Freedom of Speech

 

It's been a while since I've posted anything, mainly because I've been writing a book while at the same time battling cancer. But I would like to take time to post a couple of thoughts:

Censorship is evil. If you can't handle free speech, then YOU are evil. It's your reality. Live with it, or change for the better.

If you simply can't handle the thought that someone might express an opinion with which you disagree, you're not a liberal: you're a totalitarian. You're not a socialist: you're anti-social. 

The only way to test an idea is to pit it against another. If your thoughts are so fragile that you cannot under any circumstances allow that to happen, preferring to label competing ideas as "hate speech", defined as that which is at odds with your own beliefs despite your clear attempts to disguise that, then your own beliefs are too weak to defend. You have already lost the argument.

Again, it's your reality. 

 Live with it, or change for the better.

I BOUGHT my car, Jack.

As with most laws, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) has had disastrous unintended consequences. One of these is communicated in this recent Slate article:

BEFORE I CAN FIX THIS TRACTOR, 

WE NEED TO FIX COPYRIGHT LAW

It's not just tractors, it's all vehicles. Auto makers now claim that we don't actually own the cars we buy... we license them. This is a bit more disturbing than computer operating systems. Microsoft doesn't claim to own your Dell. But because the software is embedded and citing such concerns as safety (after all, think of the children), the automakers are claiming that nope... nobody gets access to the computer except licensed, authorized (aka paying) maintenance technicians.

Reacting to a desire for tinkering, Ford has developed what they hope to be a standard way of extending an automobile's capabilities with "vehicle-aware applications", the OpenXC open source platform:

While this is a step in the right direction, it is a simply method of loading more electronics onto your car without "bricking" your $20,000 automotive investment. It does not address the ECU (Engine Control Unit), which remains verboten. It does not allow true tinkering down to the metal. "No hot-rodding for you," snaps the Auto Nazi.

Sadly, we live in an environment where people see other people arbitrarily controlling the minutiae of strangers' lives, and they come away from that experience with both a desire to do it themselves, and the perverted expectation that this is normal behavior. This is perhaps to be expected in a world that confuses the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution with a hunting license, but the analogy is disturbingly close. More, and more... and in more and more products... we see ourselves locked out of ownership of the things we bought due to increased reliance on computer code in embedded processors. This includes products for which there is no rational need for a processor (toasters come to mind). The fact of the matter is, I don't want a car that drives itself, that connects to the Internet, that is a wi-fi hub, that can be hacked using a discoverable code such as the VIN or license number, that can be bricked or even unlocked remotely. I don't want it whether it done maliciously, or accidentally, or deliberately by the police.

I don't want it. I don't want it so much that I went to great lengths to buy an older model of the car I like so as to avoid these unnecessary "features".

This isn't a matter of some desire to tinker together a new instrument panel. It's a basic measure of my Freedom that makes me insist on clear legal ownership of those things that I clearly own by right of purchase. If I cannot exercise that right due to encumbered components, then I should have the right to remove them so as not to infringe on the copyrights held so dear to those who hold them.

Bottom line for car manufacturers: I know you think your copyrighted material is terribly valuable, but I don't want it. It's worse than worthless to me... it prevents me from buying a car that is so encumbered at all.

In automobiles, the need for computerization is there and is rational, as computer-controlled fuel injection has long replaced carburetion. As that is the case, then the rational response of the citizenry, were they to have actual control over the laws enacted for the Public Good, should be to insist that the hardware of the car be legally divorced from the software. The ECU should be subject to competition, as should the maintenance of vehicles. I should be able to replace the encumbered operating system with one of my choice.

Recognizing the problem, there's an opportunity for a cottage industry of Open Source engine control units, and people who recognize it. Hackaday reported on such a project in 2014. The rusEFI Wiki is a source for current information on this project.


However, such projects still potentially run foul of copyright and patent claims of automakers who insist that you don't own what you own. What is needed is a revision of those laws that continue to separate us from our rights as individuals in areas never envisioned.

P.S. Thanks to Caleb for this related topic:

The Ethical Dilemma of Self-Driving Cars
Who should your robot car kill? The ethical dilemma of self-driving cars:
Posted by TED-Ed on Tuesday, December 8, 2015

The Real Gun Nuts.

My last post was an open letter to those people I would offend this year.

I didn't think I'd be getting started this early.

A friend posted a message on social media, and I'll paraphrase because it is a friend. In the post he asserts that he's for the right to bear arms, but air guns that resemble actual weapons are a clear sign of gun culture gone insane. He posits that since kids get killed for holding them, we should remove the guns. He goes on to ask if parents fear emasculating their boys if they remove this risk of death at the hands of the police.

My response:

Sure, why not? Take their toys and casually criticize their sexuality and/or imply that their parents are homophobes while we're at it. We can justify that because police have a hard job, so we can't expect them to do it properly. It's so difficult to draw a line between children playing and a terrorist attack that pointing a finger can get actually get a schoolkid expelled, and this is endorsed by the best, most highly educated thinkers in our society. And pockets are only used to conceal things, so they should be banned and everyone should carry items in clear plastic bags, as in many schools already.

And we should teach our kids that the Police are "public servants", which is why we the public should obey every order they give, never assert our rights, and produce any "papers" they might demand, as well as avoid direct eye contact, which they might imagine to be threatening. Any deviation from this behavior, and your death is your own damned fault. Submission and prompt compliance is the only way to be free.

That any portion of that seems reasonable is proof of how far our country has descended.

The "gun nuts" are not the people who understand weapons and educate others with a healthy respect for the documented Constitutional rights which they've had from the very beginning. The "gun nuts" are the ignorant mental cases who live in the fantasy world where a bitten sandwich is a "facsimile weapon". If someone should be locked up, it's those lunatics, as their grasp of reality is at the very best hanging by a mere thread. More than my NRA member neighbors who surround me on all sides, these ignoramuses scare the piss out of me because being so mentally fragile they could snap at any moment. I don't want to go even one step closer to their position.

--==//o0o\\==--

Before you gasp in horror at how I phrased that to a "friend", remember that my friendships are not safe spaces. I know my friends and they know me. I know that this particular friend is a second amendment supporter. He's really asking why do YOU buy the guns when the cops will shoot at anything resembling one.

