The Swamp Land Exile

My recent article on IP, black markets and praxeology has been translated into Estonian.

Mises.org has recently published an article that I co-wrote with Daniel Coleman where we attempt to answer why unlike every other black market, "info-trafficking" remains peaceful:

Unlike most black markets, the black market for information is characterized by peace and stability. There is a near-perfect harmony between the supply and the demand for movies, music, songs, and other digital content that falls under the control of intellectual-property legislation.

In the market for information, we do not see the kinds of conflicts that are rampant in other black markets. There are no turf wars between gangs for the right to offer the latest pop hit or blockbuster movie; there are no robberies committed by would-be users who need the money to get their fix. The vast majority of copyright violators go about their business without harming anyone.

In fact, those who upload, host, and share illegal content are not in any significant danger at all. What sets the black market in information apart from other black markets? Why is it nonviolent?

Enjoy the article.

Wild child Lindsay Lohan is apparently not a fan of staying out of trouble--nothing but private and public battles with family members, lovers, the media and, lately, the state (see here, here, here, here, here and here). In my opinion, her life is a mess. Yet I must come to her rescue--if only ideologically. You see, LiLo is a victim.

If you thought prohibition was repealed, think again. From minimum drinking age laws to laws that prohibit even parents, in some states, from responsibly introducing alcohol to kids, the state still manages to control not just the alcohol industry but those consuming it. Indeed, if you consume alcohol in places and times that the state deems "illegal," you will be treated like cattle--literally. Indeed, Lohan has been in the past required to wear an alcohol monitoring bracelet. She has also been required to forcibly attend rehab (let's see: a chain, involuntary migration--yep, sounds like a form of slavery to me) and comply with various others threats by the state.

The support for the war on drugs is sickening. From what I can tell, almost everyone has been bashing Lohan and praising the judge and the almighty legislation that makes these atrocities happen. Sure, if Lohan committed a real crime against someone else's property or body, then she'd be guilty. However, the government's gauntlet was thrown because she had the audacity to say no. There is no obligation to show up in court. LiLo's record ought to be expunged. Set her free at once.

Repeal the drinking age. Legalize drunk driving. Repeal the war on drugs. Abolish the prisons. Why not--repeal the state while we are at it.

Oh, and regarding the judge who sentenced an innocent person? I agree with Lohan's sentiments:

(Vía Albert Esplugas.)

Manuel Lora y yo hemos coescrito y publicado un ensayo a favor de la libertad de inmigración en el último número del Journal of Libertarian Studies, editado por el Mises Institute.

Es una crítica a las tesis anti-inmigración de Hans Hoppe y al desarrollo que hace Stephan Kinsella de éstas (aunque el pensamiento de Kinsella ha evolucionado desde entonces y ahora se declara favorable a la libertad de movimientos). Nuestros argumentos son fundamentalmente de tipo ético, para lectores de convicciones liberales.

Immigrants, Intruders or Guests? A Reply to Hoppe and Kinsella

Copio la conclusión:

An individual has the right to choose who can live on, work on, buy or rent his property but not the right to decide who can live, work or buy in his country. Migratory barriers hinder voluntary interaction between people, employers and workers, landlords and tenants, and sellers and consumers. As long as employers, landlords or sellers accept immigrants on their property, immigrants are not intruders but guests. It is true that the welfare state makes immigration more attractive in the same way it makes other types of behaviors attractive, but this does not mean that immigration (or these behaviors) amounts to aggression and, thus, is worthy of defensive force. The only measures that libertarians qua libertarians can defend are the suppression of all subsidies to immigrants (and to anyone else for that matter), the privatization of public spaces, the abolition of protectionism that perpetuates poverty in the countries of origin, the repealing of anti-discrimination laws and the denial of voting rights, perhaps until the foreigner has assimilated. As for the migration barriers, tear them down!

Nótese que en este artículo para el IJM disputo el argumento, defendido en el ensayo, de que el Estado del Bienestar hace la inmigración artificialmente atractiva.

Several months ago I made the decision to apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, because I wanted to have another level of protection for me and for my family as we go about our business around town.

I will not talk about the permit process, whether you should get one, or about any libertarian implications of licking the state’s boot to obtain permission to carry metals and chemicals on one’s person. You are on your own about that. Instead, I will simply, and briefly, go through the various trials and tribulations that I went through.

Because I live in hot and humid Florida, chances are I will (perhaps literally) never wear a jacket or any sort of second layer. And because at present I work from home, my daily attire is extremely informal: a t-shirt and shorts almost every day of the year. This eliminates OWB (outside the waist band) carry. Realistically speaking, this left me with two options. I could carry IWB (inside the waist band) or in a pocket.

