Recently I was asked to continue work on my graduate research. The research was to develop code to model multiphase flow. As a student, I worked on the 2-phase code and am now being asked to expand the work into 3 phases. However, I just found out that Chevron claims ownership of the code. I never signed a contract, but supposedly since I signed a contract with Notre Dame, and they signed a contract with Chevron I don't "own" the code. Ironically, the methodology (my dissertation) is free to use. So, anyone could write the code following my dissertation, but no one can see my code.
The consequences of this private code / public knowledge issue is quite convoluted. The purpose of IP according to Chevron is to slow down the competition from gaining the technology. But what about me? I developed the code so even if I don't own it I'd be able to quickly reproduce it. I was told this reproduction would be "suspicious", it's suspicious that I would rewrite the code when I have access to the original code. So even though anyone could reproduce the code, it would be "suspicious" if I - the one who understands it best - reproduced it. Furthermore, how am I supposed to work on developing the code further when I am no longer at Notre Dame and I no longer have the right to use the code?
If I do develop the 3-phase code I'd be doing it outside of ND, and I never signed a contract to give IP rights to Chevron. What then? I won't belabor this issue anymore now. What's underlying the problem is the application of property rights to non-scarce goods. My code is infinitely reproducible and my use of the code does not hamper Chevron's use. In fact, Chevron doesn't even understand the code and thus only uses a fraction of its potential while simultaneously banning my use of it.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Democracy: Trying to be God
I recently heard about R.C. Hoiles, a multi-millionaire newspaper tycoon, who said
No individual or groups of individuals can claim divine right. Though this truth was known long ago, we remain in a dark age of political nonsense. For obeying their god-king, we laugh at peasants of old, then we walk to the polling booth to elect our own human incarnation of divinity. It is the ultimate sin to play God and so it is equally sinful to condone and participate in the political means. All Christians should reject monarchy, democracy, aristocracy, etc. as the sin of acting as God. But the serpent is crafty and so many will baulk at that conclusion. The price for eating the fruit was death, and considering god-kings killed over 100 million people last century (not including war casualties), the threat is more than theological.
school texts exposed the political "error" of the divine right of kings … they never explained the error in the divine right of the majority. [They] simply substituted the divine right of the majority for the divine right of kings."Usually I approach political arguments Rothbard-style by applying natural rights. But what other rights have been accepted as legitimate in human history? The divine right is one. Supposedly, God has the right to murder and it is just. God has a history of (justly) withholding resources from his people even including night when the sun/earth stayed still for 3 days. So when kings were looked upon as images of God, they could get away with murder, hoarding, and stealing. Then we had the enlightenment and Kingdoms vanished (roughly speaking). But what emerged was really no different as Hoiles points out.
No individual or groups of individuals can claim divine right. Though this truth was known long ago, we remain in a dark age of political nonsense. For obeying their god-king, we laugh at peasants of old, then we walk to the polling booth to elect our own human incarnation of divinity. It is the ultimate sin to play God and so it is equally sinful to condone and participate in the political means. All Christians should reject monarchy, democracy, aristocracy, etc. as the sin of acting as God. But the serpent is crafty and so many will baulk at that conclusion. The price for eating the fruit was death, and considering god-kings killed over 100 million people last century (not including war casualties), the threat is more than theological.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Democracy is not the goal
In the lead up to the US involvement in World War I, president Wilson claimed that we must go to war in order to "make the world safe for democracy". How did anyone buy this as the goal? Since then it appears that no one has questioned that democracy is a goal in and of itself, but is it? What does democracy provide that is so necessary? I'll answer these questions in a round about way so bear with me.
I have attended one John Birch Society meeting. The meeting leader shocked me when he said "democracy is mob rule, a republic is the rule by law". I dismissed the first part as something a crazy JBS member would say because I have been led to believe the democracy is the most just and necessary form of government. However, those words had a lasting impression and started the crack in my hollow statist philosophy.