I prefaced my response with "(This is very slightly exaggerated for effect. The slippery slope is real.)".  I mention the slippery slope because please note that this isn't a discussion about gun control. It's a discussion about toys and sporting equipment. I've mentioned before that "everything your kids do, every game they play, is practice for adulthood." That's true. We buy toy guns so that our children will learn to be safer with real ones. Furthermore, when a child has his own he's not as tempted to seek out Daddy's. Toy guns, pellet guns and BB guns instill a comfort and confidence with firearms on a graduated scale. And if you are taught to be cowardly and fearful of them, then that's practice for adulthood, too. And it's a near certainty that any firearm in the hands of an adult so taught will be dangerous and unpredictable, as these are characteristics brought by the shooter.

At its worst, this abject fear fueled by ignorance leaves a human brain in such a state that they cannot tell a threat from a joke; play from assaults; and a weapon from a pastry.

Here's how very slightly that response was exaggerated.

This is a dangerous facsimile of a gun
according to school officials.

This man is making a threatening and dangerous
gesture, according to the standards set for our children.
He's also the Dalai Lama.

This isn't what policemen should look like, nor carry themselves.
More and more, they carry themselves like SWAT even
when in uniform. That's why minority children are taught
never to ask for help, do not assist, do nothing to get yourself
killed by these men, and it's no longer limited to the minorities

In other words, not at all. Nevertheless, despite having the teeth pulled from the "gun nut" label, the "right-wing nut jobs" were declared to be out in force. Fine. Here's a gun-control wing-nut. Not a mechanical wingnut... the living breathing variety. Feel free to use it when you're confronted with the label.

---

Image credits:

• Pop-tart gun: [image] [story]
• Dalai Lama: [image] [story]
• Gun control wingnut: Dave Leigh.

For the Benefit of Bernie

Everyone's favorite member of Doc Emmett Brown's Hair Club for Men is back:

And he he's been tweeting:

"What sense is that?" That's a fair question.

For the benefit of Bernie:

col·lat·er·al kəˈladərəl,kəˈlatrəl/ noun  1. something pledged as security for repayment of a loan, to be forfeited in the event of a default. synonyms: security, surety, guarantee, guaranty, insurance, indemnity, indemnification; backing "she put up her house as collateral for the loan"  2. something that you don't have with a student loan.

risk  noun  1. a possibility of harm or damage against which something is insured. the possibility of financial loss. "project finance is essentially an exercise in risk management"  2. a primary component of student loans.

And that's how it makes sense.

--==//oOo\==--

When I first posted that, I was chided for belittling the candidate. And (I was told) Bernie understands the economics of it perfectly well. The problem with the responses of Bernie's supporters is that they appear to be projecting. They assume he understands the economics and they fill in the copious blanks to explain what he really means. This is apparently defined as what they think he means, such as that he's approaching this from the perspective of the people and not the banks. But communication is the candidate's job, and I remain unconvinced that these eloquent expressions of 'real' meaning are contained in Bernie's message.

Perhaps the medium is the problem. After all, you're not going to say much that's profound on Twitter.

Then again... naaaah.... it's still his job to demonstrate his competence. And since I'm an equal-opportunity critic, I find that my guilt remains disengaged. As this is the worst selection of Presidential candidates ever presented, disregarding party entirely, I see no reason to hold back on Bernie's account.

Sanders' tweet borders on pandering in that it ignores the fact that the bankers' perspective is reasonable. "Where's the sense...?" he asks. The sense is obvious, not merely from a profit-making perspective, but from the perspective of keeping the lending institutions solvent so that loans can continue to be made. This is every bit as much in the interest of the public as the banks.


The Real Problem

One thing that would make the loans less risky, and therefore cheaper, is if fewer people defaulted. But often people take on loans to pay for an education that is either not completed (sometimes due to the fact that they're uninterested or unsuited for academics) or because the returns on that investment are non-existent. This last is in direct opposition to what they were promised by people who sell education for a living.

More higher education does not solve either of these problems, and neither does "free" education (in reality, spreading the costs to others). You're still paying for formal education of people who either do not really want it, or will not benefit from it. Taking them out of the system entirely, however, would reduce the economic strain on the system.


A Better Society

One commenter noted that the existing system is not good social policy. "In effect," he says, "you’re purposefully holding the population back from bettering society and themselves." And let's ignore for a moment the hubris required to set one's self up as the arbiter of what makes another human being "better".

If we were to stay on-topic -- Bernie's tweet about interest rates -- and we took "the existing system" to mean the banking system charging more interest for more risk, then this isn't true in the slightest. Increased risk means loss, and in order to be sustainable, this loss must be covered by redistribution among those who did not forfeit. This is exactly what higher interest rates do. You don't get to magically dispel the costs by pretending they don't exist or by hiding them in the bookkeeping. There is no "holding back" involved in making those real costs visible.

If instead we took "the existing system" to mean the concept of you paying for that which is valuable to you, then I don't think that's true, either. Even when we look at it through Socialist eyes and proclaim that "Society" will pay for that which is valuable to the collective, we find that "more higher education" is a terribly unsatisfactory goal. Yet it is the simplistic goal of those socialists who overwhelmingly populate academia.

It is the common trope of those who sell education for a living that you must have their product to be successful, regardless of how you define success. We should approach this claim with the same skepticism with which we approach the claims of anyone who sells anything. While Learning is a wondrous and powerful thing, Education salesmen reflexively conflate "learning" with "college". This is a dangerous fallacy. While there may always be a benefit to the former (and I see no need to argue against it), there is not always a benefit to the latter. There are many paths to learning that don't involve buying their specific product.

But the truth is, if "Society" were to truly operate in its best interests rather than according to the dictates of those who have placed themselves in positions of influence, we would find that less education would be more valuable to the collective. The academicians get it wrong in a big way, and that's why we see stories like this: Why a BA is Now a Ticket to A Job in a Coffee Shop. More and more, college degrees are "required" by lazy HR managers for jobs that actually require no college-level skills. Lower level workers are thereby frozen out of jobs that they are skilled enough to do. These are the people who have placed no stress on the system, have cost society nothing, and who would immediately be productive were they allowed to be. But they are forced out of jobs and onto welfare roles by those who made the self-fulfilling prophecy. College grads who were promised success if they only pursued a diploma are disgruntled to find that this now earns them minimum wage. The Socialists peddling education as a panacea have done little but inflate the cost of higher education while devaluing the diploma and costing society untold billions of dollars in wasted effort and lost opportunity costs.

