Friday, November 30, 2012

Animal Rights: Fact or Fiction?

I was a parliamentary debater at Pepperdine University. Unfortunately, this was only for three semesters. I joined late in my career, due to my dabbling in too many other trades. I was scatterbrained, and this leads to starting a lot of projects without seeing their completion. Fortunately, I am a changed man. Here I will finish, via incineration, illusory talk of animal rights. Rights are obligations not to trespass against the order of voluntary exchange. Rights are duties to uphold social cooperation, and anathematize social disintegration. Peaceful exchange is society. The planet we live on has only one race that can uphold these rights, the human race. Thus, any violator of rights is a racist. Since no other member of Earth's animal kingdom can participate in upholding social cooperation, no other member of Earth's animal kingdom has rights.

My arguments can come from scripture or from a secular property rights perspective. I doubt the former would have sway in discussions with vegetarians/vegans who abstain from the flesh for moral reasons. However, I would be remiss in not quoting the word.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Genesis 1:26
If you are a Jew or a Christian, this is the end of the debate. People were bestowed with dominion over nature, as nature's God has dominion over people and nature. When one has dominion, others have no claim to invade upon their affairs.

Do not fret, I did not forget my secular, or other religious affiliates in my audience. The dark illusion of animal rights is exposed by the spotlight of property. The last knight of liberalism, Ludwig von Mises, claims
The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from this fundamental demand.
The idea that animals other than humans, henceforth beasts, have rights numbs the cerebellum. If humans were not able to homestead unused scarce resources, there would be no property. Property rights are there to stave off the social disintegration that would occur in a propertyless world. Without designations of dominion over scarce resources, those resources are subject to the tragedy of the commons. Property allows people to preserve scarce resources, if they so choose. Butler Shaffer, of lewrockwell.com, once inundated a Greenpeace worker with examples of peaceful environmentalism
I went on to point out the many privately owned forests that operate as preserves, which members of the public can voluntarily support and visit. Private groups have purchased 'conservation easements' from landowners, for the purpose of preserving wetlands. I told them of the late actor, William Holden, who devoted most of his wealth to creating and maintaing a preserve in Africa wherein wild elephants could live. I also know of a man with no family who plans to leave his entire estate to the care of wild gorillas in Africa. If individuals and private groups can do such things- without putting themselves in conflict with others- do you think you- or Greenpeace- could figure out non-political, non-violent ways of accomplishing ends that you value?
The world without property rights is doomed, what is next? The world of property rights can only exist where there is the possibility of voluntary exchange, or as Mises puts it, social cooperation. Humans do not have to exchange with one another, but they do. Ricardo's Law is apodeictic. The division of labor benefits even those producers who are more effective than others. Even the most talented of humans gains from voluntarily exchanging goods and services. Beasts cannot partake in voluntary exchange. Human action is guided by time preferences of wants that humans attempt to satisfy. Beasts are guided by instinct alone, and cannot peacefully trade with humans. Beasts have no possible addition to social cooperation. Beasts can only engage in involuntary exchange, or social disintegration. This disability bars them rights.

Let us propose that I am a sophist who utilizes rhetorical flourish to distract the lay reader. Let us pretend that my arguments are a wash, and my goal is to hornswoggle. Let us pretend that beasts have rights. If beasts have the right not to be eaten, it is because their status as "sentient" beings morally bars them from being items of consumption. If they are worthy of rights, they cannot be morally owned. This morality dictates the closing of all public and private zoos. What happens when dangerous beasts are not allowed to be owned by humans? What happens when lions, bears, rhinoceroses, tigers, ligers, hippopotamuses and elephants roam free, and encounter humans? The law of self-defense, and Darwinian analysis enter the scene. Beasts cannot be reasoned with. Beasts will not restrict their movements to arbitrary borders drawn by States, or to not invading the property of humans. If you want to exterminate beasts, abolish the right to dominion over them. Abolish the right to consume, hunt for sport or preserve that which humans have dominion over. If you want beasts to thrive, develop a robust natural rights theory of human rights grounded in property rights. The survival of beasts is contingent upon human dominion of beasts.

Choose Liberalism, save the beasts.

Post Scriptum: Here is a 60 minutes case of Texas hunters preserving species that are now extinct in Africa. Butler Shaffer's full post. Blame or praise for this tirade should be directed at one Professor Leeson-Schatz and his post at CEDA. He is not the progenitor of my arguments, but the embodiment of my arguments' antithesis. I appreciate his adjudication philosophy for the debate community, along with his frankness on the subject. It is a fun read, join me on this journey.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Lincoln & Social Disintegration

Jeffrey Tucker, blogger ar lfb, is a master of his craft. When it comes to book reviewing, there is no equal. Whether it be in video or written format, his prose and emotion lead to the lengthening of my reading list. Here he strikes again.

