» Article Translated Into Estonian
July 26, 2010
July 22, 2010
» IP, Black Markets, Praxeology & Violence
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:
Enjoy the article.
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.
July 8, 2010
» In Defense Of Lindsay Lohan
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 You see, LiLo is a victim.If you thought prohibition was repealed, think again.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:
June 30, 2010
» Ensayo en el JLS: Immigrants, Intruders or Guests? A Reply to Hoppe and Kinsella
(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:
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.
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.
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
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:
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.)
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.)
March 2, 2010
» Does Obama Hate Black People?
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.
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.
December 4, 2009
October 9, 2009
» War Criminal Wins Nobel "Peace" Prize
No. It can't be!. Say it ain't so! Tell me that someone sent an Onion article to the MSM:
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?
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?
September 25, 2009
» "Unlawful Assembly"
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.
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.
August 11, 2009
» What Is The State?
"It is the result of an unprincipled society that does not respect truth and justice. "Liberty" is nothing but an odd and embarrassing word to them, almost meaningless, and destined for the memory hole scrap heap. They want to control the next person, and are willing to put up with being controlled in exchange. They have never wanted liberty, nor have they even understood it, since they were a year and a half into their state run elementary school?s socialistic indoctrination system that conspired to hide and eradicate the idea from their minds." ~Paul E.
July 20, 2009
» War, Secession, and Libertarianism
I have an article today on LRC.
Usually libertarians tend to agree that war bolsters nationalism, props up taxes, and distorts the economy in a multitude of ways. There is also an increased probability of conscription and of the loss of civil liberties. Over the last couple of weeks, however, I have witnessed something that I never thought possible: the open and apparently completely unprincipled support of war ? by libertarians.
Take a look at the following recent blog posts and especially the follow-up comments and discussion:
One would expect a principled, radical libertarian to oppose war. Indeed, I?d say most tend to be solid on the war issue: they oppose the destruction of life and property by the US government and by various other governments across the globe, not to mention the constant deterioration of international affairs.
As expected, we saw some defections of the less principled, more moderate types at the beginning of the Iraq war (many of them recanted and crawled back when things went bad; we can only imagine that many of them would now be crowing that a pragmatic approach is best, had there been a quick American victory). What?s the shocking thing is that even hardcore antiwar types seem to have exceptions to their usual antiwar stance if the results are "worth it."
When it comes to wars of secession, and in particular the American Revolution, all bets are off. You see, because the war was heroic, the argument goes, that war is fine. Unlike every other war in the history of the United States, the American Revolution and the war it unleashed had as its objective the political separation of the colonies from the British Empire. And that?s fine, right? Such a view is virtually compelled if one is wed to the idea that the early American nation was a near-libertarian utopia, or the closest the world has ever come. But was it? And was the Revolutionary War justified?
As libertarians, we favor peace, property rights, and voluntary interaction based on contract and consent. We are therefore against the invasion or trespass of property rights; we recognize such actions as crimes and those carrying them out as criminals. It does not matter whether the person committing a crime is a thief wearing a ski mask or wearing a uniform of a county with a patch stamp on the shoulder. Bastiat calls state action against property rights legal plunder:
Thus, we libertarians oppose and condemn both "private" and "public"/government crime. In many ? if not most ? cases, war is the most immediately destructive force that a state can unleash not just on those beyond its borders but also on those within.
It?s hard to deny that war invariably requires a state, taxation, and even conscription. The Continental Army resorted to taxation and states often resorted to drafting. And when recruitment was down, slaves were drafted to fight in the war (to add insult to injury).
So let me get this straight. In order to fight that most evil of persons, the King, we must empower an aristocrat such as Washington (oh sorry ? a local aristocrat ... is this better now?) to lead an army composed of doubly-enslaved folks, and funded by theft. An army in which deserters were often held and executed without trials. And if you had the audacity to hide or protect them from searching officers, you could have been .