For decades now, we have let the socialist elite dictate that what makes a person "better" in their eyes should be universally applied to all. Their mistake has raised the cost of education to unsustainable levels. Now these socialists hope to improve the mess they created by decreeing that it should continue at the cost of all. Would it not be better for the collective itself to act to set both the cost and the value of an education rather than depend on the flawed premises of those who peddle the product? There is a mechanism for this, and it's called the Free Market. When it is subverted, as it has been; ruin is the result, as we have experienced.


A Mo' Better Society

Arguably, a better society arises when people are not shamed into pursuing goals which are not their own and when the rest of us bother to appreciate people for more than their social status as measured in years of formal education. Personally, I would find this trend, which began when I was very small, to smack of snobbery were it not now so prevalent due to the result of decades of indoctrination. It is this institutionalized snobbery that prevents us from examining the premise more closely.

Success is personal, and covers a broad spectrum. We don't even have to go to high-profile examples of mega-successful high-school grads and college dropouts like Bill Gates & Paul Allen (Microsoft), Steve Jobs (Apple), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Oprah Winfrey (Oprah), Michael Dell (Dell Computers), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Jack Taylor (Enterprise Rent-a-Car), Dustin Moskovitz (Facebook), Peter Thiel (PayPal), Matt Mullenweg (WordPress), Arash Ferdowsi (DropBox), Ty Warner (Beanie Babies), Aaron Levie (Box), Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos), Stacey Ferreira (MySocialCloud.com), David Karp (Tumblr), Pete Cashmore (Mashable), Daniel Ek (Spotify), Danielle Morrill (Twilio), Jeffrey Kalmikoff (Threadless), Sahil Lavingia (Pinterest), Zach Sims (Codecademy), Ben Milne (Dwolla), David Neeleman (JetBlue Airways), Susan Lyne (AOL), Evan Williams (Blogger), Gabe Newell (Microsoft, Valve), John Mackey (Whole Foods), or Sophia Amoruso (Nasty Gal).

Consider instead the small business entrepreneur who lives just a quarter of a mile from me. He owns car washes, a convenience store, office complexes, strip malls, storage units, a recycling business... all on a high school education. And, he started with nothing but personal drive and a desire to try anything that might make a legitimate profit without regard to whether it was "beneath" him. Or the electrician, apprenticed to his dad, who earns more than a university professor. Or my plumber, who I'm very happy to report makes more than my doctor, since my plumber makes house calls. Or the guy who a couple of decades ago used to fill my furnace's kerosene tank on short notice on cold winter days, who now lives in a three-story mansion. He started out pumping gas. These are not random examples; they're friends and relatives who will recognize themselves here. These folks got the education that they needed to succeed. But "education" doesn't necessarily mean college or university, and it doesn't mean debt. They focused on their interests and put them to work.

The point here is not that you are going to have a wonderful life if you don't go to college; but that you can... just as you can be miserable and broke with a college degree, serving up candied coffee at Starbucks.

When we push people into the system when they are uninterested or unsuited, we run the very real risk of turning successes into failures. Paying for those failures does not prevent them. The comfortably well-off folks above could easily have been dejected college drop-outs if they had bought into the proposition that this expense defined their chances of success.

And the mega-rich who did drop out...? They did so because they were bright enough to reject the proposition outright.

On Gun Ownership

In a recent conversation on gun ownership, my correspondent made the laudable statement that he would rather not own a gun than be an irresponsible gun owner. He questioned whether increased gun ownership would necessarily lead to increased responsible gun ownership. And it's a good question.

I share his perspective when he says that he'd rather not own a gun than be an irresponsible owner. I think that's the most responsible thing you can say. I think it should be said about more things... pet ownership, for instance, and voting. I'd rather not vote than pick names at random from a list, or pick them because they have the "right" branding. I wish that more voters shared my sense of responsibility.

But responsible ownership is something that must be accomplished constitutionally. I'm afraid my answer here may blunt my Libertarian credentials ever-so-slightly, and it may simultaneously scare the pants off of you.

--==//oOo\\==--

Chris Conover presents data and commentary in a Forbes opinion piece, and I invite you to read it in full... here's my "Reader's Digest" summary of the main arguments.

Anybody can buy a car. They don't even need a license. You can even drive it, without a license, legally, as much as you want... on your own property. This is despite the fact that Americans are far more likely to die in a vehicle accident than by the accidental discharge of a firearm.

But if I want to get in that car and take it out on the road and mingle with the public, then the law says I need a license. So I get a license. The police don't come to my house and check my license periodically. If my license expires, they don't care, so long as I'm not driving in public. If I'm caught doing so they can fine or jail me, but there's nothing whatsoever that says I must have a license to own a car. And that's a device that's far deadlier far more often than guns. And that's despite the fact that there's no explicit constitutional guarantee of car ownership.

Gun control advocates use this same comparison -- cars vs. guns -- to argue that you should need a license to own a gun, "just like a car". But in truth you do not need the license to own a car. You do not need one to drive it. You need a license only to operate it in public. So in practice, regulating guns like we regulate cars would be very close to what gun advocates are asking for. Naturally, it's not the message that the gun control lobby intends, but it is what they asked for.

But we do have an explicit guarantee of gun ownership. Many people quibble over the "militia" clause of the Second Amendment, but they also often forget that the militia is distinct from the Army or Navy (per section 2) and that its composition is left to the various states (per the 10th Amendment). Here in South Carolina, for instance, the subject is in the main body of our Constitution. In section 20, the reason given is "As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty..."  It has nothing to do with hunting or fishing (our constitution asserts those rights independently). Our Article XIII explicitly defines the composition of the militia. And even then, while the militia clause provides a reason, the Second Amendment asserts the right of "the people", not "the militia". Our trust in our government has strict limits, so much so that we put it in writing.

Now you may think that this interpretation is a bit paranoid of the government, to which the answer is, "well, DUH"... it's a paranoia that was discussed at length prior to being written into the Constitution of the United States and individual States, so any law we make has to deal with that. And I'm of the opinion that "clever circumvention" is never the proper course. The Constitution should be complied with, both the letter and the intent.