The subject is Abraham Lincoln. Was he so great a president that we needed his image engraved in the stone idol of South Dakota? Or, is he the epitome of salivating centralized power cravers that feed in the trough alternatively known as the State? Here is a taste of Tucker's insight
Reading Fallon, two great problems with Abraham Lincoln emerge: his means and his ends. The means were themselves horrifying, and the new Lincoln movie provides only a hint of it with the piles of limbs and bodies that variously appear in battlefield and hospice scenes. This war was ghastly and unnecessary (Britain ended slavery peacefully just 30 years earlier, as Thomas DiLorenzo frequently points out). He ordered mass executions. He made the Bill of Rights a dead letter. 

Leading an invasion that vanquishes 700,000 humans does not lead to social cooperation. Such antisocial behavior leads to social disintegration. Promulgation of history through the lens of Liberalism is a must in cases where a man's reputation is far from accurately portraying him. Revisionism is the right remedy to State propagandizing via the public school system, and public sector hiring.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

What's a Palestine?

After a host of recent conversations with my comrades, I have come to the conclusion that there needs to be some light shed on the darkness in the Middle East. Yeah there is a truce for now, but I bet your still curious. Two questions arise that I am confident will be answered in contrarily varying ways elsewhere. What is Palestine? What is Israel? Here I will attempt to answer these questions i an introductory fashion, and equip the public with the means to do research on their own.

If you think one article can bring you up to speed with the events over yonder, I humbly suggest the work of one Noam Chomsky. I do not believe that it will be enough, but if you only have patience for one article, please let this be the one. If a cartoonish representation of the atavistic violence backed by an awesome soundtrack can attract your curiosity to the calamity watch "This Land is Mine", and read the information beneath the video. If you have the will to read through decades of antiwar articles on the subject, click here. Cato's sobering look at the Two State Solution. The Just view of the re-elected Noble Peace Prize Winner's hypocritical view of human life in the region, here. To reiterate, the above is an intellectual sports drink to get you in the game of war. How long you play, and when you substitute out are up to you coach.

The farce called the One State Solution, is proposed by those seeking peace in the region as a response to the plethora of problems that arise in establishing two sovereign States. George Bisharat, professor of Law at UC Hastings, rightly calls it the "two state mirage". His reasons are legion
The obstacles to meaningful Palestinian statehood are constantly mounting, most tangibly in the form of Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Some 600,000 Jewish settlers now reside there-- three times as many as at the beginning of the Oslo peace process in 1993, and their numbers are growing rapidly.
His analysis on the subject is accurate to a tee, but the solution he proposes has problems of its own. These failings come from the worship of the State, statolatry. The One State idea is supposed to be more democratic, egalitarian and realistic in light of Israeli disapproval of a fully sovereign and armored Palestinian State. Bisharat's supplication to the State blinds him to the Israeli desire to praise Eloheim. The Israelis may not all believe in God, but they surely want a State that affirms their cultural view of the deity. Palestinians are not as jewish as the Israelis. Some Palestinians are Christians and most of the others are Muslims. Having One State means resolving these incompatible religions. If Palestinians are forced to be in a State that selects Judaism as its religion, then talk of equality is for nothing. If the One State is not a religious State, have fun getting Israel to agree to such accords. Voting in One State would somehow achieve more favorable results, by making people come together and agree. If the U.S.  Congress is any indication of democracy, then they Israelis and Palestinians should stray as far as they can from it. The Congress has succeeded in agreeing to increase the scopes of both domestic and foreign State invasion. This has wrought the initiation of violence in the past, and would only lead to more initiation of violence in the future. Additionally, Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as referring to democracy as two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner plans. I'll let your mind substitute the parties we are talking about into this metaphor. Voluntary exchange is the most critical issue in the area. Sure, the original Israeli invaders of Palestine were wrong. Sure, the 600,000 current settling invaders are even more wrong. However, the most deplorable action by the Israeli State is its blockade of Gaza. The Israeli State dehumanizes Palestinians by calculating the amount of calories needed for bare subsistence.  The Israeli State achieves this by invading the voluntary exchange between Palestinians and peace seeking traders abroad. War is brought about not by having one, two or thirty States. War, and by that I mean murder, is the essence of the State.