Over the next couple years I looked at democracy differently. An argument on facebook about expanding Grand Rapids bus routes by increasing property taxes accelerated my disdain for democracy. How is it, that those that will pay less of the tax, but use the bus more, can force those who will probably not use the bus but end up paying for most of the increased costs? This was straight up bullying, and I was chided for "not wanting to help my community". Being anti-democratic is a blanket accusation to cover a multitude of sins (i.e. libertarian beliefs).
So what is the best democratic system, if we were to maintain it. In the bus case I figured only property owners should be allowed to vote since they would be the ones paying the taxes. In general elections, I figured there needed to be a barrier to entry where one would have to pay a small amount to show he was dedicated to politics. Not only would this barrier be arbitrary but the idea failed to recognize the inherent barrier of taking the time register, scheduling a trip to the polling booth, and paying for transportation to and from the booth. Maybe a test to show political competency? John Stossel asked the "Man on the street" simple questions like "How many senators come from each state?" Sure, most people know these answers, but knowing how many senators there are is superfluous in choosing freedom over serfdom.
Ultimately, the only way to prevent the non-payers from looting the payers is to give a voter as many votes as dollars he has paid to the government. But this is just capitalism, right? Vote with your wallet? Absolutely not, there is a huge difference between democracy and capitalism. Well, okay, one is a political system and the other is economic, but the important distinction can still be made. Voting with the power of your tax dollars would give you the power to exercise the political means (aggerssion). Capitalism is the accumulation of capital through voluntary, economic means. These two systems are conflated in the minds of the statists that I've encountered. When I propose capitalism, laissez-faire style, they quickly answer "but the rich would just control us." The rich would not control us anymore than Wal-Mart controls us today, and actually less so since Wal-Mart benefits from government regulations that push smaller stores out of business. They benefit from economies of scale that allows them to absorb the increased regulations and taxation, then benefit from government granted corporate personhood, and lobbying power that makes them far more powerful than they would be in a free market.
It is at this point I realized that democracy is unworkable so what about that republic thing the JBS guy was talking about? Well, it sounds like a nice idea but Tom Woods in a Lew Rockwell podcast pointed out that no piece of paper (e.g. the constitution) can restrain an organization who is also the sole regulator of this paper. Even our so called "checks and balances" are slanted since for example the supreme court is just a different head of the same beast. The 17th amendment was created to reduce the balance between the states and federal government, and the 10th amendment is considered quaint or inapplicable in our modern world. So now the federal government is a sovereign and unrestrained entity. It is a fantasy to think that the "rule of law" can restrain the powers of the institution that makes and interprets the rules of law.
To finish up, I need to answer the question, "what is the goal"? Well, this post was inspired by John Denson's speech at the Mises supporter's summit. He rightly says that liberty is the goal, democracy is only a means (and a piss poor one) at achieving that goal. Jeffrey Tucker says at the same meeting, "when we as a society are faced with a problem, wouldn't it be great if we said, 'what we need to solve this problem is more liberty'"(paraphrased). Intervention begets intervention and we so often fail to see the problems of the previous intervention and thus we infinitely repeat our mistakes. This makes us poorer, yet paradoxically our material well being is constantly increasing -- this is not because of the state but despite it. Our great benefactors are the geniuses of enterprise. It is a flat out sin against nature to not recognize their heroism but rather condemn them. It is equally unconscionable to exalt the political class who oppress us and destroy the great potential of social power.
I have attended one John Birch Society meeting. The meeting leader shocked me when he said "democracy is mob rule, a republic is the rule by law". I dismissed the first part as something a crazy JBS member would say because I have been led to believe the democracy is the most just and necessary form of government. However, those words had a lasting impression and started the crack in my hollow statist philosophy.
Over the next couple years I looked at democracy differently. An argument on facebook about expanding Grand Rapids bus routes by increasing property taxes accelerated my disdain for democracy. How is it, that those that will pay less of the tax, but use the bus more, can force those who will probably not use the bus but end up paying for most of the increased costs? This was straight up bullying, and I was chided for "not wanting to help my community". Being anti-democratic is a blanket accusation to cover a multitude of sins (i.e. libertarian beliefs).