Now to really scare you.

Personally, I'm fond of revolvers.
Limited capacity, but highly reliable.

I'm not in favor of mandatory registration of guns. Truth be told, I want my government to be scared of its citizens. I don't want them to know whether you have a gun, an arsenal, or nothing at all. I want them not to know how many guns there are, and I want them not to know where those guns are, at least not without a warrant. I think the probability of actually using these guns against my government is vanishingly small... and I want to keep that probability low, so I do not want my government ever to be comfortable in believing that it has more power than its citizens. When I was in the military, I felt no different. And many of my compatriots felt the same way. In this country the government cannot rely on the military to subdue its own people.

Of course, this could make things difficult for the police, but nobody said law enforcement was an easy job. And those difficulties are only incremental, in that the vast majority of gun owners are not only law-abiding, but they support the police. Those that don't support the police also don't give a damn about restrictive gun control laws. And because of this, I want the law to be such that criminals don't know whether a law-abiding person is armed or not... in public or private. Criminals should be as wary of their would-be victims as they are of the police.

Furthermore, I don't want an invading army or any other group, should there ever be one, to be able to hack a database or pull records and find every weapon. I want this country to be unassailable by enemies "foreign or domestic". Even in a time when CNN's Jake Tapper opines, "I think the American people, honestly, want security over freedom," I prefer to side with Patrick Henry:

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

I think it's a very good thing that I and other like-minded individuals are so inclined. It was people who shared our "paranoid" view that created this nation. It was these people like this who have defended it for 240 years. It is largely these people who man our all-volunteer armed forces today, just as I did in my day. We swore an oath to defend Liberty, not security... to defend the Constitution, not back-yard fences and "safe spaces".

--==//oOo\\==--

Having said all that, I absolutely want gun owners to be both responsible and knowledgeable, as does anyone who has been affiliated with the NRA. To that end, if I were a gun merchant, then I would include a free gun owner's course with the purchase of any weapon. I wouldn't need government regulation to institute such a policy; just come take the course and then take your gun home. If you've already taken such a course, fine... show me your certificate of completion or permit. If not, then store policy says you take the course.

Could such a policy be codified as a law? Well, sure... anything at all can be made a law. I don't know that it should... and whether it would survive the courts is an interesting guess. But we don't need to pass a law in order to do it in practice. There is no Constitutional impediment preventing a vendor from bundling whatever conditions he wants into a sale. Me...? I'd give 'em a course. And if a private vendor did such a thing, I'd get behind him 100%. Might it make it more difficult to get a gun for someone who is illiterate or feeble-minded if I required him to take tests first? Yes, it would. But it would also be completely legal. He may have a right to bear arms, but as a private citizen I don't have the obligation to sell them to just anyone. That is, right up until the PC police violate my right of free association and force me to sell to idiots. But that's another topic.


Resources for online training:

• https://www.handgunsafetycourse.com/
• http://www.nraonlinetraining.org/

I Wish...

Think about it. 

Voting in our political system, if it were done ideally, would work like this:

1. All voters would cast ballots for those candidates who best represented their interests.
2. The votes would be tallied, and the winner would be the candidate who best represented the interests of the most voters.

But it doesn't really work like that, does it?  For many voters, elections are a form of team sporting event. Voters don't cast ballots for the candidate who best represents them. Rather, they get behind and cheer on the champion on their team who has the best chance of winning, whether their agenda aligns with the voters' or not. If it has ever puzzled you how it is that Congress can have an approval rating of 14% (fourteen percent!) even though each and every member was elected by a majority vote in his or her district, then here's your answer. The voters play the game instead of voting in their interests, and when to no one's surprise they are not represented, they are dissatisfied with the people they pretended to prefer for the sake of the "election game".

Doesn't that sound a little silly to you? So I want to talk to the "team players".

The only time the you seem to take a genuine interest in your own best interests is when you are discussing the candidates of your own party's opposition. It's a bit bizarre, but the next time you're watching the network pundits prattle on, pay attention and you'll see it in action. Militant Leftists wax philosophic about what "the Republicans" need to do. Right-wing mouthpieces do the same about "the Democrats". They are both supremely adept at finding the flaws in the other side's candidates, and they are both supremely inept at recognizing the same in their own.

If you were looking at it purely as election strategy, it is the worst one to take. After all, if you want your candidate to sail through the general election to victory, shouldn't you encourage the other party to offer up some halfwit as their nominee? It seems to be what they'd naturally do if you weren't around to "help" them with your sage advice as to who's best, doesn't it?

Of course, that's not exactly how your advice runs. Opposition commentary is almost entirely negative. You point out the flaws so they can pick the candidate with the fewest to offer up. But the end result is the same. By speaking up, the opposition party has exerted a lot of pressure on you to pick the candidate with the "fewest flaws". One who can win. As a result, the opposition has just picked your candidate's flaws. That's not going to affect your vote, of course... you're a team player.

Then comes the General Election, and you have nothing but the one nominee from your party, whose flaws you pretty much completely ignored during the primaries, having been fixated on what was going on in the other party for whom you would never vote as a pure matter of principle. And suddenly you recognize that your nominee isn't going to win with just your core party votes. There are swing voters out there, and they're paying attention to all the details you ignored. And you have to deal with that, so it's all back to team sports and your own nominee's weaknesses and strengths honestly don't matter. General Electioneering becomes an exercise in denying all the flaws the other team picked for your candidate, and denying any of the strengths in theirs. Anything you've ever said good about one of your candidates is bad when it's said about the other guy. And right now, I'm going to pick on the Democrats, because as the champions of identity politics they provide so much low-hanging fruit:

• Pick on Obama? You're racist. 
• Offer up a black candidate of your own? You're still racist because he's an Uncle Tom. And saying he's an Uncle Tom isn't racist, because you're the racist, not me. QED.

• Pick on Hillary? You're superficial and a misogynist. 
• Offer up a female candidate of your own? OMG, what is she wearing? And seriously, does she think she can win with that face and hair? 

• Ask about Obama's birth certificate? RACIST! BIRTHER! 
• Ask about Ted Cruz' birth certificate? No, really... this has serious problems! 

