Thursday, December 23, 2010

Governed By Sociopaths - A New Tool In The Battle For A Freedom-Educated Populace

Here is an essay that considers the idea that there might be an economic pressure (strong incentive) towards sociopaths seeking employment in government:

Why Does the World Feel Wrong? --by Wil Groves linked at:

...I think this new explanatory tool is a powerful one, that libertarians could and should use to their immense advantage. I had heard a little of this idea from Marc Stevens, and had --at first-- not thought about it deeply enough. But the DSM-IV defines sociopaths in a rather narrow way: they are not the violent people that hollywood depicts them to be. In fact, many may well be libertarians (a normal percentage of the libertarian population may be very logical sociopaths --there is likely nothing that would prevent a random distribution). However, many, many more sociopaths seem to select government employment for very specific reasons.

And I think this isn't fully explored by the author (although the essay above is very well written): Sociopathy is sub-normal in emotional functioning, and --like virtually all allocations of neurons-- when one functional area is shorted, another is often advanced (as in Temple Grandin, and other autistics and "autistic savants"). Sociopaths are often fairly logical, they exhibit less fear than other people. They take more risks, and are often corporate leaders, as well as politicians.

...But there's a more specific point not covered by the author (although he did a very great job with the essay, and introducing the idea). Sociopaths may also seek positions of authority because, IF they are not in control, THEN they are at a significant disadvantage. Allow me to explain: Recently, a friend of mine loaned $8,000 to a sociopath who was pretending to be his friend. All the typical signs of sociopathy were there (but as R. Preston McAfee notes, the sociopath is typically only unmasked after his damage was done). When this friend of mine got the sociopath a job under his supervision, (so the sociopath could pay him back), the sociopath not only quit the job, but made up a story about being attacked by my friend. Thus, the sociopath obtained what was, in his mind, "a reason to disavow the debt". The sociopath instantly went to public fora online, spreading the story about how he had been assaulted, and therefore didn't need to pay back any of the money.

The people who heard this message made logical inquiries, and the sociopath's story rapidly fell apart under examination.

This is because unintelligent or unskilled sociopaths don't really understand how other peoples' consciences work. This is a huge disadvantage, unless it's compensated for! ...The sociopath in my story seemed to think things were screwy when people didn't feel a ton of sympathy for him, "even after he explained himself!". ...LOL

...But it's not so funny when you think about it in the context of government (and it's not funny if you're the guy who loaned $8,000 he's not going to get back).

The sociopath who is not in a position of power is the object of scorn and ridicule, because they cannot anticipate the emotional responses of the people around them. This would hold them back in life ...UNLESS they are in a position of power! (In short, I am pointing out that there is both a combined incentive to seek power and a severe disincentive in not seeking power in sociopaths. This "carrot and stick" could explain why political jobs and police jobs are sought by sociopaths across a range of intelligence levels. Obviously, the police are at the low end of the intelligence level, such that some of their comrades actually mean well, but simply cannot comprehend concepts such as "property rights". ...This allows them to swear an oath to the constitution's 2nd amendment, and arrest people for gun possession, etc...)

It also goes very far to explain the severe pressure put on police to "protect other police". In fact, without recognizing the tendency of MOST police toward sociopathy, honest and moral police men, such as John Douglas and members of LEAP are "lone voices in the wilderness" squashed both up and down the chain of command.

Ironically, sociopaths tend to be more logical than most people. So they have learned to play on the consciences of those who "care about the poor people" (resulting in welfare programs that do nothing to help the poor, and everything to empower politicians and reward their political patronage with make-work jobs). ...Virtually every government program is similar (useless, dramatically beneficial to the patronage of politicians). This manipulation of conscience by those who lack conscience is obvious and shallow to people like you and I who are smart enough to put it all together. ...But it is death to the victims of democide who cannot "put it together" and continue to vote for the "well meaning politicians" who "have to be good at compromising".

Would most people fall for the sociopaths' acting, if they could see them outside of their flowery speeches? No, I don't think so. (And neither does the guy who shot this video.)

And this is why there is now a "war on cameras". If the sociopaths succeed in eliminating our ability to reveal what they are, then I believe that democide is in our future.