So what is the best democratic system, if we were to maintain it. In the bus case I figured only property owners should be allowed to vote since they would be the ones paying the taxes. In general elections, I figured there needed to be a barrier to entry where one would have to pay a small amount to show he was dedicated to politics. Not only would this barrier be arbitrary but the idea failed to recognize the inherent barrier of taking the time register, scheduling a trip to the polling booth, and paying for transportation to and from the booth. Maybe a test to show political competency? John Stossel asked the "Man on the street" simple questions like "How many senators come from each state?" Sure, most people know these answers, but knowing how many senators there are is superfluous in choosing freedom over serfdom.
Ultimately, the only way to prevent the non-payers from looting the payers is to give a voter as many votes as dollars he has paid to the government. But this is just capitalism, right? Vote with your wallet? Absolutely not, there is a huge difference between democracy and capitalism. Well, okay, one is a political system and the other is economic, but the important distinction can still be made. Voting with the power of your tax dollars would give you the power to exercise the political means (aggerssion). Capitalism is the accumulation of capital through voluntary, economic means. These two systems are conflated in the minds of the statists that I've encountered. When I propose capitalism, laissez-faire style, they quickly answer "but the rich would just control us." The rich would not control us anymore than Wal-Mart controls us today, and actually less so since Wal-Mart benefits from government regulations that push smaller stores out of business. They benefit from economies of scale that allows them to absorb the increased regulations and taxation, then benefit from government granted corporate personhood, and lobbying power that makes them far more powerful than they would be in a free market.
It is at this point I realized that democracy is unworkable so what about that republic thing the JBS guy was talking about? Well, it sounds like a nice idea but Tom Woods in a Lew Rockwell podcast pointed out that no piece of paper (e.g. the constitution) can restrain an organization who is also the sole regulator of this paper. Even our so called "checks and balances" are slanted since for example the supreme court is just a different head of the same beast. The 17th amendment was created to reduce the balance between the states and federal government, and the 10th amendment is considered quaint or inapplicable in our modern world. So now the federal government is a sovereign and unrestrained entity. It is a fantasy to think that the "rule of law" can restrain the powers of the institution that makes and interprets the rules of law.
To finish up, I need to answer the question, "what is the goal"? Well, this post was inspired by John Denson's speech at the Mises supporter's summit. He rightly says that liberty is the goal, democracy is only a means (and a piss poor one) at achieving that goal. Jeffrey Tucker says at the same meeting, "when we as a society are faced with a problem, wouldn't it be great if we said, 'what we need to solve this problem is more liberty'"(paraphrased). Intervention begets intervention and we so often fail to see the problems of the previous intervention and thus we infinitely repeat our mistakes. This makes us poorer, yet paradoxically our material well being is constantly increasing -- this is not because of the state but despite it. Our great benefactors are the geniuses of enterprise. It is a flat out sin against nature to not recognize their heroism but rather condemn them. It is equally unconscionable to exalt the political class who oppress us and destroy the great potential of social power.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
How I perceive statists
Reading my previous post, one might assume that I actively spit on statists. After all, racists are villified and despised, what would that make statists in my eyes? One problem with the spitting approach is that I'd quickly die of dehydration due to the vast numbers of statist, the second problem is that I'm more tolerant than that. I know, I know, liberals have already claimed tolerance as an exclusive trait they possess, but I'm afraid that's not true. In fact, their "tolerance" isn't really tolerance at all, it's tolerance for the actions they already approve of. Want to smoke dope and let a dude marry a dude? No problem. Want to keep the money you earn and give it to the charities and businesses you want? Intolerable!! Liberalism... true liberalism, the exercise of freedom, is true tolerance. It's belief in social AND economic freedom.
So how do I perceive statists and how do I interact with them? Well, very similarly to the way I interact with racists. Racism and statism usually only make up a tiny portion of a person's character. Many of hem are generous and kind, they raise families and hold jobs, they are great sources of knowledge and can teach me a lot. However, they cannot be my moral authority.