Let the solution for peace in the Levant be known. The No State Solution is the path to preventing as much murder as possible. Hamas is the Palestinian democratically elected State that ensures war in the region by monopolizing the initiation of force. The Israeli State also has a monopoly on the use of force, democratically elected of course. If both States, and the Palestinian State in the West Bank, are abolished there will be no monopoly on the initiation of violence in the region. Those who will increase social cooperation through voluntary trade will do so. These are the peacemongers. Those who will insist on dominating other humans through initiating violence will be dealt with by security producers aligned with dispute resolution producers.

The key to peace is to allow peaceful association of people. Israelis and Palestinians are people. Profound, I know. There may be Israeli neighborhoods, Palestinian neighborhoods, or the more likely mixed neighborhoods when peaceful association is allowed. The anatomy of the State is inherently an association of war. It cannot be constructed without the threat of kidnapping and murder. Therefore its construction cannot lead to peace in the Middle East. Disintegrate the State to allow peace to ensue and endure.


Post Scriptum:
But, but, but who will build the courts? Kritarchy is the answer.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Welcome to the Plastic Bags

Josh Friedman, of freeslo, strikes again. This is civil disobedience done right. Anarchists do not have to be tie-dye mohawk having, molotov cocktail tossing deviants. Baby steps towards libertarian anarchy are taken with every protest. It is a game of education. The masses have been indoctrinated and inculcated by the religion of Statism. Who will build the roads and bridges? Who will protect our property from terrorists? Who will write the laws? And the ever so quintessential and existentially significant, who will save us from the danger of plastic bags?

Josh the exemplar doing what activists do. Peaceful and non-violent resistance to a ban on plastic bags.


Post Scriptum: Forthcoming will be a more in depth look at civil disobedience.

Is Voting Wrong?

The State wants thee to vote, in order to acquire thine approval. This is the essence of Voluntaryist argumentation against strolling into the voting booth and fulfilling your "civic" duty. The duty I and I,we, have is to end the system of endemic aggression perpetrated by the State. If this can be done by voting, then that is the moral imperative. If it can only be done by abstaining, then that is the moral imperative. It can be done by voting for measures or candidates that will put chinks in the armor of the State.

Daniel Sanchez disagrees. He is wrong, but puts forth the most lucid antiwar argument I have ever witnessed
Foreign policy is an economic matter in another way as well. Foreign interventionists are essentiallysecurity-production socialists. For far too many conservatives, the same federal government that is too inept and corrupt to run a television station is somehow miraculously competent and virtuous enough to make the whole world a safer place through centrally planned invasions, occupations, sanctions, regime changes, and CIA ops.
PeaceRequiresAnarchy's argument is here. Mark's, my twitter ally, argument can be found here. Ifeminist Wendy McElroy's argument is here. George Smith's argument is here. Compelling as they may be, I voted on Novemeber 6, 2012 Ano Domini.

To vote between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is unconscionable. To vote between a "citizens' approved" territorial submission to the State over a forcefully monopolized law producer's decision to designate territorial submission to the State is unconscionable (see 40 here). To vote between Howard Berman and Brad Sherman is unconscionable. However, voting can be conscionable.

Gary Johnson was the Libertarian, capital L, candidate for president. His positions on FEMA, the FCC and the State are questionable at best and morally destitute at worst. I say this after having voted for Gary Johnson, and not regretting it. He garnered roughly 1% of the total vote, but if he had reached 5% then federal funds would have to have been divided between three parties instead of two. In reality there is only one party, The War Party, but this division of federal funds would reduce their power to propagandize. It would startle the average voter that thought the libertarians were to be ignored in their obscurity. It would cause the 4th branch of the State, the media, to discuss libertarianism and its dissemination would be aided. Is this enough reason to punch a hole in a ballot?

In regards to measures offered up to the direct democracies of some states within the United States of America, voting can be an imperative. In cases where there is no chance of gouging the eyes of or slashing at the tentacles of Leviathan, the moral imperative is to abstain from voting or to uphold the purposive act of non-voting. If the passing of a measure will help to dismantle the State, then voting is the moral imperative. Abolishing State execution, legalizing marihuana, reducing invasions into insurance production and lessening sanctions of State violence against voluntary exchange all appeared on ballots this November. Any abstention of voting on these issues is morally reprehensible.

Vote!


Post Scriptum: The inspiration for this detailed look at voting, and for transparency on voting is Reason Magazine's Tim Cavanaugh. Earlier this year I voted in the primary, and his online proclamation of his votes was illuminating. Here it is.

Monday, November 5, 2012

V for Voluntary

Today is November fifth, two thousand and twelve Ano Domini. Happy fifth! V for Vendetta came out in 2005, and I have remembered the gun powder, the treason and plot ever since. The film is full to the brim with scenes that are memorable, but my favorite was the audience's introduction to V. He saves the distressed damsel and delves into a deepening chasm of poetry. Alternating rhythm, unforgivingly elitist verbosity abetted by a British accent and an assiduous alliteration schema make this my favorite scene of any movie. Here it is.