It looks to me like the war of secession was more of a traditional war for power than an act of secession from evil tyrants. The Revolutionary War did not even enjoy widespread support; the majority either did not care or was against it. Sure, some of the reasons for the war sound libertarian: freedom from monarchs, lower taxation, self-determination. But what about the means? War, as the saying goes, is the health of the state. We are told that George Washington was a war hero. Yet the same person, in collaboration with very evil Hamilton, would later on be ready to crush anti-tax rebels in Pennsylvania. Come to think of it, it?s almost as if the United States was conceived in tyranny! (See this article by William Marina for the not quite libertarian origins of the United States.)
Unlike war, secession is legitimate, libertarian and ? depending on the circumstances ? can be a bloodless or mostly bloodless way to separate politically. Take a look at India, the several former Soviet bloc nations, and East Germany. Granted, there were statist efforts here as well, but these did not involve mass murder and mass taxation. Both Lincoln and Davis, for example, were brutal ? both resorting too all kinds of violations of rights. (My view on this issue is that I wish both sides would have lost, and that The Confederacy, like the Union was also an economic basket case. See Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation.)
"But what if secession can?t succeed without resorting to war?" it will be asked. So what? War is war. And though libertarians are not generally pacifists, it?s one thing to favor self-defense and another to favor aggression. Otherwise we, too, would have to join the ranks of those who clamor for "war for peace." What if the free market "doesn?t work" to alleviate poverty or to provide health care? From the fact that something might not work if we leave it to the market does not follow that we should put aside charity and favor welfare, or that we should put aside true market health care and favor government action. Besides, laws can be changed without aggressive (and even defensive) violence. I?m not even referring to the political system but instead to things like civil disobedience, outreach, communication and other forms of activism.
To have to write this article is itself somewhat of a concern. If libertarians of all people are not good on war, taxation, conscription, and slavery, what good are they? What?s worse is that some of the more principled and radical libertarians have come to the defense of the Revolutionary War because it "allowed" a small government to protect our freedoms, turning the US into the best experiment* for liberty. Minarchy, after all, is the belief that the free market should be protected by a socialist monopoly. Go figure.
Libertarian warmongers! Amazing. What next, voluntaryists for taxation!?
*Even supporters of the Constitution should realize that, at "best," as Dale Everett puts it, "it was a noble effort, but the founding fathers were misguided to expect a magic scroll to protect their contrived republic." I?d say that this is perhaps a bit too optimistic still, for those "efforts" involved the creation of a (more powerful) state, supposedly controlled by the Constitution compared to the Articles. And at least the political aspect of the Revolution was not anti-state but pro-local state. Down with the king! Down with the republic!
War, Secession, and Libertarianism
Usually libertarians tend to agree that war bolsters nationalism, props up taxes, and distorts the economy in a multitude of ways. There is also an increased probability of conscription and of the loss of civil liberties. Over the last couple of weeks, however, I have witnessed something that I never thought possible: the open and apparently completely unprincipled support of war ? by libertarians.
Take a look at the following recent blog posts and especially the follow-up comments and discussion:
- Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day!
- The Murdering, Thieving, Enslaving, Unlibertarian Continental Army (alt)
- Revising the American Revolution
- http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/029113.html / Re ?Untold Truths About the American Revolution?
- The Declaration And Conscription
One would expect a principled, radical libertarian to oppose war. Indeed, I?d say most tend to be solid on the war issue: they oppose the destruction of life and property by the US government and by various other governments across the globe, not to mention the constant deterioration of international affairs.
As expected, we saw some defections of the less principled, more moderate types at the beginning of the Iraq war (many of them recanted and crawled back when things went bad; we can only imagine that many of them would now be crowing that a pragmatic approach is best, had there been a quick American victory). What?s the shocking thing is that even hardcore antiwar types seem to have exceptions to their usual antiwar stance if the results are "worth it."
When it comes to wars of secession, and in particular the American Revolution, all bets are off. You see, because the war was heroic, the argument goes, that war is fine. Unlike every other war in the history of the United States, the American Revolution and the war it unleashed had as its objective the political separation of the colonies from the British Empire. And that?s fine, right? Such a view is virtually compelled if one is wed to the idea that the early American nation was a near-libertarian utopia, or the closest the world has ever come. But was it? And was the Revolutionary War justified?