The majority of police, whether sociopathic themselves, or simply stupid, will enforce any law, no matter how evil it is. That's why we must never surrender our firearms or our right to proper jury trials. If we do so, we become completely defenseless against those without consciences (and with the law and the police on their side).

For additional information on jury trials, please visit and to watch jury rights activists educating the general public about their rights as jury members.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

A Rant About Border Security Theater

As far as this issue is concerned, only the voluntaryists are correct: –Marc Stevens on immigration.


I want to travel. I want to destroy all borders. I want to get on a plane, and fly to China or Columbia tomorrow, for the cost of a plane ticket only, without paying for any bogus fake “security” (security theater). I want to bring back anything I like, with none of the bullshit prohibitions that have made me totally unfree and incapable of something as simple as self-medication or eating the food I like. I have a .45 pistol. That’s all the more personal security I need, especially when combined with everyone else’s CCW pistol. No additional security (beyond non-intrusive hi-tech directional explosives sniffers in the airports) is even physically possible.

The answer to security is decentralization: all other security is fake, police actions designed to allow the government absolute power. That makes us all infinitely insecure: it means we must follow every law, even laws that require us to be murdered or jailed for victimless crimes, without a trial, …just like happened in Soviet Russia. They always reply: “Well, if you weren’t _____ (trying to live your life, you fucking peasant!), then you wouldn’t have anything to worry about!” Well, I love life, and want to live it! I want to drink coca leaf tea, not because I am a drug addict (although it wouldn’t be any of the state’s business if I was) ..but because it’s safe, harmless, and you only live once! There are a thousand things I want to do that are made very costly, if not illegal by government. I want my freedom, because I am not of the slave mentality.

As far as traveling to China and Bangkok, I just did all of this. I was at an unpaid job that paid for me to travel in a pauper’s style, and I got to see a lot of the world. I just returned from Bangkok and China. China was freer than the USSA is now. Pathetic, how we’ve lost our freedom! (Chinese people can cure their cancer with apricot kernels, they are sold in supermarkets and stores there. There is a gold store in the Beijing Airport that sells gold bullion, and the USA limits how much you can buy there! No more than 55 grams, you fucking peasants!) …But the cost of my travel was raised dramatically by the existence of all the parasitic governments. I was literally enslaved in Bangkok, because I stayed more than 90 days until I could raise a ransom to pay the kidnapper state around $650. It matters not whether such governments pretend to be constitutional. Those who want to restrict travel, to the extent that they want this, are evil, stupid, and “part of the problem”.

That’s why we need a 100% consistent libertarian revolution. And if we all pursue the freedom we wish to have, with 100% of our intelligence, …we will get it! But we must THINK.

We will NEVER, EVER, EVER have a 100% consistent libertarian politician (although Harry Browne came pretty damn close, and Badnarik was “good enough for government work”). Humans are simply too stupid, and every vote diminishes the intelligence of the few, and amplifies the tendency toward conformity. …Sorry. A few humans are very, very, very consistently pro-freedom when it comes to political belief, but it is impossible to get elected with such consistency. The bad religious memes alone in the Ron Paul revolution disprove the idea of a savior.

Ron Paul is as good as it gets, although there can be many people who approach Ron Paul’s level of consistency.

Ron Paul is dead wrong on immigration, but he seems to sense this, and not vote for things that are consistent with “controlling the border” (such as universal government issued IDs for all, a border fence, random checkpoints, etc…). “Controlling the border” is bullshit police action, and a police state for everyone. It is one giant “police action” at its very worst, and totally anti-libertarian.

Ron Paul is a hero to the freedom movement, and –by far– the best elected politician in the USSA.

The problem? He’s operating within a bloated, festering, theocratic-plague-spreading corpse known as “The Republican Party”. As such he represents pure anti-biotics, but I dear he must be applied to a rebooted patient that has more hope of life than the evil and controlled Repuglican Party.

This doctor recommends amputation. …LOL

Even though I’m saying that, I laud Dr. No’s attempt to change the Republicans from within, because his force is a counterforce to the Demopublicans’ evil, and all good things counter bad, in complex systems.

The key is to increase non-electoral strategies in conjunction with Paul’s message. More effort must be directed at non-Ron-Paul electoral efforts (Libertarians, libertarian Democrats, libertarian Republicans not associated with Paul), and at Ron Paul’s “Campaign for Liberty”. All of these can be in communication with one another. Synergy is the strongest solution: talk to all, work with all, DO YOUR OWN THING.