"V for Vendetta's" theme is so manifestly antiauthoritarian, and popular, that I deem it unfruitful to do a line by line analysis on the subject. The fifth of November draws my attention, every year, to the largess of Leviathan, and my tolerance thereof. This is my way of tracking my intellectual development. This year marks a change not only in degree, but in kind.

I grew up in a Bill Clinton supporting centrist household. In fifth grade we had a timely mock presidential election. I voted for Al Gore and he won. History turned out a little differently. Fast forward to high school where I knew that those in authority were doing something wrong. I had been listening to Immortal Technique and reading through the propaganda of the 4th branch. I was antiwar and pro-civil liberties. At the time I identified as a Democrat, because of the monstrous bigotry and warmongering that I saw in the Republican Party. During the 2007 presidential debates I was exposed to the hushing of antiwar voices. Rep. Dennis Kucinich was the only Democrat that was antiwar, the others merely payed lip service to peace.

My cerebellum received a shock when I listened to the arguments of one Dr. Ronald Paul. It was the first time in my life I found myself agreeing with the political arguments of an elderly white man. It was what I needed to shake stereotypes out of me. Dr. Paul espoused antiwar and pro-civil liberties positions. The other Republicans were atrocious in comparison, but what surprised me was that I liked what Dr. Paul had to say more than any party's proposed candidates. Another confusion arose in me when I realized that my friends and family did not feel the same. They had attachments to the welfare state, the regulatory state, the military industrial complex and the pharmaceutical industrial complex. I was indifferent to welfare and regulations, because their proponents did not ground their arguments in natural rights. The potency of natural rights is what had drawn me to antiwar ideas and the body politick itself.

My college years involved following Dr. Paul's career and flipping through suggested readings from him. I became active in the college libertarian group and joined the university's debate team. The exchange of ideas I participated in drove me farther and farther from the State. The impotency of Statist arguments did not satisfy my desire for a consistent philosophy.

Over the past year I have been dangling on the thin line between minarchy and anarchy. Now I am resolutely a voluntarist/voluntaryist. No governing structure is just unless one can opt in or out voluntarily, without the threat or instantiation of aggression.

But I digress. Here is my ode to the movie.

View "V for Vendetta" through this vent that vividly venerates voluntary association, victimizes villains & Leviathan's ventriloquists and vociferously portrays sublime scenes of vengeance as vivaciously as a venomous volcano erupting on Venetian villages. Here

Sunday, November 4, 2012

the Votes of a Liberal

There are those that say voting is an act of giving consent to the state. Here, here and here. When it comes to picking between the so-called lesser of two evils, I agree. Voting for lesser evil is not acceptable. In this regard I shall refrain from voting for the US Senator, US Representative, State Senator, Member of the State Assembly and DA positions. If I am allowed to write in a candidate I will most likely write Ronald Paul, in the hopes that there are others that will do the same. However, I do have a chance at rocking the vote on ballot initiatives, and the presidential election. There are enough people sick of the two party system to send a message to the Republicrats. Below I will discuss who my messenger is and a brief description on why I am voting for or against each initiative. I shall not be writing a complete tractus here, but regular readers will know why I oppose what I do. If you are a visual/auditory learner please watch and listen to my friend Josh Friedman breakdown his votes.

POTUS:
Gary Johnson gets my vote. He is a cost-effective/consequentialist libertarian, while I am a moral/natural rights libertarian. This leads to him siding with the State too often for my tastes, but he is good enough for me to use as a message bearer against the two party system. Obama is marginally less aggressive on foreign policy than Romney, but I cannot vote for either in good conscious.

State Measures

30: Taxation is a euphemism for theft, and theft is wrong. 30 increases theft. Ipso facto, I shall vote no.

31: Gives more leeway for local governments to abuse funds. The status quo surprisingly increases the State less than this measure's approval would.  I shall vote no. (Special note: I felt I needed a lawyer to translate the wording of this measure, and I am no stranger to the law or shifty bureaucrats)

32: I abhor public sector unions, but this measure restricts their speech. I have read that this is not an accurate quote from Voltaire, but it rings true nonetheless. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I shall vote no.

33: A yes vote here reduces the State's incursions in the auto insurance industry. I shall vote yes. 

34: The State does not have the right to execute humans. I shall vote yes to end the death penalty. Oh yeah schools get $100 million of the savings, for you consequentialists out there.

35: Increases the power of the State to act as a monopoly arbiter. I shall vote no.

