What Iran crisis?

If citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms, why should the member states of the world not have the right to keep a military? Nobody spends more on their military forces than the United States, and somehow we like to act as though it’s wrong for someone like Iran to develop strength as well. The idea of nuclear non-proliferation is as insanely unfair as saying that anyone who hasn’t yet gotten broadband internet should never be allowed to have it. Nothing like setting the rules expressly against those who are already behind.

I titled this post after reading an article that asked the question of how the US should deal with the “Iran crisis.” The thought of Iran as somehow posing a crisis situation for our country belies a disturbing reality existing in the political thinking of the United States. How can we view a nation as presenting to us a crisis when they have done nothing to either us or anyone else, and they have not threatened to take any aggressive action toward us or anyone else.

Our invasion of Iraq was unfounded enough, but at least they had something to be framed as a history of aggression, even if that history was more than a decade old when we decided we must destroy them.

The way we treat other countries both reflects our current attitudes toward individual rights and inevitably shapes the evolution of those attitudes into the future. If we view Iran as a problem when they have not even done anything to hurt any other country, then what stops us from passing more and more laws to criminalize people haven’t hurt anyone else? The war on drugs has seen enough innocent people just trying to live their own lives put behind bars. If we continue down this path, we are sure to see more of the same.

My question remains, in the end, what Iran crisis?

Ubiquitous Wifi

Sometimes people criticize me or libertarianism in general for being too cold and seamingly selfish. They argue that people can do great things if they work together. Frankly, I couldn’t agree more. People naturally work together to accomplish their greatest work. This is why we form corporations, and is really the heart of free enterprise and capitalism. One of the greatest benefits of true liberty is the freedom to work together and to find great ways to work together without governmental meddling.

One of the greatest ways in which we could all work together for mutual benefit is right at our fingertips in millions of homes across the USA. I’m talking about ubiquitous wifi. Ubiquitous wifi is the idea that virtually wherever you go, there will be an open wifi network with which to connect to the internet. We already live in a world where you can pick up a wifi signal almost anywhere, but the odds of that signal being unencrypted are getting lower every day.

The basic logic behind locking down wifi networks with encryption is that people don’t want others leeching their connection. Ok, that makes sense. But, what if you could share your connection under the expectation that most of the time nobody will be using it anyway, and even when they are, you probably won’t notice, and then in return you could have the awesome reward of accessing others’ connections wherever you go. The small loss of bandwidth you would give up to allow visitors on your network from time to time would be greatly overshadowed by your awesome ability to connect all around whatever city you live in.

I understand that we’re all sort of stuck in a prisoner’s dilema here. Everyone is afraid that they will be the only one to open their network, and people will leech off them without getting any benefit. I think this is a movement worth starting, though. Open your network. And when you do, put a comment saying “I opened my network.” After that, tell everyone you know or meet with a closed network that they should open theirs, too. Even in the beginning you can quickly get positive benefits by having easy access to the internet whenever you’re hanging out at any of your friends’ houses - because you will have made all them open their networks. With one circle of friends all enjoying easy access, you can grow from their. Things can only get better.

Free people get to have fun

The above video is a bit of hilarity from the very talented ventriliquist Jeff Dunham. The next bit is a collection of responses to the video posted by MobLogic.

“Most of the people who watch these videos are racist.” What?! My message to anyone who finds racism in this video, or any joking of this nature: you are the ones giving legitimacy to any ideas of real difference, and thereby promoting racism - not the rest of us who are just having fun.

One of the great concepts of slander is that in order for something to be truly slanderous, it must be considered believable by a normal person. If someone posts a video joking that Libertarian Ramblings can’t even write a complete sentence, it can be easily left as simply a joke because it’s so obviously untrue. If I fight back on behalf of my blog and cry foul, it can only be from the perspective that it’s possibly true, and thus hurtful. Thus, it’s not the joke that brings bad light on LR, but the cry of foul play that suddenly brings people’s attention to the thought that maybe LR really does suck.