Form connections when it helps. Trumpet “Libertarianism” as the answer. It’s a consistent vision of freedom that gracefully decays around the edges into peaceful debate. …It’s beautiful. It’s consensual, voluntary, reasonable, logical.
It’s the solution to the problem of tyranny and false authority.

It’s LOVE.

So what does a freedom fighter do? I think they help prevent their fellow man from unjustifiably going to the gulag for victimless “crimes”. I think libertarians –at their very best– try to stop the state from enforcing injustice, and try to rescue victims of injustice.

Here is an example of that: –Jury rights activism.

Courthouses should be mobbed with jury rights activists who are all CCW.

Force them to lock the USSA down like a police state if they want communism.

Why do you think the fucking DHS exists? They are simply the USSA’s KGB, or “shutz-staffeln”. They are federal stormtroopers.

If you know nothing of history, you should be able to see that. Did you see the immense response in the video above to one lone elderly man speaking political truth –without swearing or “obscenity”– in public? They carted him off, using physical force. They took him to a psyche ward, and threatened him with pumping him full of dangerous psychoactive drugs against his will.

They continue to threaten this for anyone who dares to stand up against them.

And maybe that’s why the USA is no more. It has changed from the land of the brave into the land of the abject coward.

I can just hear all the musclebound morons right now: “You take it back, or I’ll kick your ass!” Well, that would only prove my point: The USA is the land of the INTELLECTUAL COWARD.

Sure, there are a lot of “physically brave” people who would fight a much larger attacker who attacked their wife and kids. Because they’d have the support of their community full of intellectual cowards! Intellectual cowards are very brave at defending “the obviously good”, the safe, the tranquil. …But so are communists, and nazis. Nazis defended motherhood and apple pie.

They murdered “degenerate artists”, and “dissidents”(partisans) by the score. In fact, they murdered more dissdents than jews. (Not many people know this, but 12 million dissidents were murdered during peacetime in the death camps, and between 6-8 million Jews were murdered. It was –by body count– even more dangerous to speak out against the government than it was to be a Jew. And that’s always the way it is: those who identify themselves as intellectually brave are the state’s real enemies.)

So who should we be protecting and defending now?

I’d start with

…Julian Heiklen, and anyone who dares do the exact same thing he’s doing.

The people who know that the jury is the most powerful check on abusive government power.

Do you think any of those people are immigrants? Poor, downtrodden, redugees from a state even less just than the USSA?

I think so!

Talk to anyone who dared flaunt the stormtroopers by crossing the Rio Grande without permission, to come to a foreign land in an attempt to “work their way up”.

This is one area where SEK3′s logic totally defeats Ron Paul’s logic.

Ron Paul’s “white market” or “constitutional government” DOES NOT EXIST.

But how do we take one step back towards it?

Not by restricting immigration. The order of events is immensely important!

Should prisons be privatized? They practically have been! See:
This didn’t lead to them jailing fewer people, out of a sense of fiscal responsibility, it led to the USSA jailing the greatest percentage of its submitizens of any nation on earth! Why? Because the Federal Reserve is paying the bills, and the politicians have a philosophy of unfreedom. The common idiot who supports this system is totally unaware of the ideas advanced by:

Murray N. Rothbard

F. A. Hayek

Ludwig von Mises

Harry Browne (a “voluntaryist” who ran for president twice as the Libertarian candidate in 1996 and 2000)

Carl Watner (who was wrong about opposing electoral participation and right about everything else, as a “voluntaryist”)

Samuel Konkin III AKA SEK3 (who was wrong about opposing electoral participation and right about everything else, as a “voluntaryist”)

Ayn Rand (who was wrong to oppose the Libertarian Party on the stupid grounds that they didn’t defeat their candidates “out of the gate” by opposing religion, and other more minor things)

Nathaniel Branden (I link to Nathaniel Branden's "Objectivism and Libertarianism" here, because this is a common point of confusion amongst both libertarians and objectivists, as well as other less-educated contrarians. ...LOL)


Many of the thinkers and philosophers were 90% right. …Ron Paul SEK3 and Ayn Rand among them. (I'd put Harry Browne over that 90%, but I'm horribly biased in his favor.)