To an anarchist, an adherent to the non-aggression axiom, any ethical philosophy espoused by a statist is contradictory or wrong. For instance, it's hard to take the racist seriously when he tells you, "love your wife, give to the poor, and never talk to a nigger lovin' jew [yes that's a real and oft-used term]". I might be able to take something away from that message, but it's only because I subscribe to a superior ethical authority with which I can filter.
When an ethical philosophy does not address statism, or if its logical conclusion is not statelessness, then it fails to be an ethical philosophy, and its institutions and followers fail to be ethical authorities. This is why the church has stopped being a moral authority (more on this in a later post, and yes I'm using ethics and morality synonymously). It can probably teach me a thing or two, but since its purpose is to be a moral authority, take that away and it's hard to see the purpose in joining (okay, really, I'll stop with the church stuff, more in a later post).
Most statists are great people, that do many great things. I despise their wickedness, but love working with them and having peaceful, voluntary interaction. I hope more come to realize that statism is an ideology, it is not a philosophy:
Saturday, March 5, 2011
I'd Rather be a Racist than a Statist
Local news is the worst at using provacative titles to lure you into watching. The reader is forewarned that my title is accurate.
What is a racist? A racist is not per se violent, he believes that one or some races are superior to others. And by labeling the one superior labels the other inferior. This is different than saying one race is better at some things (by their genetics or social factors) than other races, which is a racial observation wrong or right. It is the dehumanization of a race in the mind of a racist that identifies him as such.
What is a statist? A statist, on the other hand, per se condones voilence and the threat of violence against peaceful people who have not violated natural law.
A racist will probably choose not to engage in certain activities with people of certain races. Such activities are usually social since if a racist decides not to engage in business with another race his profits will be hurt. The previous statement is not always true. For example, a racist bar owner, who caters to racist patrons (or a non-racist bar owner who caters to racist patrons) would see his business hurt by the inclusion of the despised race. The racist mechanic on the other hand who refuses to work on a truck owned by a person of a certain race will only be hurting himself. We all discriminate. Some stores find it detrimental to their business to include those who refuse to wear sox or shoes. The NAACP unifies around the ability to exclude people of different skin color. And Calvin College finds that they thrive by hiring professors who are members of the CRC denomination or are willing to undergo more frequent reviews if they are not. The racist is simply exercising freedom of association, which is a consistent extension of our natural rights to self and property.
A statist will achieve his goals not by exercising freedom and respecting the rights of others, but by violating natural rights and aiming to destroy freedom. Hyperbolic? Not in the least. To quote Nock, "every increase in political power is countered by a roughly equivalent decrease in social power". The freedom to exercise social power, whether in commerce or charity, is taken away by any increase in state power. How can we be said to be a free people when some are forced into supporting the will and convictions of others?
Our society is completely backwards on the issues of racism and statism. This was typified recently by the hysteria over Rand Paul's comments about the Civil Rights Act. If you don't know, when asked what he thought about the CRA he said that he abhors racism but he doesn't think we should be telling business owners what to do. Paul was saying that what we needed in 1964 was to repeal mandated segregation, not mandate desegregation. The government told businesses what to do before the CRA and they were telling businesses what to do after the CRA. Desegregation was well on it's way as a revolt against Jim Crow laws, the best thing for freedom was to simply legalize desegregation. The same can be said about slavery. We didn't need a civil war, simply legalize freedom in some states, let the south secede, and slavery in the south would collapse as slaves fled to the north. A fantasy? No, slavery collapsed in all other countries around the world by the 20th century without violence.
It may appear that I've gone off track but both examples are very relevant: legalize freedom first, denounce the state's choke hold on us, and then deal with second order immoralities. Yes I'm calling racism a "second order immorality" by which I mean there are first order problems. State violence, which is a first order immorality, cannot be used to cure the "wrong thinking" of peaceful people. Other first order problems would include violence of individuals against individuals so in no way am I saying the KKK is better than the state or any other violent racist group. But they should be described in that order: violent, then racist.
