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.

A Free Market in Law Benefits The 99%

I hear an awful lot of socially conscious liberals bemoan the wealth/income disparity. They rightly point out the social injustice present in this disparity. The ultra-wealthy retain for themselves special benefits that the rest of us cannot afford. They "suffer" from affluenza, and live by a different set of rules.

How does the wealth disparity arise?

First, let's acknowledge that while we each may want more wealth, we do not have a guaranteed right of possession. For example, if everyone on Earth were given the same amount of wealth, knowledge, and opportunity at the beginning of a day, they would each have different levels of that wealth at the end of the day. This results in accordance with each individual's different values on how to best spend that wealth. So a disparity in wealth arises as a natural consequence of differences between individuals.

But that same disparity can grow, quite unnaturally, through political means. When society organizes itself to permit a special class of people that follow different rules of conduct, the wealthy grow to inhabit that position. They purchase favor from lawmakers and enforcers, pricing such intervention out of the reach of the masses. What starts off as unequal treatment in the eyes of the Law, results in lawmakers that twist it to enforce the inequality of means and restrict the opportunities available to the masses.

Once the rich have spent some wealth on maintaining their high standard of living, they spend their remaining funds on political manipulation, which can take the form of donations to specific charities or media produced by agenda-pushing think tanks. I don't begrudge the rich this opportunity to try and change the social fabric, as long as they pay the costs of that activity.

Why do we tolerate the disparity?

I do take issue when the rich partner with the political class and push for social change through government intervention. Using the mechanism of campaign contributions, the rich effectively steal my money. They divert my taxes into their pockets, via subsidies for protected industries, special exemption in the eyes of law, and production of propaganda that promotes their social agenda.

For example, under the politically popular support for green and sustainable energy technology, the politically connected corporation Solyndra received and scuttled the wealth of taxpayers, giving them nothing but scandal in return.

Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee before going bankrupt. Under the Solyndra restructuring plan, the government is projected to recoup 19 percent on $142.8 million of the loan and nothing on the remaining $385 million.[19] Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.[20]

The majority of Solyndra funding was provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

Wikipedia

Though examples of political graft take place in all governments at all levels from local to national, no individual case has yet provoked the ire of the masses to abandon hope of reform and change. The public still clings to the idea that lawmakers can respond to their desires. We find ourselves distracted with promises of bread and circuses, of transparent bureaucracy, of politician accountability. On these empty promises we still hope for change.

What should we do to rectify the disparity?

Recall, that I started this article about wealth, showing how it leads to social manipulation that protects the wealthy class. We do not solve this problem by forming an organized Robin Hood force that robs the wealthy and redistributes to the poor. An agency capable of that feat already exists, and it remains under the control of the very wealthy being targeted.

Government cannot be the answer, because government exacerbates the problem. It enables the politically favored to become wealthy. It enables the wealthy to practice political protectionism. No! We must take away that tool that the wealthy have used to obtain their special status! We must dismantle the iron fist that protects them.

We can lessen the wealth disparity by privatizing law. By wresting law from the manipulation of government and putting in into the hands of individuals who need its services. We need for the law to treat everyone equally.

A Private Market of Law

The production of law requires fewer initial capital expenditures than machinery and electronics. It involves less complexity than computer operating systems and applications. It retains a similarly high cost in education and training compared to technological services. If people produce computers, cars, and most everything else using a system of private investment, why not also law?

Should we convert to a system of private arbitration, I would expect that dispute rulings become more fair in the eyes of the masses, and more accessible.

Consider that arbitrators will persist in competition with each other. We cannot expect that an arbitrator who begins systematically favoring the rich clients at the expense of the poor ones to remain in business. I conceded that the rich clients might use that arbitrator's services with each other, but they would be unable to find willing business partners among the lower economic rungs. By insisting on the use of such an arbitrator, they lose out on valuable business with the masses.

We can also expect that the vast majority of cases arbitrated will occur between people of lower economic status, simply because more of them exist, and they have more interaction with each other. Consequently, for most arbitrators, their majority of clients will be from the lower economic strata, whether directly or through legal insurance agencies, so they will have to take care to make rulings fair to these clients.

