Government Road Hazards, Part 1: Cones of Danger

Last weekend I broke my bicycle. In the afternoon, I rode it to Cal State Fullerton to make use of their library as a study hall. Then, after a good few hours of programming on my webstore, which acts as a time-sink preventing me from ranting on this here blog, I proceeded to ride my bicycle back home.

Now, the brilliant road engineers at caltrans have been taking their sweet time updating one of the Yorba Linda to 57 North onramps. For the past month, at least, and quite possibly longer, they have left unrepaired a missing section of sidewalk. The curb remains intact, but the walkway no longer has one of its concrete blocks. In its place, the government road engineers have left a patch of dirt. But they thoughtfully installed some traffic cones to warn pedestrians of the danger.

Because of the thickness of the concrete, the dirt patch sits a few inches below the walkway. As a pedestrian, I would feel this to be a minor inconvenience, unless rain had made the dirt into mud. But that would still be just a regular inconvenience. As a cyclist, I had to use the sidewalk, due to an absence of a bicycle lane. I would rather not go over the sharp cornered bumps of the missing section of walkway, so I bravely challenged the thin sliver of curb.

On the way to Fullerton, I successfully navigated this section of walkway. But the sun shone bright at that time. After hacking on code for a few hours, the natural light seriously waned. Car headlights behind me proved unreliable and sporadic at lighting the sidewalk.  So this time, due to a lack of illumination, when I tried to navigate along that sliver of curb, I didn't quite line myself up correctly.

Then it hit me. That dumb traffic cone. Shoved the derailure right into the back spokes. I wasn't travelling super slowly, because I wanted to keep my balance. So the energy tore the spokes out of the rim, the bike and I slipped off the curb, and in the process seriously dented the back wheel. No way would I be riding home. I pushed the bike for the remaining 1.5 miles, rhythmically applying some extra effort every time the dented section of wheel turned through the back fork.

It probably won't do any good, but I'll be sending the government an invoice for the bicycle repair. The presence of the cones not only show their awareness of the hazard, and negligence for not repairing it, but also reveal a malicious intent to make the area more hazardous.

My Expedition To Liberty

For as far back as I can remember, I've been strongly anti-political. Mostly because of a passionate distaste for anything to do with people, their internal and external conflicts, their weird idiosyncrasies, and especially their emotional adherence to logically conflicted ideas. Of course, I spent my time studying science and engineering, where I thought I might be able to escape political maneuverings.

During my college years, one of my dormmates strongly encouraged me to read Ayn Rand. So in one week-long bout of depression caused by feelings of inadequacy when comparing myself to the smart individuals in my major, I read Atlas Shrugged. It took the entire week. John Galt's speech alone took at least 3 of those hours. By the time that I reached the end of the tale, a new perspective had taken hold in my mind.

Rand spun a straightforward story about the economic consequences of political behavior. She demonstrated how the motivations and incentives of people operating under collectivism doom themselves to equality in poverty. The tome contains many examples of how decisions made via political favoritism fail in comparison to the evidence-based resource allocation that takes place under profiteering capitalists.

From Atlas I gently moved over into objectivism, but never became passionately committed to the philosophy. Incongruous with my desire for a simple black and white view of the world and people in it, I found that objectivism spoke with too much assurance. I felt its adherents had a religion with Rand as their deceased goddess. Also, they practically worshiped intellectual property, which I could not brook after having followed the DeCSS case about DVD decryption in the late 1990's.

So, after navigating the shoals of selfishness espoused by Rand, I drifted aimlessly for a few years. I disengaged from anything remotely related to politics. I acquired a stable job working in a government lab, and stood by as my soul languished from a lack of technical challenge to my skills.  But I saw, in countless examples, large and small, the waste of bureaucracy.

Finally, my soul had been taxed enough, and I left for graduate school. For the first year I devoted extracurricular time to atheism and an attempt to understand religious thought. I finally learned that (a) logic does not convince anyone because (b) devotion fulfills social and emotional psychological needs. I discovered that my pursuit of a world view, with internal logical consistency and compatibility with the evidence I see and read about, makes me abnormal.

Once I finally admitted that I, no matter how educated I became on the topic, I would remain unable to convince the world to give up their belief systems, I permitted myself to become distracted with education in my major. I also read about economics, from small celebrities such as Peter Schiff and Doug Casey. Through these folk, I again discovered political philosophy. Again, with the same free-market economic foundations espoused by Rand.

Inevitably, I read Rothbard. He captivated my attention with direct, clear, and amusing statements about the nature of government. His writing captivated my attention with a underlying grandiose story of good, represented by human action under economic restraints, verses evil, represented by heavyweight government. He consistently and passionately argued for the individual verses the mob. How could I not route for underdog with him? He took me from liberty for the individual to freedom for all.

Then came Walter Block, and his hate for the state, and Tom Woods with his average joe appeal, and Jeffrey Tucker with his examples of the little things that government does to make our lives dirtier and dingier. Finally, David Friedman, who has shown, speculated, and documented more examples of systems alternative to government than any other author I've read so far.

The writings and speeches of these folk, with their willingness to identify the evils of the state, their ability to consistently offer a position out of the mainstream, their demonstration of the intellectual effort and stamina which that takes, and their welcoming, but analytically critical, attitude have become my mental staple. I may have drifted through Rand on the road to liberty, but these folk give me a bedrock.