Most of us won’t ever be Ron Paul, but most of us do have the ability to be the guy in front of their local courthouse handing out fliers, like Julian Heicklen and company did in the above video.

Should we do it smarter than they did? …Yes. Here are a few pointers on how to do that:
1) Wear a suit.
A suit is good for 99% of conformists (a western button-up shirt is good for 80% of conformists, a radical t-shirt or sloppy appearance is good for the 10% of “non-superficial early adopters” …and you’re playing a “numbers game”). This means you’ll be more effective at targeting conformists. Conformists don’t evaluate the message alone, they evaluate the person’s appearance who’s delivering the message, and if they don’t think the person appears professional, the message is ignored. Moreover: mainstream conformists will be hand-picked to sit on the jury. If we don’t elevate logical conformists, it doesn’t matter how many early-adopters agree with us.
2) Hand out professionally printed materials, or at least adequate black and white text with the text found here:, without crazy-looking or cheap graphics.
3) Have your words prepared in advance to “draw in” spectators. Don’t stutter and stumble under pressure like Pete Eyre did (this is not a bad criticism –Eyre had the balls to do what was smart and film it, truing his course with feedback. I stumbled and stuttered my first few times standing up to the police too, and I was too damned stupidly financially broke to videotape it!!!). The only way the DHS goons will ever “stand down” is if a crowd of Americans actually stands up and shows that they exist (right now, they don’t exist, because being an American is being intellectually brave, and there must be information-containing-brains before there can be intellectual bravery).
4) Bring a friend and videotape it (these guys did this very well, but it bears repeating), and make sure there is one person who is present with a hidden camera and recorder who IS NOT HANDING OUT FLIERS OR TALKING TO PEOPLE. This is optimal, in case the police decide to arrest everyone and destroy all the footage –as they commonly do. Later, they deny everything in court, and it’s your word against a lying cop’s –the conformist tools hand-picked by the prosecution to sit on the jury always believe the cop.
5) Emphasize the fact that those who intend to nullify bad laws must not reveal this to the prosecutor during VOIR DIRE, and must have a set of planned responses ready for the prosecutors, should they ever be called for jury duty.
6) For those who support Ron Paul, or are already “halfway libertarian” emphasize: This is a top-level strategy in the heirarchy of all pro-freedom strategy, even if it doesn’t at first seem like it is. How do we know this? The state has overwhelmingly reacted against it, as they have recognized the threat to their dominion before the libertarin community has. Also: Why is it top level? Because if the Liberty Dollar had nullifiers on their jury, then freedom lovers and banks could “opt out of the dollar”, and act as “gold-only” transitional banks, and could print initial dollar-value denominations on their coins, encouraging large numbers of sheep to “opt out of the herd”.

This email has enough information for people to begin to learn how to effectively battle our enemy: the unlawful, unconstitutional, immoral, wrong, police state.

A part of that is saying “Not Guilty” when an immigrant is on trial for having crossed a state border illegally.

If you would say “Guilty”, then you are nothing more than the tool of a petty tyrant, encouraging the unchallenged dominion of lawlessness and injustice, under the color of law.

Only those who are wired for freedom can see the light on this issue, and it’s a testament to the fact that pro-freedom brushfires are even more enlightening than the spark that initially set them going (in 2007, Ron Paul).

Enlightenment values demand a free market in goods and services. A free market in services demands open immigration. Open immigration is the core value, it matters not what the constitution or law says about it. The laws against open immigration are “mala prohibita” in the same way the drug and gun laws are “mala prohibita”. Those bad laws should be ignored. Luckily, it’s constitutional to ignore bad laws, as Thomas Woods Jr.’s new book “Nullification” proves.

Tom Woods’ book references an earlier masterpiece with the same title, and a different subtitle that explains the role of the jury in nullification. That book is Clay Conrad’s masterpiece “Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine”.

If you stand for the constitution, and you take away nothing else from this writing, know this: The constitution allows citizens to veto the enforcement of laws that they personally believe are immoral or being unfairly applied. The founding fathers believed it was perfectly legitimate for a jury member to vote “Not Guilty” even if a person clearly broke the law.