As libertarians, we favor peace, property rights, and voluntary interaction based on contract and consent. We are therefore against the invasion or trespass of property rights; we recognize such actions as crimes and those carrying them out as criminals. It does not matter whether the person committing a crime is a thief wearing a ski mask or wearing a uniform of a county with a patch stamp on the shoulder. Bastiat calls state action against property rights legal plunder:
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Thus, we libertarians oppose and condemn both "private" and "public"/government crime. In many ? if not most ? cases, war is the most immediately destructive force that a state can unleash not just on those beyond its borders but also on those within.
It?s hard to deny that war invariably requires a state, taxation, and even conscription. The Continental Army resorted to taxation and states often resorted to drafting. And when recruitment was down, slaves were drafted to fight in the war (to add insult to injury).
So let me get this straight. In order to fight that most evil of persons, the King, we must empower an aristocrat such as Washington (oh sorry ? a local aristocrat ... is this better now?) to lead an army composed of doubly-enslaved folks, and funded by theft. An army in which deserters were often held and executed without trials. And if you had the audacity to hide or protect them from searching officers, you could have been .
It looks to me like the war of secession was more of a traditional war for power than an act of secession from evil tyrants. The Revolutionary War did not even enjoy widespread support; the majority either did not care or was against it. Sure, some of the reasons for the war sound libertarian: freedom from monarchs, lower taxation, self-determination. But what about the means? War, as the saying goes, is the health of the state. We are told that George Washington was a war hero. Yet the same person, in collaboration with very evil Hamilton, would later on be ready to crush anti-tax rebels in Pennsylvania. Come to think of it, it?s almost as if the United States was conceived in tyranny! (See this article by William Marina for the not quite libertarian origins of the United States.)
Unlike war, secession is legitimate, libertarian and ? depending on the circumstances ? can be a bloodless or mostly bloodless way to separate politically. Take a look at India, the several former Soviet bloc nations, and East Germany. Granted, there were statist efforts here as well, but these did not involve mass murder and mass taxation. Both Lincoln and Davis, for example, were brutal ? both resorting too all kinds of violations of rights. (My view on this issue is that I wish both sides would have lost, and that The Confederacy, like the Union was also an economic basket case. See Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation.)
"But what if secession can?t succeed without resorting to war?" it will be asked. So what? War is war. And though libertarians are not generally pacifists, it?s one thing to favor self-defense and another to favor aggression. Otherwise we, too, would have to join the ranks of those who clamor for "war for peace." What if the free market "doesn?t work" to alleviate poverty or to provide health care? From the fact that something might not work if we leave it to the market does not follow that we should put aside charity and favor welfare, or that we should put aside true market health care and favor government action. Besides, laws can be changed without aggressive (and even defensive) violence. I?m not even referring to the political system but instead to things like civil disobedience, outreach, communication and other forms of activism.
To have to write this article is itself somewhat of a concern. If libertarians of all people are not good on war, taxation, conscription, and slavery, what good are they? What?s worse is that some of the more principled and radical libertarians have come to the defense of the Revolutionary War because it "allowed" a small government to protect our freedoms, turning the US into the best experiment* for liberty. Minarchy, after all, is the belief that the free market should be protected by a socialist monopoly. Go figure.
Libertarian warmongers! Amazing. What next, voluntaryists for taxation!?
*Even supporters of the Constitution should realize that, at "best," as Dale Everett puts it, "it was a noble effort, but the founding fathers were misguided to expect a magic scroll to protect their contrived republic." I?d say that this is perhaps a bit too optimistic still, for those "efforts" involved the creation of a (more powerful) state, supposedly controlled by the Constitution compared to the Articles. And at least the political aspect of the Revolution was not anti-state but pro-local state. Down with the king! Down with the republic!
July 10, 2009
» Turn In Your Neighbor For $1000
Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark and member of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition has a video explaining how to turn in your neighbor for $1000 cash, no questions asked. He calls this the best program in the country. Awful, of course. But there's more.
On the CoryBooker.com site, there's this PDF where Booker refers to the Heller gun case to continue his anti-gun activities:
There's that word again, "reasonable," coming out of the mouth of a local tyrant, mimicking the same attitude echoed by the Supreme Court. "Sure," they say--there are gun rights, "as long as there are reasonable restrictions." Nothing is reasonable with the state. Including you, Mr. Booker. Maybe he should be turned in for having an entire and terribly dangerous police department. All with evil guns.