For two reasons, the classic IWB method did not work for me. First, I am still working on losing a few more pounds. Thus, even a small firearm would have "printed" on a shirt, and become unconcealed. The state of Florida has declared – oh, the humanity! – that visible firearms are an abomination and a crime. The other has to do with comfort. Though not a firearms newbie, I am still quite a beginner at carrying concealed. I preferred to start off with something simple. While I am aware that IWB might in the long run be more desirable (a faster draw being an advantage), for now it would not do.

Pocket carry ended up being my choice, though I concede that it was mostly by default (where else could I hide a gun?). These days I carry a Ruger LCP. It’s a light pistol – perfect for the pocket. Initially I considered the back pocket. However, sitting on a gun did not seem like the best of ideas. Indeed, when I ran it past a friend, he said that back pocket carry would "scare the bejeesus" out of him. So front-pocket carry it was.

I tried a couple of pocket holsters before settling for a DeSantis Nemesis pocket holster. It fits comfortably in shorts or jeans pockets, and the trigger guard is well protected. I have no complaints about this purchase so far. Since my pistol of choice is fairly thin, no one can tell that I am carrying a concealed weapon. It just looks like I have a wallet in that pocket.

Besides the LCP, I have another gun that I plan on carrying: a S&W 638 (I must thank Dick Clark for his recommendation in "Buying Your First Handgun"). The 638 has a shrouded hammer. When looking at revolvers, I wanted something that would be safe when carrying. An exposed hammer might have risked getting snagged in clothing. To minimize the risk I went with the 638. Like the LCP, I will carry this gun in my pocket using a Don Hume holster. While it protrudes more than the LCP (it is a revolver after all), the S&W will not cause a stir in public.

Some parting thoughts

While preparing to start carrying, I spent some time reading books, web articles, blog entries and even watching YouTube videos. Many of those sources implied that people who carry guns have an extra responsibility to avoid escalating conflicts should they be involved in one. Failure to do so could literally have fatal consequences. Decent human beings already have such responsibility. Escalating a conflict can often be a form of aggression. To be clear, one has the right to defend oneself from aggressive violence but no right to start it (or to escalate it for that matter). The presence of a gun on you changes nothing.

I’ve been packing for a bit now. Let me share some impressions:

• I’ve learned to keep my hands out of my pockets; there is no reason to be reaching around in there.


• Keys, phone, wallet and pistol – they all come with me now. After years of putting everything in the same pockets I am instantly aware when anything is missing. Even after a few months, the same is true with the carry gun. Though I try not to forget to leave home without it, the lack of weight reminds me if I do.


• (Front) pocket carry is not intrusive when driving.


• Finding the correct holster is worth the investment in time, money and, if necessary, returns. Non-trivial amounts of effort went into finding the one with the right balance of comfort, functionality and material.


• Find and test self-defense ammo.

If you have decided to carry a gun for self-defense, do it every day. Even in cities with high crime, the chances of ever needing to use a firearm for self-defense are extremely low. However, it’s better to have it if you ever do need it.

Finally, be smart about it. Don’t go out there shooting yourself (or others) in the foot (or in other places). The last thing we need as an already-maligned group is bad press.

(Originally published on LRC.)

A new libertarian blog which I have been invited to write for. If you favor justice, individual liberty, civilization, prosperity, and property rights, and if you oppose war, mercantilism, fascism, protectionism, and militarism, you might enjoy reading it. Some high quality writers there, and also me. Enjoy!

The Libertarian Standard.

This was initially written a couple of days after the earthquake in Haiti but was never published anywhere else.

Not even an earthquake in a very poor country is enough for the federal administrators to show compassion. The Obama regime will make no change to its immigration policy in light of the utter devastation in Haiti. The Coast Guard will interdict those trying to enter the U.S. illegally by sea. Only those with special circumstances will be granted special permission: orphans who have ties (not just normal orphans, mind you) to family members already living in the U.S., or those with medical reasons.

Says Raymond Joseph, ambassador of Haiti: “If you think you will reach the U.S. and all the doors will be open to you, that’s not at all the case. And they will intercept you right on the water and send you back home where you came from.”

I for one cannot imagine what it must be like for most in Haiti now, but we can try. Thanks to near-textbook-perfect socialism, that country is a dump. With high mortality rates and low life expectancy, Haitians do not have much to look forward to. Poverty is rampant. Services are squalid. Education? Hah! Health care? Hah again. Employment? Good luck. And now imagine that most of your family, including your extended family—remember that even squalid housing is a luxury so you have to share with many others—dies immediately after the earthquake and the rest died or are dying of disease or starvation. Decades of hard socialism have resulted in low capital investment and accumulation of material wealth, and thus no savings for the vast majority. Sadly, this means that Haitians cannot help each other in their time of need. Quite literally, they have nothing. Help has had to come from other countries*.