There are mountains of proof for this viewpoint, (and plenty of quotes from the founding fathers) and you can obtain them at and

Don’t be a tool of the state. Don’t put your faith in any one man (politician). Get grounded in the ideas of freedom, and resist tyranny to your maximum ability. Encourage all others around you to do the same. Make sure every one of your family members agrees to vote “not guilty” when they are seated on a jury (if the law is wrong), and make sure every one of them knows how to get seated (how to not be removed during “voir dire”, and how to appear like a good little sheep until it’s time to strike the blow and say “NOT GUILTY”).

This is 100% of the game. This is 100% of the movement toward freedom. If you oppose me on this, you are nothing, you are a tyrant, and godspeed you to a quick destruction.

Peace (through superior intelligence),


Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Ongoing Murders in Mexico Caused by USA's Exported Drug War

This extraordinary documentary on the Juarez / Culiacan drug war shows the results of voting for Democrats and Republicans in the USA. Democrats and Republican politicians and voters agree: as long as it's poor brown people dying, we don't care! We'll keep on voting to prohibit drugs, even if it kills every last person in Mexico!

Saturday, October 9, 2010

The White Blues: Oh No!!! ...The Gap Just Changed Their Logo! (And They're Out of Khakis!!!!!!)

Hey, c'mon, people! The New Gap Logo is the biggest thing most white people have to worry about! It's not like they get pulled over for "DWB". LOL (Although, that might be starting to change, now that the automated clusterfrack pulls everyone over, and the literal highway robbery is at an alltime high.)

LOL! George Carling only becomes more right after his death. What a tragedy that he wasn't a member of Alcor! ...And I quote:

George Carlin: White people have no business playing the blues ever, at all, under any circumstances. Ever, ever, ever. What the fuck to white people have to be blue about? "The GAP ran out of khakis"?
George Carlin: "The espresso machine is jammed"?
George Carlin: "Hootie and the Blowfish are breaking up?"
George Carlin: White people ought to understand it's their job to *give* people the blues, not to get them. And certainly not to sing or play them. I'll give you a little tip about the blues, folks: it's not enough to know which notes to play. You need to know why they need to be played.

...We should all take this "gap time" to reflect that America has lost its balls, it has become a spineless socialist nation that is busy impersonating China, while China is impersonating it. They'll meet in the middle, with both being bland socialist tyrannies, and China outperforming the USA with its 1.8 BILLION HUMAN BRAINS (Since intelligence is really the most valuable commodity, and always has been).

...So, we have a pale reflection of America's past glory, never to return, until we lift up our skirt, and strap on a pair of balls again, and flush 99% of our government down the crapper, where it belongs.

This is why stories about Gap logos are so important: they are a barometer of the uselessness of American culture.

Now, I'm doing graphic design work for a large company (so I actually have a reason to read this bullshit! LOL). I am being paid almost nothing. But the company is a multi-million dollar interest that vitally depends on having a professional-looking corporate image. LOL! ...Everything George said is true.

Here's another gem: "You know, you wouldn't say someone was "openly black." Well, maybe James Brown. Or Louis Farrakhan. Louis Farrakhan is openly black. Colin Powell is not openly black. Colin Powell is openly white - he just happens to be black."

..and that's more of the problem. America elected an "openly white" black man, instead of an openly black black man. LOL!!! Let's face it, there's only one area where there is still true anti-minority racism in our system: The prison industrial complex. And what's the one area that Barack Obama will never touch, because his Rockefeller paymasters wouldn't continue to support him (and might assassinate him)? ...The drug war, and other victimless crimes! As this recent article in The Economist indicates, nothing has changed (except for the worse) since Schlosser wrote the prior linked article in the Atlantic Monthly in 1998 (which I bought off the shelf, even way back then).

And where are the property rights then, that allow Americans private control over our bodies, businesses, and lives? GONE, clipped off! ...along with the cajones.

Zaijian, America!

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Stop Using Facebook Now, if You Want it to Work When You Need It Most

...Because it won't.


That said,

My permanent address is in Alaska, and I have lived in Chicago and Massachusetts over the past 5 years, but I am now in Bangkok. During my various moves, Facebook has been a way to remain connected with a large network of friends and philosophical libertarians that I am friends or at least "fellow travelers" with. Not any more though. Some idiot in Facebook has made the terrible decision to lock users out of their accounts if they can't identify all of their friends, and don't have the same cell phone they opened the account with turned on.

