in Anarcho-Capitalism I have no problem going through the system that we are forced to partake in.
I would much rather have the individuals that live in our country become so educated on the subject of freedom that we all band together to ignore the State. When you reject to being ruled then there are no such things as rulers.
But we must understand that this is not an idea that screams of efficacy.
What we must understand is that we must use the State apparatus ONLY to reduce the amount of fingers that are clenched around our throats.
We must take away as much of the State as possible.
In this sense we are forced to use the apparatus to become free. But with the use of this apparatus we must consciously make decisions that are going to be the best for not only ourselves but for everyone else as well. From a business point of view you would try to make the best product for consumers that will also bring you profit, so that everyone involved wins and no one loses.
What is our principle that can never be broken though? What is the ideas that we must cherish ever so dearly so that we are not, for even the slightest moment, to stray away from?
These are still the basic axioms of self-ownership and a extension of that the Non Aggression Principle.
So in whichever way you attempt to eliminate the State or simply bring it down as much as possible. Never compromise your principle to meet some kind of end. As Murray Rothbard has said it "Don't compromise for a new tax to eliminate another tax." as you are still expanding the powers of the State. Instead only do what you can to become more free and never choose to become less free in someway in attempt to be more free in another way.
Freedom will win in the end but what will you do to help mitigate the bumps?
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
QE3, easy money brings a hard future.
At the request of a fellow liberty activist I was asked to make a comment or two on QE3 (Quantitative Easing 3) that has just happened within the last few weeks. I will spare this post from being a completely technical post because 1)I'm not an expert in the field and most importantly 2)The experts have already tackled this from the technical standpoint. Murray Rothbard has destroyed the quantitative easing policy and a good article can be found here which will go more in depth than this post.
What exactly is Quantitative Easing and why is this one labeled 3?
In the case of the most recent QE policy for the U.S is the buying of assets, mortgage backed securities, from private banks by the printing of dollars to the tune of 40$ billion a month.1 It's labeled 3 because this has been the "3rd" QE since I believe 2008.
What is the intended purpose of QE3?
The Federal Reserve, the private company that has a monopoly on our money supply, believes that this easy money policy can be used to stimulate an economy that is in need of a little boost. By injecting money into the system their is more of an incentive to spend money now as consumers because we see lower interest rates than that which naturally occur in the free market. The Fed believes by doing this we can avoid dipping into recessions and have an ever growing economy.
What is the unintended consequences of QE3?
I like to give the Fed the benefit of the doubt and say they are truly trying to help people but just don't see the fallacy in their economic policy. How true this is I can't say because there's a big incentive for quantitative easing in the realm of purely making money for the politically connected.
As the Fed trots along claiming to be helping the middle class and the poor by using QE3 to create jobs it doesn't realize that the exact opposite occurs; the Fed is destroying the middle class.
Two implications of QE3 can be seen very easily. The first is that the Fed buys these securities from private companies like Goldman Sachs. The second is that the money supply of our dollars is obviously increased.
It then becomes more obvious what is happening. Only those private companies that are politically connected like Goldman Sachs get money while others do not. This is because government in general cannot allocate resources with any objective measure and can only do so arbitrarily, so usually only those that have friends get the help.
On the other hand the other easy implication to see is that using basic supply and demand economics as the supply of our dollar has risen the value of each dollar has to drop holding all other things equal. This can be seen as the inflation of our dollar which is NOT a naturally occurring phenomena in a free market; actually the exact opposite typically happens we see the value of our money steadily increase as prices drop.
But what does this all really mean to people and the economy?
Well to really understand what happens we must first take a look into what happens in a free market economy where no central banking system exists.
When the Fed decides to "stimulate" the economy with QE the response is for a lower interest rate than the actual market interest rate.
When, in a free market, the interest rate begins to drop this is a result of an individuals time preference to spending. Instead of spending at the present they wish to save money to spend at a future time. As a result banks wanting people to start spending see this saving of money and the market response is to lower interest rates. This becomes a signal to businesses and entrepreneurs that an increase of savings has occurred. As the interest rates drop these businesses see prior unprofitable ventures to become profitable and decide to invest in capital. Since actual savings have occurred these business will make profits by best serving consumers with previous capital investments and it's a win win for all involved. But this is only possible with the actual savings people have done.