I grew up learning how to be statist and a racist. I'm sickened by this fact, but I believe my faith in the state had a much greater potential to destroy lives than my racism. After all, I voted for Bush ... twice, who's responsible for the murder of innocents; I cheered on the Iraq war, and I believed in trickle down economics through subsidies to successful corporations. My tendency to racism on the other hand never lead to violence or theft and always took a back seat when it came to commerce. I defended the Rodney King beating because I trusted state law enforcement and my racism kept me blinded to the tragedy. My time in College helped me to respect all people or so I thought, but I still defended the Rodney King police officers and officers of the DEA. It wasn't until studying libertarianism that I truly came to respect all people, by which I came to respect their natural rights. My eyes were opened to the atrocities derived from state monopolization of law enforcement, and of the selective and racist crack-down on the unjust war on drugs.
To summarize, in a free society you have the right to be an asshole, but no asshole has a right to loot from some and give to others or to initiate violence.
What is a racist? A racist is not per se violent, he believes that one or some races are superior to others. And by labeling the one superior labels the other inferior. This is different than saying one race is better at some things (by their genetics or social factors) than other races, which is a racial observation wrong or right. It is the dehumanization of a race in the mind of a racist that identifies him as such.
What is a statist? A statist, on the other hand, per se condones voilence and the threat of violence against peaceful people who have not violated natural law.
A racist will probably choose not to engage in certain activities with people of certain races. Such activities are usually social since if a racist decides not to engage in business with another race his profits will be hurt. The previous statement is not always true. For example, a racist bar owner, who caters to racist patrons (or a non-racist bar owner who caters to racist patrons) would see his business hurt by the inclusion of the despised race. The racist mechanic on the other hand who refuses to work on a truck owned by a person of a certain race will only be hurting himself. We all discriminate. Some stores find it detrimental to their business to include those who refuse to wear sox or shoes. The NAACP unifies around the ability to exclude people of different skin color. And Calvin College finds that they thrive by hiring professors who are members of the CRC denomination or are willing to undergo more frequent reviews if they are not. The racist is simply exercising freedom of association, which is a consistent extension of our natural rights to self and property.
A statist will achieve his goals not by exercising freedom and respecting the rights of others, but by violating natural rights and aiming to destroy freedom. Hyperbolic? Not in the least. To quote Nock, "every increase in political power is countered by a roughly equivalent decrease in social power". The freedom to exercise social power, whether in commerce or charity, is taken away by any increase in state power. How can we be said to be a free people when some are forced into supporting the will and convictions of others?
Our society is completely backwards on the issues of racism and statism. This was typified recently by the hysteria over Rand Paul's comments about the Civil Rights Act. If you don't know, when asked what he thought about the CRA he said that he abhors racism but he doesn't think we should be telling business owners what to do. Paul was saying that what we needed in 1964 was to repeal mandated segregation, not mandate desegregation. The government told businesses what to do before the CRA and they were telling businesses what to do after the CRA. Desegregation was well on it's way as a revolt against Jim Crow laws, the best thing for freedom was to simply legalize desegregation. The same can be said about slavery. We didn't need a civil war, simply legalize freedom in some states, let the south secede, and slavery in the south would collapse as slaves fled to the north. A fantasy? No, slavery collapsed in all other countries around the world by the 20th century without violence.
It may appear that I've gone off track but both examples are very relevant: legalize freedom first, denounce the state's choke hold on us, and then deal with second order immoralities. Yes I'm calling racism a "second order immorality" by which I mean there are first order problems. State violence, which is a first order immorality, cannot be used to cure the "wrong thinking" of peaceful people. Other first order problems would include violence of individuals against individuals so in no way am I saying the KKK is better than the state or any other violent racist group. But they should be described in that order: violent, then racist.
I grew up learning how to be statist and a racist. I'm sickened by this fact, but I believe my faith in the state had a much greater potential to destroy lives than my racism. After all, I voted for Bush ... twice, who's responsible for the murder of innocents; I cheered on the Iraq war, and I believed in trickle down economics through subsidies to successful corporations. My tendency to racism on the other hand never lead to violence or theft and always took a back seat when it came to commerce. I defended the Rodney King beating because I trusted state law enforcement and my racism kept me blinded to the tragedy. My time in College helped me to respect all people or so I thought, but I still defended the Rodney King police officers and officers of the DEA. It wasn't until studying libertarianism that I truly came to respect all people, by which I came to respect their natural rights. My eyes were opened to the atrocities derived from state monopolization of law enforcement, and of the selective and racist crack-down on the unjust war on drugs.