• Offer only rich white people who are past retirement age as candidates? No they're not (seriously). Besides, they know what's best for you. 
• Offer a multicultural buffet of young candidates... black, white, male, female, hispanic? They're really condescending old white guys. And racist. Don't forget racist.

And it works the other way around. If a Democrat has an idea it can't be good because... well, because. And Republican ideas are good just because they're Republican. (Seriously, visit this link if you think I think it's all Democratic nonsense). Any candidate's qualifications and disqualifications are moot because you don't want "them" in charge. "Them" is, of course, the other team.

Neither one of you has a candidate... you're voting for the Donkey or the Elephant. Go, team!

Personally, I prefer it the way it's supposed to work. So I don't intend on voting Republican or Democrat or even necessarily Libertarian... and I proudly proclaim my lack of intent. I'll vote for a Presidential candidate who best represents my interests. And if they all suck, I'll abstain, knowing that my vote won't reduce the the amount of "suck" in the system.

But to be honest, most of that suck is from you guys.

Libertarian Cookies

I have a recipe for the best damned sugar cookie ever.

It's an old recipe that dates clear back to the time of the Revolutionary War. But don't let that put you off... these cookies have been praised over the centuries by people who really know their cookies, including the famous French chef, Frederic.

Nevertheless, a friend approached me today to complain about the recipe.

Friend: Dave, those sugar cookies you recommended to me taste like dirt.

Me: What do you mean?

Friend: You told me that they'd be the best, lightest, sweetest cookies ever. But they're not sweet at all! They taste like dirt!

Me: Did you put in enough sugar?

Friend: Of course I did!

Me: How much?

Friend: None at all! Sugar is bad for you!

Me: How do you expect them to be sweet if you took away the sugar?

Friend: There you go again, misrepresenting things! Nobody took away the sugar!

Me: So where's the sugar?

Friend: Locked in the cabinet, of course! Sugar is bad for you!

Me: But the cookie itself is missing an essential ingredient, that being the sugar.

Friend: Sugar's not essential. Nobody needs that much sugar!

Me: So did you substitute something else? Stevia, maybe...? Or molasses?

Friend: I have zero tolerance for sugar.

Me: But surely you can't expect the cookie to turn out as promised if you refuse to follow the recipe.

Friend: I followed the recipe! It tastes like dirt!

Me: The recipe calls for the sugar to actually be in the cookie.

Friend: That recipe was written long before people knew how bad sugar was for you. Besides, they never anticipated modern refined sugar. The sugar of their time was a lot simpler and harder to come by. 

Me: So why didn't you at least substitute natural cane sugar?

Friend: You're not paying attention. Nobody needs sugar! Maybe professional bakers, but they're regulated and have the proper training to use the sugar properly.

Me: So you'd rather leave it out and have a disgusting dirt-cookie?

Friend: Nobody left anything out! It's right there in the locked cabinet!  Idiot. 
And your cookies are still terrible!

Me: How would you know? You've never tasted one.

--==//oOo\\==--

For having read through that you get this nifty sugar cookie recipe:

SUGAR COOKIES

• 1/2 cup butter
• 1 cup sugar
• 1 egg
• 1/4 cup milk
• 2 teaspoons baking powder
• 1/4 teaspoon vanilla or any other flavoring
• 2 cups flour (approx.)
• cinnamon and/or nuts (optional)

Cream the butter and sugar. Beat the eggs and add to the milk. Sift flour and mix baking powder with 1 cup, then add the rest of the flour, and gradually add more if needed to make a dough stiff enough to handle. Place in refrigerator to harden. Roll on floured board 1/4 inch thick. Shape with cookie cutter. Sprinkle with sugar, cinnamon, and chopped nuts, if desired. Bake in a quick oven (375 - 400F) for 8 to 10 minutes.

--==//oOo\\==--

When you've never tasted real freedom, it's easy to complain about the sham you've been fed in its place.  

Yes, of course it's a rant. It's applicable to all of the rights that we lock away in the cabinet because they're "dangerous". It's about Free Speech relegated to "zones" on campuses, or done away with whatsoever. It's about freedom of religion when that freedom is forbidden in public spaces. 

But now playing: The usual crying about the Second Amendment from the usual quarter. And it's accompanied by the usual hypocrisy.

The Pope is surrounded by Swiss Guard, who are armed to the teeth for his safety. On the whole, it works very well. Yet the Pope chides the manufacturers of the weapons purchased and used by the Church.

The President is surrounded by Secret Service, who are armed to the teeth for his safety. On the whole, it works very well. Yet, speaking for our government, the President would limit such protection to himself.

For twenty-five years our schools have been surrounded by signs advertising the complete lack of opposition to anyone who wishes to take a life... signs which are practically an invitation to any who would cause mayhem. On the whole, it doesn't work in the slightest.

The Pope and the President are surprised at this.

When the complete lack of security doesn't work to secure anything, the people who demanded that their children be left out as goats for the T-Rex call the police, who are armed to the teeth, but always arrive too late.

The people are surprised at this.

Having chosen to discard the Second Amendment, and having done everything in a way that ensures deaths that could have been avoided had the Second Amendment been observed, the people who caused the problem complain that the Second Amendment is at fault. They cry that "something must be done", but that "something" is never to empower law-abiding citizens to take immediate action against the immediate threat that they face. They continue the illogical narrative that places blame anywhere but with the guy pulling the trigger, and if only they could find this magical source of the problem, the lions will become vegan just as they falsely claim is the case in every country but ours. But they never find that source, and mass shootings still occur even where the guns are banned.

Why am I not surprised at this?

---

Photo credit: Drop Sugar Cookies by Vanessa Myers via Flickr.  (cc-by-sa)

Explaining Libertarianism to the Right

A little learning is a dangerous thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.

There, shallow Draughts intoxicate the brain,

And drinking largely sobers us again. 

--Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism

I was once editor of a literary journal entitled The Pierian Spring, named for this bit of verse. The name and the verse allude to a bit of Greek mythology about the sacred spring of the Muses, which is identified as a metaphorical fountain of knowledge. The meaning of the verse is that, as we first gain knowledge of a subject we become heady with that knowledge. The "intoxication of the brain" is a certain bit of foolishness that results. But as we absorb more, that initial foolishness abates and we become "sober" once again.