(Also, there is no gun freedom in NJ. I guess that's what passes for "reasonable" these days.)
On the CoryBooker.com site, there's this PDF where Booker refers to the Heller gun case to continue his anti-gun activities:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court affirmed an individual's right to bear arms, effectively striking down the ban on hand gun ownership enacted by the District of Columbia. In its decision, the Court clearly recognized and affirmed a government's right to take reasonable measures to limit gun ownership in order to ensure community safety. It is within this space that we must now act.
There's that word again, "reasonable," coming out of the mouth of a local tyrant, mimicking the same attitude echoed by the Supreme Court. "Sure," they say--there are gun rights, "as long as there are reasonable restrictions." Nothing is reasonable with the state. Including you, Mr. Booker. Maybe he should be turned in for having an entire and terribly dangerous police department. All with evil guns.
(Also, there is no gun freedom in NJ. I guess that's what passes for "reasonable" these days.)
July 4, 2009
June 18, 2009
» State Department Loves Twitter!
When the Iranian government decided to (attempt to) clamp down on the Internet, users turned to social networking tools such as Twitter.
What's ironic is that the US State Department asked the Twitter folks not to shut down the service (due for maintenance) so that photos, videos and text would be available to those seeking updates about the mess in Iran.
But why is this ironic? Because Lord Obama wants to create an Internet czar with the power to control the Internet in times of emergency. (See the Cybersecurity Act of 2009--I think they forgot the scare quotes around security, btw).
If we ever had (major) election turmoil in this country, would it also be considered an "emergency"? To ask is to answer.
What's ironic is that the US State Department asked the Twitter folks not to shut down the service (due for maintenance) so that photos, videos and text would be available to those seeking updates about the mess in Iran.
But why is this ironic? Because Lord Obama wants to create an Internet czar with the power to control the Internet in times of emergency. (See the Cybersecurity Act of 2009--I think they forgot the scare quotes around security, btw).
If we ever had (major) election turmoil in this country, would it also be considered an "emergency"? To ask is to answer.
June 2, 2009
» Flying High With Hoover and Roosevelt
I have an LRC article today.
By the time I set foot on an airport I usually already have all my entertainment for the flight. However, on recent weekend stint to New Orleans for a wedding, I realized I had nothing to read. So imagine my surprise when I went to one of those (usually very small) airport bookstores and found not one but five or six copies of Bob Murphy's Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. As an amateur-hobbyist Austrian economist, how I pass up that opportunity?
As with the other books in the Politically Incorrect series, Murphy's Guide is aimed for the common man. Aside from the main body of the text, every other page features various quirky and fun text boxes that provide additional information to the reader: from book recommendations to quick facts.
So OK ? I said that the book was aimed for the common man. However, the content is not at all common. Indeed, far from it. In under two hundred easy to read pages, Murphy has managed to turn the mainstream view of Hoover and FDR on its head. Hoover was not at all a "do nothing" president. Nor was he much of a defender of the market. Indeed, it was Hoover, as Murphy shows, who sets the tone for Roosevelt's devastating attack on the economy and on the property rights of millions of Americans.
I was aware of a good deal of the shenanigans that Hoover and FDR imposed. Others, on the other hand, took me by surprise. When Roosevelt abolished the gold standard and began to manipulate its price in dollars, he would, according to stories, set the price of gold fairly randomly, picking numbers he though were "lucky."*
Murphy builds the case against Hoover by showing that he was in fact quite active, especially in his love for government/public work programs. FDR's Sovietesque policies had a running start. And, of course, far from getting us out of the depression, FRD's policies lengthened and deepened it.
Though the book analyzes policies enacted during Hoover and FDR's regimes, special attention is given to that mysterious and supposedly independent entity: the Federal Reserve. This is the core of Murphy's Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. The Fed's relentless control of the money supply and of credit was central to the crash and the depression. Murphy devotes dozens of pages to address the arguments raised over the years by various groups, especially the Keynesians and Friedmanites, convincingly rebutting them (or at least, it convinced me ? I am an amateur after all: YMMV).