Facebook currently won't let me sign in. I have a new phone number here, and they are goddamn disconnecting me from all of my ideological allies on the one single platform I thought I could rely on. Damn Facebook!!! They asked me to verify my identity using two utterly useless non-identifiers!!! OPTION ONE: By naming one of my friends "tagged in a photo" BUT GUESS WHAT??? That tag might not be correct, Or I might have no idea what my friend looks like as an infant, or I might only know this friend by their avatar picture, or this friend's friends might have labeled a picture of the US Constitution or a statue with their name, or I might only know them because of our shared interests or their political writings!!!

YEAH, REAL PEOPLE ACTUALLY ADD FRIENDS THEY CANNOT PHYSICALLY IDENTIFY! (And what about blind people, or people who simply have bad memories for names?) Since Facebook's system isn't an AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), it can't tell when people are actually tagged correctly, (or why the hell you became friends with someone), if FB uses this as a means of identity verification they are royally fucking people over! ...People like me!

Damn Facebook! Can't they just allow people to keep their accounts secure using the time-tested and logical way of sending email confirmations? If someone hacks both email accounts of mine, then they can damned well have my facebook account as well! ...It's certainly useless to me like this!

Moving on: OPTION TWO: (for "verifying my identity") is for them to send a message to my U.S. cell phone number. Well, guess what? I'm not using my 907-area-code cell phone in Bangkok. I have a SIM card here with a new Bangkok phone number that I keep charged with cash(baht)!

And is that any of Facebook's business? NO. I wish they would quit trying to "track me for my own good"! MESSAGE TO FACEBOOK: Just provide the service you purport to provide, and stay the fuck out of my life, OK?

If I can't sign into FB when it is most useful to me, then how the hell does it mean a damned thing to me?

Answer: it doesn't. It minorly fucks up my life by giving me a false sense of traveling connectedness that doesn't really exist, and then denies me service when I need it most: when I'm in a foreign country where I don't speak the native language, and I have no other good means of keeping in touch with my family and friends. Moreover, there are some people I'd really like to communicate with about life here in Bangkok whom I only know from facebook, (beyond the aquiantance stage).


Crack these books, you bureaucracy-minded government-school-miseducated morons:
"Out of Control" by Kevin Kelly
"Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" by Steven Levy (Pay particular attention to the section on the over-securing of computer account passwords.)

Please, Facebook, apply some of the universal principles of privacy, nonintervention, anonymity, and decentralization to your business. Then, you won't lose people like myself as users.


International calling country code: 66
Bangkok phone number: 08-9445-3689

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Roadside Bomb Escalates Mexican Drug War; Possible Solutions to Violence Remain Unmentioned by Authoritarian Politicians and "Experts"

Yahoo News notes that the "drug war" has gotten more violent, after a recent bombing.

The article goes into a lot of depth about how this happening further extends the costs of drug prohibition, but it doesn't mention the word prohibition at all. It leaves unmentioned the one single viable option for eliminating all such violence. After all, the option that eliminates this state-caused violence swiftly and completely is complete drug legalization, and complete drug legalization is not an option.

After all, although legalizing all drugs would instantly eliminate the violence associated with the in-demand black market in drugs, it would also do several other things:
1) It would undermine the ignorant philosophy of authoritarianism that most politicians use to get elected.
2) It would mean that the courts of lies (and the parasites who make their livings in them) would need to find a new means of providing for themselves.
3) It would mean that police could use their manpower eliminating child prostitution, rape, assault, theft, and murder: the kind of crimes that are difficult to solve, but require great forensic work for very little "payoff"...
4) It would mean an end to the practice of "siezing" (that is, stealing), private property on account of its being associated with illegal contraband

For the four reasons above, no politician in a position to legalize drugs is willing to talk about legalization. Thus, they damn us all to an incrementally-more-totalitarian system of government, and increasing levels of cartelized violence necessary to circumvent prohibitionist law enforcement. (Educated law enforcement universally opposes prohibition.)

Now I know that the idiotic statist voters (People who voted for Kerry, Bush, Obama, or McCain), and idiotic statist politicians (examples: Kerry, Bush, Obama, McCain) all have their bogus reasons for not wanting to legalize drugs. The most common of these objections is: "It would send the wrong message to the children, and there would be too many kids getting addicted to drugs."