To summarize, in a free society you have the right to be an asshole, but no asshole has a right to loot from some and give to others or to initiate violence.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Leave Apple alone!!
A law by which anyone can be found guilty is no law at all.
Walter Block's joke about antitrust goes like this. Three men were sitting in prison, inmate 1 asks inmate 2 "what are you in for?" "The government said I was guilty of price gouging for charging over the market price". Inmate 1 then he asks inmate 3 the same question; he replies "well, I was guilty of charging under the market price so I was arrested for predatory pricing." They turn to inmate 1 who confesses, "I was arrested for charging the market price and am accused of collusion and cartelizing." Antitrust is a sham, and sometimes I feel like slapping Teddy Roosevelt right off Mount Rushmore.
Apple is under attack again by the FTC. What are they guilty of? How about being awesome? Even if you don't like Apple, there's no reason for this. Apple has built an amazing infrastructure for distributing digital content, they have built amazing hardware to play it back on, and one can argue they have even made Apple into an ethos. Despite the competition, and some higher performing hardware (like some 4G phones) it continues to dominate the market. All Apple actors (consumers, producers, and developers) have come to the Apple platform voluntarily. App makers could abandon iTunes altogether and develop solely for the Android. If Apple's fees and app regulation are so onerous, why don't they? Well, I suppose if they do become unbearable then the developers and consumer will abandon Apple because it's voluntary and not compulsory like some other organization I know.
Whatever you think of Apple, in no way does the FTC have a right to tell them how to run their business. Besides the obvious reason that no injustice has occurred, the government is the worst offender of antitrust principles. The government claims monopoly privileges for itself. It claims the right to prevent any and all private participants from entering the market. Antitrust supposedly protects the public from monopoly activity, high prices, and lack of competitive options in an industry. This is exactly what the government claims must exist in every area it over sees. The FTC itself claims the right to regulate commerce and to extract whatever funds it needs for its operations from businesses and the public. It is sick that this kind of double speak is allowed, and that companies like Apple and the public at large suffer because of it.
Admittedly, a lot of what's said at LewRockwell.com is unlikely to attract the non-libertarian to libertarianism. Knowing this full well, I loved this post back in June about bureaucrats being upset about their crummy government issued blackberrys (blackberries?). What I found interesting about the post, factually, is that Apple has a relatively small lobbying budget. I don't know if Google's and Microsoft's lobbying power has anything to do with the FTC investigation, but how sad would it be if millions had to be spent on lobbyists just to avoid expensive government investigation? Ron Paul doesn't get visited by lobbyists because his exercise of government power is minimal and thus provides no incentive for the corporate lobbyist. Leftists who claim to protect the public and are all too willing to use government power are also too easily duped into furthering the goals of one corporation over another thus extending and strengthening fascism in America. Albert J. Nock once believed the state was an effective force for helping the weak, but he soon realized that not only was the state's modus operandi completely unjustifiable -- "rooted in conquest and confiscation" -- but it was the least effective tool to help those whom he cared to protect.
Walter Block's joke about antitrust goes like this. Three men were sitting in prison, inmate 1 asks inmate 2 "what are you in for?" "The government said I was guilty of price gouging for charging over the market price". Inmate 1 then he asks inmate 3 the same question; he replies "well, I was guilty of charging under the market price so I was arrested for predatory pricing." They turn to inmate 1 who confesses, "I was arrested for charging the market price and am accused of collusion and cartelizing." Antitrust is a sham, and sometimes I feel like slapping Teddy Roosevelt right off Mount Rushmore.