Imagine an average person reading this book. What would the reaction be? I read the entirety of the book on the flight. As I flipped the pages I would turn my head to the person sitting next to me and think "this book is for you." And no, I do not consider myself an elitist. On the contrary, I wished more people were aware of these accurate, though revisionist, views. Grab a copy of this for yourself or for your family and friends. Be an intellectual troublemaker once in a while. Because if George W. Bush is our Hoover, and Obama the next FDR, then hold on. The Newest Deal won't be pretty.
*Even if the story above were false, I would remind the reader that when there is not a market to set prices, any price set by the state bears no resemblance to economic reality and though we might say that a government price of $2.49 per gallon of milk is reasonable or "correct" and a price of $19.99 is not, even here, the former amount feels right because there is more or less a freeish market/reference price for milk. Central planning could be seen as randomly selecting prices.
Flying High With Hoover and Roosevelt
By the time I set foot on an airport I usually already have all my entertainment for the flight. However, on recent weekend stint to New Orleans for a wedding, I realized I had nothing to read. So imagine my surprise when I went to one of those (usually very small) airport bookstores and found not one but five or six copies of Bob Murphy's Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. As an amateur-hobbyist Austrian economist, how I pass up that opportunity?
As with the other books in the Politically Incorrect series, Murphy's Guide is aimed for the common man. Aside from the main body of the text, every other page features various quirky and fun text boxes that provide additional information to the reader: from book recommendations to quick facts.
So OK ? I said that the book was aimed for the common man. However, the content is not at all common. Indeed, far from it. In under two hundred easy to read pages, Murphy has managed to turn the mainstream view of Hoover and FDR on its head. Hoover was not at all a "do nothing" president. Nor was he much of a defender of the market. Indeed, it was Hoover, as Murphy shows, who sets the tone for Roosevelt's devastating attack on the economy and on the property rights of millions of Americans.
I was aware of a good deal of the shenanigans that Hoover and FDR imposed. Others, on the other hand, took me by surprise. When Roosevelt abolished the gold standard and began to manipulate its price in dollars, he would, according to stories, set the price of gold fairly randomly, picking numbers he though were "lucky."*
Murphy builds the case against Hoover by showing that he was in fact quite active, especially in his love for government/public work programs. FDR's Sovietesque policies had a running start. And, of course, far from getting us out of the depression, FRD's policies lengthened and deepened it.
Though the book analyzes policies enacted during Hoover and FDR's regimes, special attention is given to that mysterious and supposedly independent entity: the Federal Reserve. This is the core of Murphy's Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. The Fed's relentless control of the money supply and of credit was central to the crash and the depression. Murphy devotes dozens of pages to address the arguments raised over the years by various groups, especially the Keynesians and Friedmanites, convincingly rebutting them (or at least, it convinced me ? I am an amateur after all: YMMV).
Imagine an average person reading this book. What would the reaction be? I read the entirety of the book on the flight. As I flipped the pages I would turn my head to the person sitting next to me and think "this book is for you." And no, I do not consider myself an elitist. On the contrary, I wished more people were aware of these accurate, though revisionist, views. Grab a copy of this for yourself or for your family and friends. Be an intellectual troublemaker once in a while. Because if George W. Bush is our Hoover, and Obama the next FDR, then hold on. The Newest Deal won't be pretty.
*Even if the story above were false, I would remind the reader that when there is not a market to set prices, any price set by the state bears no resemblance to economic reality and though we might say that a government price of $2.49 per gallon of milk is reasonable or "correct" and a price of $19.99 is not, even here, the former amount feels right because there is more or less a freeish market/reference price for milk. Central planning could be seen as randomly selecting prices.
May 20, 2009
» NYPD: Photographers Are "Practically" Not Terrorists
Apparently the NYPD has told members of its "service" that photography in public places is still legal in the city (large JPG):
What a relief that I am no longer considered a terrorist. Jokes aside, this is a somewhat of a clarifying document, confirming the express permission to photograph in the subway and other areas. Also, section 2 (see image) states that cops cannot just ask to see what photos people have just taken without the photographer's consent. That said, as expected (this is the state after all!), the police can, when there are "exigent circumstances" confiscate equipment.