Additionally, embracing difference is generally considered to be a part of anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc. Embracing difference means we don’t avoid ever making mention of differences or potential differences - we don’t ignore them. Embracing difference means acknowledging that it’s ok to have differences, and so differences becomes a thing of smiling and laughter, not a thing of hate, as some pretend they must be. These people push what I call “tolerance by ignorance” - make everyone appear to be exactly the same and ignore all differences. If we can’t actually handle differences, then what the hell is the point?

The fact is, if we’re a free people, we can be free to embrace our idiosyncratic differences - even those that are associated with identifiable groups of people. More than that, we can be free to have fun with those differences; to make jokes and to laugh. What is freedom worth without laughter anyway?

The government’s most blatant act of slavery

I was reading this argument against the Supreme Court’s recent decision on D.C.’s handgun ban when I felt it necessary to comment on one of the laws I’ve always found most perplexing: it’s illegal to commit suicide. WTF? 

If I own a television set, I’m perfectly within my rights to break it. If I own my refrigerator I’m perfectly within my rights to unplug it. If I own a pig I’m perfectly within my rights to kill it. If I own my own life I’m perfectly within my rights to break it, to unplug it, or to kill it, right? The answer is, unequivacably, YES. The problem is, the government has never been of the belief that you own your own life!

You are a citizen, and as such the government views you as a piece of its property - a pawn in its games, both international and domestic, for power. You may notice that it can be perfectly legal for the government to kill you in different scenarios, whether at the hand of police or the courts. Since the government thinks it owns your life, that seems perfectly reasonable. Any attempt to end your life by anyone other than the government - including yourself - is seen as an attempt to steal the government’s property, and thus it intervenes with its legal forces.

The idea of the government claiming ownership over people’s lives in this manner is horrendous, especially when viewed with the realization that we are born into this country and this government without ever having a choice about it. We could not be given a chance to consent to a life of citizenry and governance before we are thrust into this life, and yet even after the choice is made for us and we are capable of choosing for ourselves, the option of revoking consent is deemed illegal.

It is clear what is going on. We are slaves to the government toward the end of continued economic production, military power, and physical reproduction so that the government maintains a steady supply of slaves. Couple this with the illegality of vagrancy and we see the full circle: it’s illegal to leave life, and it’s illegal to do nothing with it. In this way the government drives its slaves toward continued achievement of its ends.

Can energy be free?

I mean, isn’t this supposed to be a free country?

Should opposite-sex marriage be legal?

Same-sex marriage is up there on the list of current hot political topics. If the legality of same sex marriages can be questioned, why does nobody ever question the legality of opposite-sex marriages? This seems especially weird since our culture spends a great deal of effort trying to ensure that children and teens of the opposite sex never sleep in the same place, but once they hit the 20s, we change gears and do whatever we can to prevent those of the same sex bedding together. That’s just plain weird.

I digress, though. The real issue is about rights (i.e. special privileges) given to married couples by the government. For whatever reason, there is a large group of the population that is concerned with giving these same special privileges to couples of the same sex. I think I have to agree. We should not be giving out special privileges to same-sex couples. Just the same, though, we shouldn’t be giving special privileges to opposite sex couples.

The entire idea of marriage rights in the first place is discriminatory bullshit. It enacts legal favors to those who marry, which as a consequence discriminates the very ugly, the severely handicapped, and those who are just really bad at relationships. More than that, it discriminates against those who simply choose not to marry. Why should the class of married people have any rights not conferred to the class of unmarried?

As far as rights of joint ownership and property transfer following a death, and anything related to that, there’s no need for marriage for people to enjoy these rights. Two people (or even three or four!) can form any private contract they wish. Whatever contract people wish to form should then be honored by the courts and the government.

Same-sex marriage is not the issue. Marriage is the issue. The word marriage should mean nothing to the government, and the people can go about their business.

A reminder to be sane about net neutrality

As an internet geek, it’s very easy for me to fly off the handle at any rumor of Comcast or any of the other major ISPs limiting my ability to freely and fully access the internet. The internet is a precious commodity, and its openness is what makes it so great. Thoughts of anyone tampering with the openness of the network don’t sit well in my heart.