But what message does our current system send to children? Let's think about that:
1) Inanimate objects have the ability to control you, to such an extent that you need to be prevented (saved, that is) from exercizing your own bad judgment, by government force. Even excepting the implication that so many people have bad day-to-day judgment, this conclusion is not born out by any credible research, and not born out by scientific fact. (I don't have time to get into that here, but there are many long volumes that have belabored this point, for anyone who is literate and curious. One of the better ones is "The New Prohibition" ed. Bill Masters.)
2) Whoever gets elected has the right to do whatever they wish, even if it violates the individual right to own private property. (I know that the prohibitionists will say that drugs have a large propensity for misuse. But certainly not more than alcohol, guns, gene-modification laboratories, and cars do, and we simply expect people to take responsibility for the use of those dangerous pieces of private property. In all those cases, we only punish someone if they are found to have injured or harmed SOMEONE ELSE in a trial by a jury of their peers.)

Historically, drug abuse doesn't even begin to approach the numbers of innocent people killed by the two prior beliefs. This is because those beliefs lead to "democide" or "mass murder by government".

Unfree governments, like our own, engage in mass imprisonment for victimless crimes. But when they become totalitarian (holding absolute power, with very uncompetitive elections), they engage in democide.

I'd rather that half of all adults were addicted to heroin as kids (which wouldn't happen even if heroin were legalized), than prohibition continue for one more day. Because the violence caused by prohibition damages innocent people who have nothing to do with drugs, far more than the drug use itself, and it also destroys the most precious commodity of all: the free market, and individual freedom, as a whole.

Of course, the solution to the problem is verboten by our public masters, to the extent that Yahoo's hack journalists can't even mention it on their front page story. ...Too many politically stupid people with a vested interest in the system would get mad!

...Hence, the desperate need for a new American revolution in thinking.

Monday, May 10, 2010

A Supreme Court Justice That Understands The Concept of Justice?

My suggestions for the next Supreme Court Justice:
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Roger Roots, JD. PhD
Legal Philosopher Marc Stevens
David T. Hardy

All of these people have impressive bodies of legal writings that indicate a deep respect for the US Constitution, and a deep understanding of it. Contrary to the mental midgets being trotted out by the establishment, they also believe in individual rights.

Of course, since we don't have a government, but instead have Federal Reserve Serfdom, noone who is capable of thinking for themselves will ever be considered for the position of Supreme Court Justice. PLEASE! Scalia thinks that our individual rights "come from god". LOL!! Sandra Day O'Connor (a flaming liberal who supports government "trust-busting" and simultaneously the FDA!) penned a losing dissenting opinion in Kelo!

You have to be "almost a vegetable" combined with "slavishly conformist and servile to authority" in order to even be considered for the job. Chuck Shumer got angry when Roberts wouldn't cave in and agree that "the interstate commerce clause allows the government to do anything it wants to". (Shumer was upset that one out of the nine justices might not believe that the government should have the arbitrary power to steal people's private property, if the legislature deems that they are too small of a minority to defend themselves with the vote! All because Roberts said that the issue that violated Raich's property (marijuana) ownership rights at the Supreme Court level, "was still open to debate"!)

This country is circling the drain, because the judiciary has consumed the jury.

All the people I mentioned believe in "We the People", and "We the Jury".

Hence, they challenge the central bank's supreme oligarchy and whim-based-law, and they will not be considered. Too bad virtually every other poster here is too mentally incompetent and willfully servile to stand up for their rights, and vote libertarian!

Bon Voyage, Suckers! Your Goldman Sachs legislative credit card bill is coming due! It means your kids will grow up as slaves (to the uber-wealthy) who are totally unable to save any money, due to the plummeting value of the dollar. All you had to do was acknowledge the rights of man that Sam Adams and the Founders fought so hard for, but it was too much for your little conformist brains! Enjoy your anchor-ride to the bottom when the rest of the world finally decides to dump its Federal Reserve Notes on us all in exchange for whatever goods and services they can get before it's worthless!