When a central banking system, like the Fed, gets involved and artificially lowers interest rates what happens? Well businesses see the same signals as they do when saving occurs so they begin their investment in capital.
The problem should be obvious now. No savings has actually occurred to purchase whatever the investment was used for. As a direct result of this monetary policy resources have been allocated incorrectly and both the businesses and customer loses. When this starts happening companies start going under because no one is purchasing the goods they made with the false signals and a recession begins.
What should be even more emphasized besides the fact that easy money leads to hard future by the means of a recession is the fact of who actually wins with this policy. The ones that win are those that FIRST get the money, Goldman Sachs, because the value of that money has not been reflected in the market as a drop yet. So when they spend that money it has a higher value than when it gets to the middle class and the lower class who has to deal with a highly inflated piece of paper. This policy enriches the super rich at the expense of destroying the middle class through inflation.
1Big Wall Street Banks already complaining QE3 is not enough
What exactly is Quantitative Easing and why is this one labeled 3?
In the case of the most recent QE policy for the U.S is the buying of assets, mortgage backed securities, from private banks by the printing of dollars to the tune of 40$ billion a month.1 It's labeled 3 because this has been the "3rd" QE since I believe 2008.
What is the intended purpose of QE3?
The Federal Reserve, the private company that has a monopoly on our money supply, believes that this easy money policy can be used to stimulate an economy that is in need of a little boost. By injecting money into the system their is more of an incentive to spend money now as consumers because we see lower interest rates than that which naturally occur in the free market. The Fed believes by doing this we can avoid dipping into recessions and have an ever growing economy.
What is the unintended consequences of QE3?
I like to give the Fed the benefit of the doubt and say they are truly trying to help people but just don't see the fallacy in their economic policy. How true this is I can't say because there's a big incentive for quantitative easing in the realm of purely making money for the politically connected.
As the Fed trots along claiming to be helping the middle class and the poor by using QE3 to create jobs it doesn't realize that the exact opposite occurs; the Fed is destroying the middle class.
Two implications of QE3 can be seen very easily. The first is that the Fed buys these securities from private companies like Goldman Sachs. The second is that the money supply of our dollars is obviously increased.
It then becomes more obvious what is happening. Only those private companies that are politically connected like Goldman Sachs get money while others do not. This is because government in general cannot allocate resources with any objective measure and can only do so arbitrarily, so usually only those that have friends get the help.
On the other hand the other easy implication to see is that using basic supply and demand economics as the supply of our dollar has risen the value of each dollar has to drop holding all other things equal. This can be seen as the inflation of our dollar which is NOT a naturally occurring phenomena in a free market; actually the exact opposite typically happens we see the value of our money steadily increase as prices drop.
But what does this all really mean to people and the economy?
Well to really understand what happens we must first take a look into what happens in a free market economy where no central banking system exists.
When the Fed decides to "stimulate" the economy with QE the response is for a lower interest rate than the actual market interest rate.
When, in a free market, the interest rate begins to drop this is a result of an individuals time preference to spending. Instead of spending at the present they wish to save money to spend at a future time. As a result banks wanting people to start spending see this saving of money and the market response is to lower interest rates. This becomes a signal to businesses and entrepreneurs that an increase of savings has occurred. As the interest rates drop these businesses see prior unprofitable ventures to become profitable and decide to invest in capital. Since actual savings have occurred these business will make profits by best serving consumers with previous capital investments and it's a win win for all involved. But this is only possible with the actual savings people have done.
When a central banking system, like the Fed, gets involved and artificially lowers interest rates what happens? Well businesses see the same signals as they do when saving occurs so they begin their investment in capital.
The problem should be obvious now. No savings has actually occurred to purchase whatever the investment was used for. As a direct result of this monetary policy resources have been allocated incorrectly and both the businesses and customer loses. When this starts happening companies start going under because no one is purchasing the goods they made with the false signals and a recession begins.
What should be even more emphasized besides the fact that easy money leads to hard future by the means of a recession is the fact of who actually wins with this policy. The ones that win are those that FIRST get the money, Goldman Sachs, because the value of that money has not been reflected in the market as a drop yet. So when they spend that money it has a higher value than when it gets to the middle class and the lower class who has to deal with a highly inflated piece of paper. This policy enriches the super rich at the expense of destroying the middle class through inflation.
1Big Wall Street Banks already complaining QE3 is not enough
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)