The last year or so has seen increased debate on the issue of net neutrality as alarmists fear that ISPs will try to take part of the internet away or lessen its efficacy toward the end of their own monetary gain. The most basic fear is that ISPs will implement technology that allows them to prioritize certain kinds of traffic on their network, and then extort money from the websites that wish to be prioritized. With that done, small websites and anyone refusing to pay ISPs a ransom for the bandwidth to reach the customers on the ends of their connections would have a distinct disadvantage and possibly fade away. An even more alarmist idea is the ridiculous notion that ISPs would and could turn the internet into a television-like subscription service where the customer has to pay extra to access any sites not in a pre-selected package of sites. For those who haven’t heard that craziness, check this out:

I don’t think I even need to comment on how insane this idea is. Anyone who understands how market forces (and the internet itself) work knows this is entirely impractical and you probably wish you had your five minutes back from watching that video.

There still remains, however, the more general issue of net neutrality, relating to preferential treatment of traffic. Many people are so afraid of what could happen that there has been a major movement to pass legislation guaranteeing the idea that the internet will remain entirely neutral in the traffic it servers for years to come. Many big guns including our friends at Google support such a law. It sounds like a great idea on the surface. After all, who likes the idea of the evil ISPs controlling what traffic we can get through our paid for internet connects, and how effectively we get it? It’s enough to scare any nerd into activism.

Reality check time. When did we start thinking government regulation is the solution to internet problems? Especially hypothetical internet problems (ok, bit-torrent throttling is a real issue today, but that’s not the same as prioritizing web-sites, and that’s a problem that will likely get worked out as ISPs grow up to the modern internet). We nerds have a mostly great track record for shunning government intervention in our affairs - especially when it comes to our beloved internet. Somehow, though, we have been scared and duped en mass to supporting a piece of legislation that would have far reaching effects on our favorite toy now and into the future. One of the biggest problems with government regulation of just about anything is unforeseen consequences, and with something that grows and evolves as fast as the internet, unintended consequences aren’t a possibility - they’re a guarantee.

I can already imagine circumstances in which I might be hamstrung by a government decree that all traffic must be treated equally. Suppose I’m interviewing for a job over a video phone call on IP, and suddenly a few roommates start downloading movies they’ve decided to buy. The technology could exist to correctly shape the traffic so that my video phone call stays working at the bandwidth it needs, setting the downloads at a lower priority. Since that would be illegal, my call drops and I lose the job. With the future of HD television very possibly being delivered over IP, that too clouds the situation - I want my tv to just work, right?

The point is simple: we should all be smarter than to think that government is the answer to the internet. The very thing everyone is afraid of is losing their ability to be completely free online. Since when does more government equal more free? Let us please keep our heads and let the market work it out.

Abortion: A libertarian perspective

To expand upon my previous post with a practical example, I’d like to cover an oft-discussed topic with a somewhat less common argument.

Many people say that it’s inherently wrong to end an innocent life, so the abortion discussion often revolves around the definition of life and when it begins. Other arguments can mix in ideas of ownership rights, both over the mother’s and the child’s body. In this case, pro-lifers sometimes argue that child rights are shared between mother and father, while pro-choice arguments center on the woman’s exclusive rights to her body and related decisions.

Let us imagine a situation where a pregnant woman does not wish to carry her fetus to term - she wishes to abort the pregnancy, for whatever reason. If this is the case, the only way any other person can prevent this outcome is by imposing their will on the woman by force. In other words, they must claim greater ownership of the woman’s body and life than herself. This, of course, violates the fundamental principle of liberty. 

So far, I have not varied too far from the basic pro-choice argument. That is, nobody is more qualified to make the decision for the woman’s body than the woman herself. The typical pro-life argument, however, focuses on the ignored rights of the fetus if the woman chooses to abort. Let us, then, go at that argument more directly and focus on the rights relationship between pregnant mother and child.

The fetus has a very important tie to the mother - it needs the mother to live. Without the mother’s active support, the fetus will die. This dependence relationship means that in order for the fetus to claim a right to life, it also must claim a greater right to the mother’s life and body than the mother herself. To claim the right to life, it must force the mother to carry it through pregnancy to birth (or some agent acting on the behalf of the fetus). This assertion of a positive right cuts down the mother’s liberties (as is always the case with positive rights) and makes a slave out of her. Let me be very clear about this - forcing a mother to carry a child against her will is putting that woman in slavery.