Apple is under attack again by the FTC. What are they guilty of? How about being awesome? Even if you don't like Apple, there's no reason for this. Apple has built an amazing infrastructure for distributing digital content, they have built amazing hardware to play it back on, and one can argue they have even made Apple into an ethos. Despite the competition, and some higher performing hardware (like some 4G phones) it continues to dominate the market. All Apple actors (consumers, producers, and developers) have come to the Apple platform voluntarily. App makers could abandon iTunes altogether and develop solely for the Android. If Apple's fees and app regulation are so onerous, why don't they? Well, I suppose if they do become unbearable then the developers and consumer will abandon Apple because it's voluntary and not compulsory like some other organization I know.
Whatever you think of Apple, in no way does the FTC have a right to tell them how to run their business. Besides the obvious reason that no injustice has occurred, the government is the worst offender of antitrust principles. The government claims monopoly privileges for itself. It claims the right to prevent any and all private participants from entering the market. Antitrust supposedly protects the public from monopoly activity, high prices, and lack of competitive options in an industry. This is exactly what the government claims must exist in every area it over sees. The FTC itself claims the right to regulate commerce and to extract whatever funds it needs for its operations from businesses and the public. It is sick that this kind of double speak is allowed, and that companies like Apple and the public at large suffer because of it.
Admittedly, a lot of what's said at LewRockwell.com is unlikely to attract the non-libertarian to libertarianism. Knowing this full well, I loved this post back in June about bureaucrats being upset about their crummy government issued blackberrys (blackberries?). What I found interesting about the post, factually, is that Apple has a relatively small lobbying budget. I don't know if Google's and Microsoft's lobbying power has anything to do with the FTC investigation, but how sad would it be if millions had to be spent on lobbyists just to avoid expensive government investigation? Ron Paul doesn't get visited by lobbyists because his exercise of government power is minimal and thus provides no incentive for the corporate lobbyist. Leftists who claim to protect the public and are all too willing to use government power are also too easily duped into furthering the goals of one corporation over another thus extending and strengthening fascism in America. Albert J. Nock once believed the state was an effective force for helping the weak, but he soon realized that not only was the state's modus operandi completely unjustifiable -- "rooted in conquest and confiscation" -- but it was the least effective tool to help those whom he cared to protect.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Fallout New Vegas
The blog will get a little less attention than it's been getting because I've started Fallout: New Vegas. My last Fallout character sucked up 65 hours of my life. In keeping with my libertarian convictions I plan on helping out the self-governing, non-militant, state free societies factions. The New California Republic (NCR) for example will have a hard time finding a friend in my character.
Statehood is only viable when the productive capacity of a people can support the parasites of the state. Small towns, tribes, and our ancient ancestors were stateless for this reason. Slaves are desirable because their output is greater than their consumption, if a slave only produced as much as he consumed then there would be no point in having a slave. Similarly, the state exists when production of others is great enough that it can support a state and when the state's burden is small enough as to prevent an uprising.
These ideas were most recently brought my attention by Jeff Riggenbach when he reviewed this book in his "The Libertarian Tradition" podcast: "The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia" by James C. Scott. Riggenbach's only complaint is that Scott does not distinguish between government and the state. If you've read "Our Enemy the State" by Albert J. Nock then you'll be able to sort out the differences and not be confused by this otherwise great book (according to Jeff Riggenbach, I haven't read it).
Statehood is only viable when the productive capacity of a people can support the parasites of the state. Small towns, tribes, and our ancient ancestors were stateless for this reason. Slaves are desirable because their output is greater than their consumption, if a slave only produced as much as he consumed then there would be no point in having a slave. Similarly, the state exists when production of others is great enough that it can support a state and when the state's burden is small enough as to prevent an uprising.
These ideas were most recently brought my attention by Jeff Riggenbach when he reviewed this book in his "The Libertarian Tradition" podcast: "The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia" by James C. Scott. Riggenbach's only complaint is that Scott does not distinguish between government and the state. If you've read "Our Enemy the State" by Albert J. Nock then you'll be able to sort out the differences and not be confused by this otherwise great book (according to Jeff Riggenbach, I haven't read it).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)