In thanks to them, and their knowledge, I now give back in what manner I can. I attend libertarian events, both because I enjoy like-minded company and because I want to show bodily support. I write in promotion of liberty on my blog. Mostly pointing out the ways in which government interference cost everyone like a thousand clippings from the paper dollars that represent ones income, but always to promote the idea that freedom, the ability of people to work out problems on their own, yields better successes. When my friends and coworkers point out something unjust in the world, I can always find a government tentacle that created it.

Finally, I recently learned to promote agorism and individual economic independence from government. I'm privately working, and advocating, ways to escape taxation, so that I can help others to give up their devotion to the rulers, lay down their economic chains, and live free, with all the responsibility and respect due a actualized adult.

POTUS Gives SOTU Address, Libertarians Respond STFU

The Admiral and his friends gathered together for a drinking game during the recent State of the Union Address. We weren't able to catch all of the frightful logical errors and political chicanery conducted by the aggrandizing president, but we did have fun imbibing, mocking, and goofing off.

Given the actual state of forgotten values of freedom, liberty, choice, autonomy, etc.. we drank so as not to cry.

Undersupply of Civil Disobedience

According to many defenders that I've spoken with, we must have Government for the provision of 'public' goods. Of course, these folk tend to ignore or discount the public bads that governments produce, such as institutionalized theft to pay for wars, oppression, regulatory capture, and tragedies of the commons in traffic, street trash, environmental resources, etc.

Even many libertarians rise to defend the right of Government to provision a mafia of armed personnel to protect us from each other. You can easily identify these gang members by their blue uniforms. I believe that their widespread influence, stifles heroic acts of civil disobedience, leading to a woeful under-supply of individuals with the courage and willingness to stand for a better world.

These individuals often bear very high personal costs for their "crimes." For example, Gandi resided in prison many years over many instances of peaceful noncooperation. In every step of his attempts to free India from British rule, Gandi fell victim to state violence. He fought for the autonomy of his countrymen, and paid with his life. He valued India's sovereignty so passionately, that he allowed the cause to consume his life.

Seldom does a civil disobedient reap the rewards of their efforts. The tax protester, Erwin Schiff sits today rotting in a cell for refusing to fund his oppressors. So afraid are the people of having encounters with the   polizei, that they do not join the resistance. The protester then stands alone.

Government policies tend to isolate us from each other, and make us systematically dependent on government aid. Schools indoctrinate us to believe that the blue shirts always act reasonably, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. The media tries daily to convince us that we cannot be trusted with the means of defending ourselves. No wonder so many shy away from the protestor instead of lending support.

Not to mention that the typical disobedients find themselves facing imprisonment, possibly death, as the media stirs up an outrage. They face certain mistreatment in everyday life when recognized as "that guy", including ridicule, opprobrium, and social isolation.

For many individual that would like to take a grasp for more autonomy, this cost outweighs the benefits. They choose instead to suffer continued systematic mistreatment, because, well, they've been able to endure up till now, what's one more day? Compared to the costs and risks of fleeing for freedom, most can suffer an extra day as a slave.

The civil disobedient produces a public good. They cannot control who receives the benefits of a change in government policy. But, thanks to the armed hitmen that government uses to enforce the ridiculuous legislation drafted by crony businessmen and enacted by clueless politicians, we wait for individuals as dedicated as Gandi for the world to become an incrementally better place.

But must we wait for the dedicated individual to lead a path to freedom? The civil disobedient that stands up against government oppression makes a better world for us all. Do we really want a system that requires such individuals to have a radically higher valuation of their freedom vs. continued oppression? Must we wait until one of us simply won't take it anymore?

Let's reduce the size of government and disband the thugs in blue uniforms! We can govern ourselves, and the more obvious limited bailiwick of private police will engender an increase of the public good known as civil disobedience.

I dedicate this post to recent disobedients:
Ed Snowden - who revealed a massive NSA spying program, and who lives in exile and can never return to his home.
Chelsea Manning - who revealed video of U.S. government atrocities carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who rots in prison.
Aaron Swartz - who committed suicide after being labeled a felon for intent to violate copyright on scientific research.

Hash Out 'Bout Government and Anarchy

Last Tuesday, The Admiral engaged a minarchist in moderated debate. Predictably, neither one of us convinced the other. I chose to appear as an outed anarchist in order to promote a positive view of anarchism and dis-associate it from disorderly conduct and destruction. I attempted to show that my opponent too quickly resorts to force as if no other possibilities are open.

I unfortunately discovered that both my audience and my opponent have a large degree of skepticism surrounding the whole concept competing defense agencies. I can only surmise that their dismissal derives from a lack of addressing this topic in government schools, an unfamiliarity with the possibility, despite it's similarity to privately arbitrated international trade.

At any rate, I now give you my plea for an ordered world without rulers.

Many thanks to Hash Out Bout for providing the moderation, scheduling, and recording. They've just started up and are on the look for more debate participants. If you feel passionate about a topic be sure to visit their site and leave a message about your eagerness to spread the word.

I had enough fun doing this debate that I'd be willing to do more. Consequently, I welcome any comments providing feedback about my performance, tips and tricks about debate practice, and other information I can use for improvement.