The Swamp Land Exile

"Chaotic lack of rules"

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:02:35 -0800

Just when I thought I had heard/read it all, comes this gem out of NYC:

Efforts to tame a lawless bus industry that has left Chinatown like the "Wild West" have been introduced by neighborhood politicians.

The move, which would force buses traveling between New York and other cities to have a permit to operate, has teamed up State Sen. Daniel Squadron, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Council Member Margaret Chin.

They introduced a bill before the State Legislature Friday, designed to create a permit system for the first time ever and ease what they called a "chaotic lack of rules" which puts travelers and neighborhood residents at risk.

It seems that the main problem here is that companies often do not have a designated stop; opponents say this causes traffic problems. Granted, if this is true, then it is because of true, chaos-causing rules--the rules giving the state control of the roads.

"With no rules to regulate buses, the streets of Chinatown are like the Wild West, and that doesn't work for bus companies or the community," said Squadron. If only.

What Libertarians Should Know When Debating Statists

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:38:31 -0800

Anthony Gregory makes a quick list of "talking points" that libertarians should know rather well when engaging in argumentation with statists. Here it is:

The law of comparative advantage
Broken window
Socialism vs. universability
The state cannot be perfectly egalitarian -- someone calls the shots
If EVEN the US government does X, is there any hope for a good govt?
The ratchet effect
History shows markets can handle health care and insurance
History shows markets can handle law
Govt. education = indoctrination by the power elite
Guns protect us from criminals, and the state
Free speech is the cornerstone of civilization
Without property rights, no other rights are possible
Libertarian property rights are, in the good sense, more "democratic" than socialist rights
The free market empowers the weak against the strong, who always grab political influence
If you don't own your body, no liberties are possible
History shows corporations side with the regulatory state
History damns every war that has happened
Due process rights are important, because the state can never be trusted -- it is that evil
You can't have freedom without letting others have it
Political democracy is no better than any other form of govt., basically (hat tip, HHH!)
Relative freedom at home can mean more imperialism -- look out! (hat tip, HHH!)
Illegal aliens are people just as much as we are
Tax victims have a right to reclaim stolen goods, it doesn't make the stealing legitimate
Privatization is messy because socialization is the original sin
States can't calculate without prices
Central planning fails due to information problems
Public choice theory
The butler effect (how drug wars make things worse)
Outlawing guns and drugs means only outlaws have them, and drives them underground
Blowback
Just war theory
The state as a monopoly on violence
Libertarian class analysis
Thou shalt not steal
Taxation is theft
War is murder
War is the health of the state
All states are born unjustly
All states commit aggression
Either you're for aggression, or not

The Power To Classify Is The Power To Destroy

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:46:04 -0800

The state has a fetish for categorizing and classifying things, as if the label you "officially" stick on things changes reality. Yet that classification has legislative teeth. Lately I have become more aware of this destructive power. Not because it comes from the state--I am already used to that, but because often times government agencies, part of the executive branch, are the ones operating under rather wide legislative powers granted by Congress. None of this is new, of course. It just seems that it is becoming more prominent as the number of bureaucracies and bureaucrats continues to increase.

Instead of private law or contracts or generally accepted, time-honored societal agreements, the state corrupts reason and destroys language, replacing common sense with legislative fiat, all while making us more depending on the state to determine what reality is and how we deal with others.

Examples abound. The state controls the definitions of marriage (and of divorce, of course). The state defines who is an employee, who is an employer, and whether you have had "income." Is Julian Assange a journalist? If he "is," then according to the state he is treated in a specific way.

Classificationism goes hand in hand with licensing and other forms of control and regulation. If you want to open a kitchen or restaurant, better have the proper licensing. Usually the state will require licenses if you have a certain number of customers or some other category. Then, legally, you "are not" a "restaurant" if you do not meet the guidelines required for the license. But if you do, then magically you and your property are subject to the state's magical incantation (also known as legislation). The FCC has recently been trying to reclassify ISPs so that they fall under the agency's telecommunications category, extending the FCC's power to control the internet.

A rather egregious and recent example of, in this case, re-classificationism, has to do with Obama's administration trying to "crack down" on companies that treat workers as independent contractors instead of employees (so that unions do not have access to those workers). The IRS and other agencies can determine if someone is a "contractor" or an "employee."

Even when it comes to the basic rights that the government is "supposed" to protect, classificationism exists. Is email like regular mail?. Is there an expectation of privacy? It all depends on how the bureaucrats massage language in the political arena.

Should e-cigarrettes be regulated like real cigarettes? What "is" a "firearm" or a "machinegun"? Or an "assault weapon"? Where"is" Emmanuel's "residence"? What is a "controlled substance"? (A toy soldier "is" a "firearm" in British airports, by the way).

One could point out that the agencies in charge will have to have rules and regulations of their own, as the details of implementing and executing Congressional mandates lies with them. That is certainly correct. However, it is striking to see just how much agencies can control by merely moving from category to category entire industries, peoples, occupation, objects and actions. The power to classify is the power to destroy.

(Cross-posted.)

Zero Tolerance = 100% Totalitarianism

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:20:56 -0800

How else could one explain this?

A 7-year-old child allegedly shot a Nerf-style toy gun in his Hammonton, N.J., school Jan. 18. No one was hurt, but the pint-size softshooter now faces misdemeanor criminal charges.

Dr. Dan Blachford, the Hammonton Board of Education superintendent, said the school has a zero tolerance policy.

âWe are just very vigilant and we feel that if we draw a very strict line then we have much less worry about someone bringing in something dangerous,â said Blachford.

I bet âschool boardsâ also have zero tolerance even against non-mainstream views (that is, against any view that dares to criticize the establishmentâs views on everything, especially on the state).

A bit high and to the left.

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:09:13 -0800

Kahr CW9.

Article Translated Into Estonian

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:27:31 -0700

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

IP, Black Markets, Praxeology & Violence

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:02:17 -0700

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.

In Defense Of Lindsay Lohan

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:32:31 -0700

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:

Ensayo en el JLS: Immigrants, Intruders or Guests? A Reply to Hoppe and Kinsella

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:20:12 -0700

(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.

Five Months of Packing Heat

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:10:57 -0700

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 states boot to obtain permission to carry metals and chemicals on ones 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. Its 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.

Ive been packing for a bit now. Let me share some impressions:

Ive 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, its better to have it if you ever do need it.

Finally, be smart about it. Dont 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.)

The Libertarian Standard

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:46:36 -0700

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.

Does Obama Hate Black People?

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:34:57 -0800

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, thats 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 familyremember that even squalid housing is a luxury so you have to share with many othersdies 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 gonedown 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, isnt 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, its 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 licensesall 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 disastersevere statismonly 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.

What My Baby Is Eating

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:48:24 -0800

The Difference Between Obama And Bush

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:49:05 -0800

(Via Matt Bors)

Orlando

nospam@example.com (Manuel Lora) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:38:56 -0800

Heme aquí.