The economics of law on a free market on a free market, strongly encourages paying attention to the 99%. because they form the majority customer base. The arbitrator gets squeezed in the provision of law, for they must pronounce rulings fair in the eyes of a majority of clients. While clients get squeezed in their selection of law, for they must choose arbitrators that all parties can agree upon.

The process of the free market produces a law that represents the interests of those who elect to use it. In contrast, our current system produces law via a corrupt political process. The competition driving a free market of law treats the rich person as equally as it treats the poor. Neither one can use the difference in social status as leverage against the other.

Article about the book in The Freeman

Review at Center for a Stateless Society

Society can prosper by producing law outside of government. Within a free market of law, the rich no longer have the ability to practice regulatory capture, drafting laws that favor themselves at the expense of the masses. They no longer have the means to delegate special privileges to themselves. They no longer retain special social status and the resulting benefits. The market will make them pay for their injustices as it does all criminals.

If you don't yet believe in the practicality of a Free Market in Law, please consider the cases that David D. Friedman discusses in Ch 29. Police, Courts, and Laws -- on the Market, of his book Machinery of Freedom, or the chapter about Anarchy and Efficient Law from John Sanders and Jan Narveson's book For and Against the State.

Finally, it doesn't matter that you may not believe my argument. Private arbitrators currently hear more than 80% of disputes within the United States, and their rulings did not admit government guns for enforcement until recently. The Admiral himself benefits from the international market for law, which already covers 20% of WORLD GDP, resulting from international commerce. What government could make a rightful claim to use only its legal monopoly in such disputes?

Update [140105]. The 20% figure comes from the end of Peter Leeson's talk on Anarcho-Capitalism. I think that the 80% figure comes from David D. Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, but in any case it's dated, but I don't expect that it has changed significantly. Check the American Arbitration Association for more recent stats. Also read those wordy papers you signed at the dentist, doctor office, bank checking account, etc. Many of them contain an arbitration clause.

Arguing Against Inflationary Currency by Famous Example

During the last Liberty on The Rocks meeting about Bitcoin, I found myself in an argument with a fellow that claimed that a deflationary currency would harm the economy, because it discourages spending. I quickly countered this opinion by stating that I believed the opposite: that without an encouragement of savings, the economy would collapse.

Alas, he could not say why we would want to privilege spending over saving, other than to state that without spending we wouldn't have exchange. So I pointed out that spending occurs regardless: I need food, water, housing, fuel for my car, clothing, etc. No matter how the underlying currency fluctuates relative to these goods and services, I and everyone else will continue spending. The only effect that promoting discretionary spending over savings has is to promote some industries (such as entertainment) over others. Why does the economy need artificial, and preferential encouragement of these more consumerist industries?

Still, in the face of these questions, my partner in argument had not yet changed his opinion, so I tried a different approach, arguing by analogy.

Suppose that there existed an industry where consumers expected a substantially better product each year, and at a lower price! Would you, as a producer, ever choose to enter this industry, or would you instead decide on something more mundane and stable? A different industry, where you wouldn't have to work as hard at improving product and where sales kept a high price. If customers can expect to purchase a better product at a cheaper price every 6 months or so, then why would they buy today? Surely even sales in this industry would experience low volume. From looking at both sides, and in keeping with your argument about a deflationary currency, would you then predict that this industry remains quite small compared to others, because of the continuously devaluing wares?

Well, devious debater that I am, I just described the electronics/computer industry which has experienced explosive growth unlike any other, in every year since 1960! One of my favorite examples, specifically for knocking down the "we won't have spending without inflation" argument. As if the compulsive, grasshopper consumers need an additional, abstract reason not to save for the future.

Far from discouraging spending, the continuously increased quality has instead generated recurring sales. Rather than saving their ever more valuable dollar, the consumers in this market exhibit strong time preference: they don't want to wait a newer, better, fancier product 6 months hence. They want the latest and greatest RIGHT NOW! Every year a saved dollar can buy more processing power, more memory, lower power consumption, smaller device size, etc. But that incentive for saving hasn't halted the spending. Instead, the rapid pace of change drives sales: once their existing wares become obsolete (which happens quickly) consumers go out and purchase anew.



Unfortunately, I was unable to penetrate the Keynesian mythology that fogged his mind, and my colleague remained unconvinced by what I consider a remarkably compelling example.