36: Reduces 3 strikes to only violent crimes. There are no crimes that are not violent. I shall vote yes. This stands out as my sole disagreement with Josh Friedman, and our end goal remains the same.

37: Gives more power for the State to invade food production. I shall vote no.

38: See 30. I shall vote no.

39: See 30 & 38. I shall vote no.

40: If I were a consequentialist or pragmatist I would vote yes (if you are inclined to enjoy subjunctives read my friends Edgar & Nathan). More commissions on how to decide districts are both daunting and irrelevant to the real question. Does an agency that monopolizes the initiation of force, the State, have dominion over me, my property and you? The answer is no, and thus I shall not vote yes, because a yes vote would approve the district drawn by citizens. A no vote leads to more committees. I shall leave this measure as blank as my consent of the State's dominion.

County Measures of el Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles:

A: Whether appointed or directly elected the State is, as Bastiat says, "the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else". I shall not vote on this.

B: An incursion on adult film production. I shall vote no.

J: See 30, 38, & 39. I shall vote no.

District:

MM: See 30, 38, 39, & J. I shall vote no.

The underlying theme is Liberalism, the advocacy of liberty. I want to disintegrate the State, but I am content to compromise. I shall support any reduction of the State and anathematize any increase of the State. I purchased a t-shirt from the Ludwig von Mises Institute that sums up Liberalism in two words.

Privatize Everything.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Morals are Consistent

The man who gave me an arena to spew my antiwar/antileviathan propaganda and develop my ethical backbone in my collegiate studies, is Dr. Robert Williams. He is an associate professor of political science at Pepperdine University. His blog's most recent post covers Malala Yousafzai's recovery from a Taliban member's brutal attempt on her life. The Taliban member is morally wrong for initiating violence against Malala. This situation raises a question of consistency. If media outlets are outraged by the Taliban's initiation of the use of force, why not apply this sentiment to other such situations?

The Taliban formerly had control of the State in Afghanistan. Since its ousting the U.S. have listed it as a terrorist organization. Pejoratives aside, morals are that which we should have regardless of where we are from. A normative guide to human action.  They apply to individuals as well as groups of individuals. I find the decalogue to be a convincing moral compass for everyday living, but in political philosophy my go to is the non-aggression principle. It illustrates that whether a group of individuals is referred to as a State, government, terrorist cell, gang, mob or choir the same morality is expected of them. This moral obligation is to not encroach upon the self-ownership of other individuals by commencing the use of violence. 

Yes! Hear hear, to those who care about other individuals enough to oppose the morally reprehensible actions of the Taliban. I believe they should be commended for their boldness in a time of commonplace immorality. I will embrace them as a sister or brother, for their support against aggression. However, anyone who does not also detest the same actions on the part of the U.S. foreign policy is anathema to morality. An advocate of the U.S.' domestic policy is anathema to morality. Anyone who was against the Bush administration's pre-emptive strike policy in Iraq, but supported Obama's in Libya is anathema to morality. Anyone who says that they support both the 4th amendment and the Orwellianly named Patriot Act is anathema to morality. Anyone claims to support due process and the indefinite detention of humans in Guantanamo Bay (yup it's still open) is anathema to morality. Anyone who proudly waves the moniker of pro-life and supports the death penalty is anathema to morality. Anyone who would cry wolf at the sight of a street mugging, yet remains docile and complacent in the highway robbery that it takes to construct highways is anathema to morality. Anyone who stands up to declare that sexual harassment in the workplace is deplorable, and remains indifferent to the daily sexual assaults of the T.S.A. is anathema to morality. Anyone who wants to censor the speech rights of someone they disagree with, whilst protecting the speech rights of someone they agree with is anathema to morality. Anyone who thinks they champion women's rights and yet seeks compulsory dominion over the services women can provide with their own bodies is anathema to morality. Anyone who boasts that they are on the side of human dignity, whilst revoking Dwarven self-ownership is anathema to morality. Here is the red pill, the rabbit hole entrance and the point of no return. Anyone who promotes an institution established to protect private property that can only be funded by the involuntary expropriation of private property is anathema to morality. 

Disintegrate the State. Voluntarism/voluntaryism, noninterventionism, libertarian anarchy or put more poetically Laissez Faire, Holus Bolus.


Post Scriptum: For those seeking a more serious and rigorous examination of the non-aggression principle.  The inspiration for my anathemas is Saint Cyril of Alexandria, and his work on what he anathematizes can be found here. A nice take on free speech consistency. An instance of involuntary, and thus immoral, dwarf tossing. Wendy McElroy's interview on Scott Horton's radio that sparked this post.