I do wonder, however, if they would be so gracious when it comes time to record the NYPD's activities. Never turn the cameras on Big Brother. Buildings: sure, snap away; state-criminal activity: No.
All in all, a minor victory perhaps.
(Via Chase Jarvis)
Members of the service are reminded that photography and the videotaping of public places, buildings and structures are common activities within New York City. Given the City's prominence as a tourist destination, practically all such photography will have no connection to terrorism or unlawful conduct.
What a relief that I am no longer considered a terrorist. Jokes aside, this is a somewhat of a clarifying document, confirming the express permission to photograph in the subway and other areas. Also, section 2 (see image) states that cops cannot just ask to see what photos people have just taken without the photographer's consent. That said, as expected (this is the state after all!), the police can, when there are "exigent circumstances" confiscate equipment.
I do wonder, however, if they would be so gracious when it comes time to record the NYPD's activities. Never turn the cameras on Big Brother. Buildings: sure, snap away; state-criminal activity: No.
All in all, a minor victory perhaps.
(Via Chase Jarvis)
April 29, 2009
» You Support Single Payer Health Care And I Do Not
Perhaps the thing that irks me the most about state politics is the simple-minded assumption by mainstream statists that they, unlike "doctrinaire" or "radical" libertarians, are free from having to explain their views or possess some special insight into the human situation that allows them to ignore potentially devastating counter arguments to their almost always incoherent system of ethics.
An example: there is a sign on a house near where I live that says "We support single payer health care." Fine. You support that and I do not. Now what? Many times, when dealing with mainstream opinions about forcible government, I am told that I "blindly" follow private property rights and from that, I oppose any intrusion in the market for health care. Yet those who oppose my views must have a view as well. What is it? Surely they favor some sort of property rights (or even possession rights) assignment scheme. Instead of assigning property rights to homesteaders/original appropriators, the state gets to decide.
Furthermore, it seems to me that if you keep pushing the issue to see if there is a core belief, it usually either does not exist (that is, they support whatever makes them feel good and are totally outcome-oriented), or their arguments, upon closer examination, are full of holes.
Now, it's of course possible that the principled libertarian view is incorrect. But then, the statist position could also be incorrect. And here's another issue that comes up. In a very real sense, we all cannot really "agree to disagree." If A supports empire and war, welfare, drug and gun control and government-managed health care, and B wants none of that, what are the odds that A will say "fine, I respect your view and will not impose any of those things on you"?
Support for any form of aggression (private crime or the state) necessarily involves forcing others to accept that their arrangement is better than your own: taxes, murder, rape, prohibition, trade restrictions--these are all things that are imposed by one person or group or persons on another, non-consenting group.
Ultimately, politics, at its core, does not offer room for disagreement. And the way its presented to the public makes no difference. So down with democracy, of course, but down with monarchy and even with "representative" republic.
[Cross-posted]
March 31, 2009
» Thanks, Dave
You know that socialist cesspool between ON, QC, MA, CT, NJ and PA? It just got a lot worse. The budget for the state of New York includes an income tax hike for those making more than $300k (and another increase for those making more than $500k).
That's not the end of it. There's more theft in the form of vehicle registration fees, a cigar tax, a beer and wine tax, a utility assessment, an auto insurance surcharge, driver's license fees, a rental car tax and a registration fee for tobacco sellers. And 5 cents have been added to the bottled water deposit.
March 24, 2009
» Not Really a Hater!
I have a new article on LRC today.
Not Really A Hater!
I am a libertarian and believe that people should respect the rights of others to their legitimately obtained property. Thus, I prefer peace instead of war, life instead of murder, prosperity instead of theft and the market instead of the aggressive state.
Yet every now and then I am called a "hater" for opposing most (if not all) government programs. Let?s go over some of the things that I supposedly hate.
I hate the arts because I do not believe in using violence against people to make them pay for it (supporters of the National Endowment of the Arts and its various state and local equivalents no doubt have no love for me).
I hate scientific research. You see, according to the argument, without public funding (also known as taxation) there would be an underproduction of research and we would find ourselves back in the Stone Age. Thus, in order to remain civilized, we must threaten (in a civilized manner, that is) to fine, jail or execute people if they are not willing to part with their money. Makes perfect sense.