Occasionally that happens when a conservative "discovers" that Libertarianism is what was once called "classical liberalism" and has an ignorant conniption fit. Having drunk a shallow draught he is giddy with the pittance of knowledge that has been gained. He needs another drink. I have a full cup.

--==//oOo\\==--

Libertarianism IS, in fact, exactly classical liberalism. The name "Libertarianism" has been coined because modern-day "Liberals" have so corrupted the term as to render it unusable for its original purpose. This is the very first thing of which my more "conservative" friends should take note.

For a moment let's discuss that original purpose. "Classical liberalism" is that of the Age of Enlightenment, that age which led to the founding of the United States. In fact, every single one of America's founders was a Liberal in this sense, without any exception whatsoever. If you think of yourself as a Constitutionalist, you either agree with this philosophy... or you're not, and should start looking for a new label for yourself.  A classical liberal education, dominant in the Age of Enlightenment, was one that emphasized the liberal arts, those being:

• Grammar
• Dialectic
• Rhetoric
• Arts & Music
• Natural Science
• Mathematics
• Geometry

You might simply call it a classical education now. It is the foundation of such principles as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom from government coercion, the right to property, the right to privacy, the right to a representative government, the right to self-ownership and self-determination (what was then termed the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness)...

...a few of these should sound vaguely familiar.

Now, if you like all of those things, and you want your government to guarantee them and you aren't spouting opportunistic bullshit about when, who, and under what conditions they apply... if you're not engaged in situational ethics in which your freedoms are ok, but someone else's are "dangerous"... if you're ethically consistent... if you can grasp the concept that a guarantee of freedom means that some people are going to do things with which you fundamentally disagree... if you were honest about it when you said you wanted your government to guarantee all of those freedoms, then you might be a Libertarian.

I thought long and hard about all that before deciding I was a Libertarian.  Fortunately I have drunk deep, from the very same "deep end" as the Founding Fathers of this nation, without adultery, dilution, bastardization, or embarrassing compromise of either principle or morality.

It is true that in the principle of government, I support Liberty. It is my Liberty upon which this country was founded; not your ability to control my actions, whatever they may be. For in allowing that the actions of one human being may be regulated by another, you give permission for them to do the same to you according to their principles of what they want from you. This is something I find to be thoughtless and short-sighted.

It was my Liberty that was argued when the Bill of Rights was debated on both sides, with the only question being whether it was best protected by enumerating rights or relying on their lack of mention in the Constitution to identify them as being reserved to the People. A debate, by the way, still being played out today, and which seems to be proving Madison right, as Amendments intended to reign in and control the government are perverted to control the People instead. As an example, First Amendment was never intended to control the religious practices of any citizen. Its plain language meaning is to limit the government. That hasn't stopped any non-Libertarian from twisting its use. Hardly a record of which to be proud.

---==//oOo\\==--

It was only after heavy consideration that I realized my championship of Liberty does not constitute an endorsement of what you do with it. This is the most common bit of simplistic ignorance leveled against Libertarians. Seeing through this allowed me to decide that it was not possible for me to identify as anything else.

Here is the platform of the Libertarian Party. Keep in mind that as in any huge group of people, there are differences of opinion. A party platform is a general guideline of agreement... sometimes the "agreement to disagree". Especially in the case of Libertarians, it is a grave mistake to believe it is some instruction as to what to believe. I certainly don't agree with all of the points, but that's OK... People who employ reason do not limit their discussions to only one side of an issue. Rather, they're open to frank discourse.

Here are my own positions on key issues:

• Drugs: I am for ending the wasteful, useless, counterproductive "war on drugs", but I am not for drug use. I'm not for alcohol use, either, though it was made legal after a disastrous attempt at Prohibition that yielded exactly the same predictable, counterproductive results as the current "war on drugs". I am also against the institutionalized slavery made possible by unnecessary convictions for "victimless crimes". I describe the justification for this term in an earlier essay. Far from being a pejorative invention of mine, the Supreme Court of Virginia made the characterization while interpreting the Thirteenth Amendment. This is slavery which is monetized by UNICOR and financed by the United States Government. That would be you and me. I, for one, don't like being made an implicit slave owner through these practices, of which most ordinary citizens are completely unaware.

• Church and State: I am for the separation of Church and State, but unlike statists on both the Right and Left, I know what that means. It means I get to pray in a school or courthouse, and if you don't like that, then you can say your own prayer or don't pray at all; and neither one of us will be in violation of anything. It means that the government is prohibited from making a law robbing me of my ability to choose my customers based on my religious beliefs. It does not mean they should "make it legal"... it means they can't make the law in the first place.

• Abortion: Libertarians are not monolithically pro-choice. They are divided on the matter as are Republicans and Democrats. I, for instance, am pro-life and justify laws banning abortion by the fact that unborn innocents have a right to Life that would otherwise have no champion. The protection of the innocent is a legitimate role of government, and I believe these laws to be necessary. When weighing the literal life or death of children against the inconvenience of the adults that conceived them, I side with the children. Other Libertarians are just as bluntly pro-death, and the party platform basically just punts, because we're not going to agree today. Whatever their stance on personal choice, however, almost all Libertarians agree that the government has no business funding abortion through any means.

• Border Security: Libertarians are also divided on the subject of open borders. I am among those who oppose it on consequentialist grounds (its impact on maintaining a free society). We have the means to immigrate to this country legally. This is necessary to ensure that those who become citizens at the very least will promise to uphold the basic liberties that drew them to this country and allowed them to become citizens. There is no need for insecure borders, and plenty of reasons to secure them.

• Equality: I am consistently for equality before the law, because ALL men are created equal. And in accordance with common language usage, "men" means "mankind", as in "women", too. And there aren't any qualifications on which men or women this is talking about. Does anybody seriously want to argue against that? Prediction: you will lose.

• Marriage: I am for the elimination of government controls on marriage, but I am not for gay marriage. I will neither perform nor enter into one. I jealously guard my religious freedom as a matter of self-interest, and government has no business in religious matters. That means your sacrament, my sacrament, theirs... all off limits. (See First Amendment). How that works is made crystal clear in my last essay. 