Now you have no family, no home, no job, and what little possessions you had are also gone—down to whatever you can carry on your person. But do not for a second think that you could float your way to the “land of the free.” Getting a visa is expensive for a Haitian and it involves waiting and dealing with bureaucracy. The government is virtually shut down anyway. There is no way out of the immediate misery and impending doom, at least not to the U.S. The feds will not allow you to travel unless you go through the official channels, invitations from family and friends notwithstanding. Kind of cruel and not unusual, isn’t it? Instead of helping the tired, the poor, the huddled masses, the wretched refuse and the homeless Haitians, they are turned away.

About the only good thing that Obama has done here is granting temporary protected status to Haitians in the U.S. illegally as of January 12th. Though that is at least something, no such help is given to those trying to enter the country after that date, not to mention that temporary relief is barely useful to those trying to make a living. After all, it’s hard to have peace of mind or have a family and stable conditions if you have to constantly live with the fear of deportation.

Now, the Air Force has been bringing some folks to the U.S. yet a majority of them are U.S. citizens or have links to the United States. However, this is a drop in the bucket. How many people in this country, even in the middle of a recession, would be willing to offer housing and some form of employment to those in need? The market could handle this already. Companies around the world could openly offer employment to Haitians and bring entire families together. Flights could be chartered and transportation arranged in a matter of hours. But there are state barriers to all of this: from minimum wage laws and work permits to identification requirements and licenses—all conspire to increase the cost of labor.

Haitian socialism has caused widespread involuntary primitivism, which in turn caused poverty and therefore the inability to mitigate earthquake damage. The man-made disaster—severe statism—only exacerbated the natural disaster. Unfortunately, American border and labor socialism means a loss in the breadth and depth of the division of labor, resulting in goods and services that are not as efficient or as plentiful as they could have otherwise been.

Ultimately it all goes back to government control of migration. The state has a monopoly on deciding who enters the country. It cares not even if there are invitations for labor and housing.

Mr. Obama: Abolish migration controls. Tear down the bureaucratic wall. Have some compassion.



* Of course, the U.S is not a paragon of liberty but think about what happened after Katrina. You had a massive influx of supplies from other cities and states. These supplies could have only existed because of previous saving and production. But it was not just material supplies.; there was an influx of labor. I am aware that there has been plenty of state interference here, of course, but the point stands. At least some folks wanted to rebuild homes and businesses. Imagine how much worse off New Orleans would be if the state of Louisiana had not allowed anyone to come in to live or work.

(Via Matt Bors)

Heme aquí.

No. It can't be!. Say it ain't so! Tell me that someone sent an Onion article to the MSM:

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.

One can fondly look back at his first murders as president, back in the early and apparently forgotten days of January of 2009, and clearly realize that this man truly is a hero of peace.

What next, the Nobel in Economics for his work in confronting the crisis and contributing to global recovery?

After three and a half years in central New York, we are leaving Ithaca for The Sunshine State. That's right, we are moving to Orlando.

People issues aside (we are leaving behind good friends), let's take a look at the pros and cons:

Pros

• Orlando has more of everything: shopping, restaurants, entertainment, major airport, schools, resources, photography groups, etc.
  
• I've been wanting to teach Benjamin Spanish. It will be easier there.
  
• Better chance of finding work on the long run. Ithaca is very small.
  
• Significantly lower cost of living, especially housing.
  
• No state income tax; lower sales tax.
  
• Closer to my family in Florida.
  
• Weather: no freezing cold, car starts easily, no need to bundle up, no mountains of snow.
  
• Orlando is the Las Vegas for children. Having The Mouse nearby might be fun. There are also dozens of other similar attractions.
  
• New opportunities to explore nearby areas.

Cons

• We would no longer be driving distance from my parents or my sister-in-law. But at least there are affordable non-stop flights.
  
• What one can expect from larger cities: traffic, crime and other inconveniences associated with large metro areas.
  
• Weather: hot and humid almost year round.
  
• Flat topography. I am biased against this since I love hills, mountains, waterfalls but will have to learn to see things different with my photo eye.
  
• Starting over: finding doctors, dentists, child resources, getting oriented.
  
• Moving sucks.

We expect to be out of here by late November. Until then I will enjoy the fall colors and the crisp, cold air.

Take a look at this BBC video of the clashes between G20 protesters and cops.

The feel of the video eerily reminds me of the Peruvian nightly news that I used to watch in the 80s and early 90s when the military/police would crush protesters (and non-protesters). It was a time of curfews, searches and seizures and road blocks. Freedom of speech, and especially of assembly, were barely tolerated but usually abolished. The cop and the soldier become one and the same. And in its efforts to eradicate terrorism (funded by the global U.S. war on drugs of course), the national government, then a military/left-socialist/right-nationalist mix, itself become another source of terror for the average citizen. One wrong move and the police had the legal authority to execute you on the spot. For your own good.

So when I hear an aggression bureaucrat declare an assembly to be unlawful (about 15 seconds into the video), it brings back memories.

It's a shame that it is all happening in the land of the "free" now. What we call the "police state" should from now on be called the "military state" instead.

Just for kicks, here's another video, this time by CNN. You can hear the same creepy voice in the background.