Transportation and travel? Forget it. I hate that crap as well. If the feds had not confiscated land, displaced people, distorted towns and cities and taxed the entire country, we would have no roads or means to move about the land. For only the government can carry out such projects, never mind the possibility that maybe ? just maybe ? there would be various entrepreneurs dealing with this demand instead of a monolithic agency.
Not a fan of safety (and apparently a lover of death and chaos), I oppose the control of firearms. That?s right: Uzis for grandma and Colts for Junior. Rivers of blood are always found when a government has relaxed firearms restrictions; everyone who comes into contact with a gun immediately becomes a savage killer. The same applies, I suppose, for people who have knives, rocks, power tools and knuckles.
Societal order is not also on my list of priorities, apparently. Lacking fraud, the complete decriminalization of the use, possession, marketing, importation, exportation of any substance that people want to consume should be allowed. I guess I am a "radical" for opposing that particular government-sponsored slavery program called the war on drugs. Prostitution, another victimless crime, is just a capitalist act between consenting adults. And yes, I am also a defender (but not a consumer, by the way) of the black market sex-for-money industry.
The poor of the planet think I am scum for opposing government-to-government welfare schemes, often referred to as foreign aid. Indeed, instead of markets and entrepreneurship, sound money, free traffic of goods and labor, and property rights for the world, I hate the poor with a passion for not desiring to be taxed by a tyrant to give money to the tyrant ruling others.
When it comes to health, I am indubitably your enemy. The owner of an establishment, due to being the owner (duh!) has the right to determine whether a particular behavior is allowed. Smoking bans represent a form of theft on behalf of the state, for it now has magically claimed a right to control someone else?s resources.
If you are retired, you ain?t gonna like me very much. Social[ist] [in]Security, a Ponzi scheme not unlike government-sanctioned central fractional-reserve banking, is a massive distribution of wealth from the young and working to the old and non-working. The fairness of this is beyond me. Don?t enslave me to pay for someone else?s grandpa. I guess this means I hate old people!
I hate minorities (though I am a "minority" myself?oh dear) because I oppose anti-discrimination laws, which are really laws against free association. In fact, I think it might be easier to deal with racism by abolishing racial quotas and preferences (affirmative action) and expose the racist owners and managers; right now, they have to comply and hide.
If you are a labor protectionist, I am in your sights. Since the state holds a criminal monopoly over "its" territory, and thus controls its borders, I oppose the INS. Employers should be free to hire anyone regardless of nationality or origin.
And what kind of market anarchist would I be without hating those damned children! Property taxes (a form of evil rent for the government coffers) tend to go towards government education (the more cynical ones would call that "daytime jails" due to truancy laws), regardless of your need. How on Earth is this fair? Moreover, to maximize my rug-rat hatred, I must come out in favor of the abolition of drinking-age laws. And while we are at it, let?s allow consenting humans of any age to voluntarily accept employment offers or offer employment to others.
And last, but not least, I hate America! There shouldn?t be a standing army (or, even better, any form of monopoly "defense"), military bases or soldiers in most countries in the world, a dominating pro-dollar regime, an imperial presidency, a compliant supreme court or those barbarians in congress. I hate the troops so much that I want them to come home and become productive members of society.
Actually, now that I think about it, my detractors could be correct about me on the last point. If by "America" they mean the totalitarian and potentially unbounded mega-state with its fifty-plus appendages, then yes: I do hate that!
March 21, 2009
» Wine Store Owner In Favor Of Competition
It's nice to see a wine store owner who gets it:
I also see these proposed changes as a huge opportunity to serve our customers better while redressing outdated, irrational and inequitable laws.
If the laws were truly fair, we independent retailers will have our own advantages. Big chains will have to buy big. And while your local supermarket pushes those same familiar bottles, independent stores will still provide substantially more selection and be better able to seek out smaller, even very limited producers, like the guy who makes just 40 cases a year of really good lambrusco.
Gov. Paterson is not a friend of liberty and my guess is that this is just another way to get more taxes to Albany. That said, like decriminalization efforts in CA and other places, it seems to be a step in the right direction. Too bad that the tax collectors in The Empire State would get more loot if this passes.