• War: I oppose starting a war. I also oppose fighting someone else's war without invitation. I am in favor of an unassailable National Defense, in that I draw a sharp distinction between defense spending and military spending. I do support mutual defense pacts, and in those cases, an attack against one member is an attack against all. Like the porcupine that is the Libertarian mascot, we should make it very painful to attack the US. I supported retaliation for 9/11 and would again. But it would be focused, fierce, then finished. It is stupid to spend billions to engage an enemy on his home soil when he is content to simply wait you out. Furthermore, I support the intelligent use of our military; something that hasn't been tried in many decades. The military has one main purpose: to secure our borders and liberty. Why do we need a separate border patrol? Why do we not allow our military to do their job and secure our borders on our soil? Whatever the reason is, it is not the Third Amendment.

• Privacy: I oppose impositions on Liberty enacted with the supposition that they "enhance my safety". How many terrorists have convicted under the Patriot Act? There is no useful answer, because under the Patriot Act there is no need for due process. The Act requires no charge, no warrant, no prosecution, no conviction, no sentence. This is applied to American citizens on American soil. And when due process is applied, it is often applied inappropriately, simply because it can be. Consider the case of Tamera Freeman, who was convicted under a felony charge of terrorism after swatting each of her children three times on the leg during a Frontier Airlines flight. She spent three months in jail before they forced a guilty plea out of her. Charged with terrorism? You are damned straight I opposed a law that made that possible, I have nothing but pity for the sheep who supported it unchanged rather than urge the construction and adoption of a better alternative that defends the rights of Americans. I know thinking is hard work, but sometimes it's a lot better than just continuing to go with the first thing you came up with out of some misguided sense of "support". The injustice of it should make your blood boil.

• Economy: I absolutely support free market capitalism in what is universally touted to be a "Free Market Capitalist" economy. Why would I support anything else? Forty years ago when I first started paying attention to politics that was the conservative position. Maybe people have just gotten economically illiterate in the meantime. Which, on the average, they have. Take as an example the hypothetical failure of a lending institution. That could never happen, right? But it did, and both main parties threw trillions of dollars at it. In a free market, when "Bellyup Bank" goes belly-up, you're not off the hook for making your house payments. You still pay. That debt of yours represents the bank's assets. And those assets are what get sold off in either re-structuring or dissolution of the company. The end result is, you're still making payments. Only now it's to a stronger bank. And it's unlikely that those assets would all go to one place. Several banks would have gotten stronger as they purchased those assets. The people who worked for Bellyup Bank will be jobless only temporarily, as those stronger banks grow to fill the void left by Bellyup, and will seek experienced help. In other words, there's a temporary impact on the economy, which then recovers, just as with any recession and no worse... except not a single dime of bailout money need be spent. The "trillion dollar bailouts" of this last decade did basically nothing for the economy but keep a few familiar logos on some familiar buildings when they should have been replaced by new ones. A truly conservative economist would never endorse such a foolish waste. Libertarians are more conservative than Conservatives on this issue.

• Education: There is no role for the Federal government in running our schools. The Constitution doesn't permit it, though overeager politicians have. I therefore support disbanding the Federal Department of Education. Education is best managed at as local a level as possible. In South Carolina, where I live, the state constitution (in Article XI) does mandate a public education system, so that's the appropriate place. I'm not opposed on pragmatic grounds to paying for it with taxation at the State level (which is moot because it is already).  However, Article XI Section 4 also prohibits state funding of private institutions, which could be interpreted as prohibiting the use of school vouchers at those schools. I favor educational choice, the advantages that come with competition, and using educational funds for the purpose for which they're intended, namely the education of all of the children in the state. I therefore favor vouchers and a constitutional amendment to Article XI Section 4 to explicitly allow parental choice and appropriate credits. But even without such an amendment, I favor parental choice among public schools. On a purely practical note, this happens anyway. Parents simply list some relative's address in the desired district. All parents should have that option. 

--==//oOo\\==--

There's a lot left out, of course, but these are the ones that have come up in conversation with the Right... and I threw in Education for good measure. That having been said, of these issues, what's wrong with my positions? I don't want to know just whether you agree with the positions, but with the reasons they were taken.

And I mean it... tell me in the comments, or message me on Facebook.

Oh, and please don't bother with what you suppose I might say about topics I didn't mention. If you want, ask me about them and we'll talk about them at a future time.

My reasons for this are somewhat personal. There is plenty here for disagreement on both Left and Right. Few Democrats or Republicans will read these points without saying, "Yeah, that's good except...". As I've discussed politics over the years, most of my heaviest disagreements have been with Democrats. But the ones from Republicans, though less frequent, feel the worst, because Republicans are the ones who talk the most about freedoms and small government. Though the public record shows that government grows more intrusive no matter which party is in charge, I still hold this hope that rank and file Republicans actually want freedom and small government.

But I also want to know whether or not, Democrat or Republican, you can see a consistent and reasonable cause for my position, even if you don't agree with the position itself. Do you think I am your "enemy" as opposed to thinking that I merely disagree with you on a point of policy?

You see, in all my disagreements, today is the first time anyone has ever referred to me as "the enemy" in response to a reasoned discussion, much of which is included above. I want to know if that charge has merit. So if you would, please. drop me a line.

Libertarians Aren't Anarchists

Graphic from The Cato Institute. Click to read more of Bastiat

I had a great conversation with a friend about the above quote. In it, he brought up a few interesting points. I think they're worthy of comment because they touched on the way many people (usually on the Left, as observed by Bastiat, above) think about Libertarianism, and some of the misconceptions they hold. Primarily, the misconception that Libertarians are Anarchists.

Libertarians are not Anarchists. 

A Libertarian wants a limited government: an Anarchist wants none. Or consider this... the difference between a Libertarian and an Anarchist is the difference between a lover and a rapist. It's not so subtle after all, is it? That doesn't keep people from getting it wrong. Take this parody:

Don't get your hackles up, it's funny. As in all parody, there's a great deal of exaggeration. But don't mistake it for an effective argument against what Libertarianism actually is. Somalia is no more a Libertarian ideal than Jeffrey Dahmer was a school dietitian., comedy videos notwithstanding.

People all across the political spectrum like roads, bridges, infrastructure, museums, and a safe society. I like them, too --  and I'll even throw in schools and doctors to boot. But I want their governance to be at the proper level (federal, state, local, or personal) and no more governance than is necessary. That's pretty simple.