The mother, on the other hand, has a negative right to life without a child inside her, and all to take away this liberty is no more justified than taking away her very life. Imposing will by force on someone’s life is taking a part of their life, and theft of life is murder, whether it’s the whole life or merely a part. Therefore, any attempt to save the life of an unborn child by imposing mob rule on the pregnant mother is simply exchanging one supposed murder for another.

The Non-Aggression Principle

The foundation of liberty theory, to me, is very simple: everyone should be able to do whatever they wish so long as it does not infringe on others’ right to do the same. This is sometimes further simplified to “live and let live.”

Doesn’t that sound beautiful? You don’t tell me what to do, and I won’t tell you what to do! What I definitely won’t do is send men with guns after you to systematically extract a large portion of your earnings throughout your life and spend that money on whatever I wish.

I talk about rights a lot and how I believe in people’s rights, but at the same time I speak out against universal healthcare, something that some people label as a right. So, what gives? How do we decide what’s a right and what’s not? 

I prefer to go a little different direction than answering that question directly, and instead ask, how do we determine what rights are worth while, and what ones are not?

The key to understanding this and how we can all live freely in a non-aggressive fashion is dividing rights into two categories: negative rights (what I like to call liberties) and positive rights. Don’t be alarmed by the adjective - negative does not mean bad in this case.

Positive rights are those rights which require something from someone else in order for you to claim them. For example, if it were decided that every child had a right to have a laptop, then that would require people to build those laptops and people to pay for those laptops. Positive rights can be considered enslavement rights because they must enslave some people in order to provide for others. In the case of the laptops, the people who build laptops could possibly be considered enslaved because they must build those for the children to have them. More realistically, though, it’s the entire population that is enslaved to provide for the children, because it’s their money that is siphoned through taxes to pay for the laptops. That means a certain portion of each person’s work is enslaved service to purchase those laptops. 

Universal healthcare falls within this same category. If everyone is entitled to it, that mean all of us, regardless of our needs, wants, or beliefs relating to medical care, would be forced to give of our income to support the medical care of others. Doctors would be enslaved to treat anyone and everyone - a medical professional loses all rights to say no, and their skills are used against them as they are made slaves to society’s will.

Negative rights (liberties) on the other hand, are those rights that require nothing from anyone else to be utilized - you only need people to not get in your way or prevent you from exercising the rights. Liberties are great, because it is easy to see that they are natural and engrained in human existence. To take away another’s liberties is unethical - who has the right to take away another person’s liberties when that person has done nothing to them? Liberties can include things as simple as the right to run. We all have the ability to run by virtue of being human. All we need to exercise this right is to do it and not have someone tell us we cannot.

Owning a gun is another example of a negative right, or a liberty. Property ownership is a pretty natural thing, and all a person needs to be able to keep a gun is to go buy one and not have the government prevent them from having it (naturally, if the government chose to intervene, they would do so with guns of their own in support - mobs are great).

The truly important concept with positive and negative rights is the understanding that in a society, the existence of high amounts of positive rights and high amounts of negative rights are inversely correlated. That is, the more negative rights you have, the fewer positive ones you have, and vice versa. This is easy to see when we realize that positive rights enslave people, and people who are enslaved lack liberties. Enslavement through positive rights like universal healthcare is undeniably an uncalled for aggression of the mob government over those people who want no part of such a system.

If we could all live and let live, nobody would have to take from me to fill their own desires, but the mob government feels it has the ability to do that, and since they have lots of guns on their side, the reality is they probably can…. I just wish I had a say in my own life. Slavery sucks.

Real Change 2

Campaign for Liberty

The above website is the web headquarters for Dr. Paul’s great new effort: Campaign for Liberty. I have long believed that change is something that must be enacted over time, moving society section by section to a long-term goal. It is not possible to change things overnight.

Before I learned about Ron Paul and his revolution I felt that even long term change was out of reach because it seemed that I was so alone. I now see that not only is there a large contingent of people in this country who believe in liberty as I do, but we are growing! As a member of the 20-something crowd among whom this revolution is particularly popular, I see our ideas as the thing of the future. As we grow in age and in numbers I am confident we will become more and more a force to be reckoned with in American politics.

The Campaign for Liberty is just the beginning - we will be heard!