Furthermore, just because the government shouldn't be involved in something, that doesn't mean I wouldn't band with other willing people and chip in for the benefit of myself and others.

It's an issue of control

As you'll see in the case of "intellectual property" (in the next post), much of government regulation is about control... controlling your actions, controlling your charitable giving; even controlling the very expressions of your thought despite the "guarantee" of the First Amendment. We put up with a little of that for the public good, thus we have laws against slander and libel. However, we have to be very careful that such things don't go out of bounds. Sadly, the law is often used not for the public good, but to exert petty control over the private actions of citizens.

All sorts of people are Libertarians, They believe in greater or lesser degrees of government. You can click on the logo to the right to read the Libertarian Party's platform. Here's what I mean by it:

• The FEDERAL government should do everything required of it by the Constitution, and nothing else. That "nothing else" isn't just my preference, BTW... it's mandated by the Tenth Amendment... one which is often dismissed as not meaning anything. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Well, it does mean something, "if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated" (as James Madison put it). That's why it was debated and ratified. It means "limited government". If it's not granted in the Constitution, it's not in Federal power.
• The STATE government should do everything required of it by the State Constitution and no more.  Note that it doesn't have to duplicate the functions of the Federal government. Note that it can do things the Federal government can't, except those things that the US Constitution prohibits. Note that the States don't need to have the same rules... diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. It's a big country. And if you don't live in South Carolina, keep your nose out of South Carolina politics. 
• Your LOCAL government should take care of your municipal and community needs to whatever extent its citizens have decided. So long as it's not prohibited by the US and State Constitutions, that is. Local safety, community schools, sanitation, etc... those things that to coordinate any group of people who want to live together nicely. Again, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, and various levels of government involvement in accordance with the vote of the People. For instance, where I live, the citizenry, through the City, own the utilities. In practice it's great. Utilities are a natural monopoly, and public ownership means that our property taxes can remain low. I would not vote for State or Federal control of the utility grid though, as that removes the benefit from the people. 
• What's remains is called YOUR LIFE. Live it. It's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. Live up to it.

The basic rule is that the highest rank in a Libertarian society is Citizen. All authority is delegated to the government; thus the various levels of government have only the authority that the People allow. Go back and re-read the Tenth Amendment and see if that doesn't click for you.

Because all people have the same rights, it naturally follows that your freedoms don't entitle you to infringe on someone else's. No natural right may force an obligation on another. Primarily this means you have to be tolerant of others. They're not you, they don't think like you, and if you think they must think like you, then prepare for a lifetime of disappointment. It also means that others are not obligated to work for you and provide for you, although as a society we encourage one another to be generous. (Remember Bastiat's quote? There's a difference between government and society). Put another way, you don't have a right to freedom from offense, and you don't have a right to slaves. But on my most tolerant days, there are some things I can't get behind. This is going to take the form of a little rant, so if you don't like rants, just skip it.

• If the team doesn't pray before a football game, I can't get behind the offense you take at this "attack on religion", because nobody's stopping you from praying. So bow your head and forget about what everybody else is doing. 
• I can't get behind manipulative goading of the People into class envy. The proper reaction to "you have things I don't" isn't "give me your stuff!" It's "how can I do what you did?" For the record, the first step in doing that is to stop listening to the Left about how unfair your life is. They tell you that Life isn't fair when they mean it's not equitable. Because there is absolutely nothing fair about taking by force what one man earned to give to another who did not earn it. The deliberate inflammation of petty jealousies is as unimaginative as it is transparent.
• I can't get behind people using their religion as a hook on which to hang law. "We're a Christian nation!" they cry. Well... no. We're a nation OF Christians, and that's a whole different story, because we're also a nation of Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Native Americans and Sikhs and Shintos and Jainists and Unitarians and B'hai Faith and Satanists and Wiccans and Jedis and Taoists and New Agers and Druids and Zoroastrians and Neopagans and Agnostics and Atheists and Deists and Humanists... even Scientologists and Pastafarians. Even among the Christians, we're not a nation of Christians, but of Anabaptists and Baptists and Calvinists and Catholics and Episcopalians and Lutherans and Methodists and Mormons and Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Quakers and Seventh-Day Adventists and more. And sometimes they don't get along. And ALL of these are equally protected by and prohibited from imposing their beliefs on others by the First Amendment. If you can't find a good enough secular reason for a law, then leave it to God. 
• I can't get behind the constant race-baiting by the professional liars who claim to act in minority interests. It's there when every minority Conservative voice is shouted down as an "Uncle Tom" or a "house nigger". It's there when the ONLY black Senator, Tim Scott, isn't invited to the celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King's speech in Washington DC. It's there when rappers like TI are given a hard time when they clean up their act because they're no longer Black enough. It's there when the Liberal media insist on calling George Zimmerman (a mixed-race Hispanic) a "White Hispanic". He downplayed his ethnicity, but apparently Latino-on-Black violence isn't divisive enough for the media. And it's there every time that these people, who do these things, have the unmitigated effrontery to call other people "racists." 

And I can't get behind legislation by un-elected non-representatives.  You see...

There is a Shadow Government

I'm not talking about some nefarious Illuminati meeting in a dark chamber and pulling the strings. I'm talking about something that's blatant, and public, and in-your-face.

The constant push for centralization and government control brings with it supreme inefficiencies. We have created agencies and bureaucracies of millions [pdf] of people who are paid by draining the public coffers so the Federal government can enforce regulations that apply to local jurisdictions. These regulations were not created by constitutionally-designated, freely-elected lawmakers, nor even approved by such after due consideration; but by appointed and hired bureaucrats. The regulations they create have the force of law; the fees and fines they can impose have the effect of taxation. This bureaucracy forms the body of a government that we did not elect, and which does not represent us, and which endures independently of an election cycle. Seeing as how we already have State and local governments, the inefficiency of this additional "shadow" government is simply not acceptable to me.

But do not imagine that this means I am an anarchist. That would be a gross mis-characterization. Libertarians are not "absolutist". Even Bastiat argued the need for public assistance. Far from being "unrealistically idealistic", Libertarians are REALISTICALLY idealistic.

BIG difference.