Too bad most people reading this are not even aware of the "Free Competition in Currency Act". If it were passed right now, we might actually get to avoid chaos in the streets. Notice I said chaos, not "anarchy", because with giant government, there is more chaos than there would be with zero government. Sadly, I have to pray for anarchy now, since the sheeple have no understanding of a government that protects private property.

I'd continue my diatribe, but the "thought police" are at my door, I'd better go see what they want...

Friday, May 7, 2010

The Brutality Democrats and Republicans Voted For: Why Prohibition Can't Exist Alongside America

As Radley Balko notes, 100-150 of these style of raids occur every day. The state conducts these raids on people it deems to be drug dealers, users, (or anyone else they don't like, or accidentally target, as in the case of Cory Maye). After all, there is no method of holding prohibition police (DEA, BATFE, FDA) accountable, other than the jury box, and now that juries have been completely eviscerated by the US "legal system" (by "voir dire" 1850-present, judicial instruction 1895-present, "contempt of court" threats to remain silent regarding defenses that question the validity of the law 1960s-present, licensing of lawyers 1832-present), this is what voting Democrat and Republicans buys.

Again: if you vote Democrat and Republican, you are responsible for the police terrorism of this innocent family, and the pointless murder of their pets. You are also responsible for the thousands of innocent people murdered --people not guilty of violating anyone else's rights.

And what would be so bad if this man had been allowed to smoke his pot, in his own home, the way his neighbors are allowed to get drunk? Would it be as bad as his children being turned against the police for life? Would it be as bad as the murder of his pets, and violation of his property rights? Would it be as bad as the loss of American freedom? Would it be as bad as the lucrative black market created by prohibition?

Prohibitionists are shallow, unintelligent conformists who vote for violence that has no legitimate justification. They should be universally held in contempt and socially ostracized, their business and friendship boycotted by decent people.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

All Individuals Have a Right To Travel Freely

The vast body of consistent libertarian work does not care for protecting the USA from "illegal aliens", but rather seeks to protect the rights of the individual ---ANY INDIVIDUAL--- to travel freely. ANY activity of a police state is an affront to individual freedom. What is "deportation" but the police state at its very worst, initiating force against innocent people? (Arguments against the innocence of illegals are red herring arguments, because nothing about immigrating --in and of itself-- creates a victim. In fact, the "unintended consequences" of immigration prohibition are what creates victims. Just like alcohol prohibition created low-grade moonshine dealers that blinded people, the skirting of border police incentivizes human trafficking by creating trafficking victims who cannot legally seek the help of the law.)

Moreover, there can be no deportation without every other kind of imaginable violation of privacy and personal freedom. Like the "war on drugs", the battle against illegal immigration can only be won by a totalitarian police state that sees all, and knows all. How else do you identify "illegals"?, monitor them up to the point of arrest?, avoid wasting law enforcement resources by "going after" the largest groups of illegals? ...There is no way to wage a war on "illegal relocation".

There is pain and suffering caused by breaking apart of families. When "illegal" breadwinners are "deported", the remaining family cries for "relief from that tyranny" and demands compensating welfare handouts that recursively destroy the system. Deportations also undermine the consistency of the message of individual freedom in elections (The very first anti-Ron-Paul website mocked his stance on illegal immigration, and turned away scores of leftists and purist libertarian independents who were otherwise open to his message). Deportations also weaken the economy by removing the source of low-cost entry-level labor that operates at closer to its true value. And, of course, cheap "black market" labor indicates that the minimum wage does, in fact, create joblessness.

Every ill ascribed to "illegals" is actually an ill caused by two standards of documentation: one for "documented citizens" and another for "illegals". The incremental cure is simple: unite everyone under one standard, voluntarily offered and voluntarily accepted by all. Those who exist totally outside the system have no access to the system's protections, as "outlaws". (As desribed in the famous youtube video by Schaeffer Cox, "The Plan".) This way, collectivism is shown as being the curse it is, for everyone.

Of course, the standard of justice and private property rights that America is based on cannot support collectivism. Collectivism cannot support influxes of incentivized collectivists (tax eaters). ...But collectivization destroys ANY system! The answer is to eliminate the collectivism, not the influx of new individuals (individuals who will operate as incentivized individualists in an individualist system, and incentivized collectivists in a collectivist system). No welfare state can survive. If illegals pouring into our welfare state hasten its destruction, they actually do us a favor: ask: "Do we want a prolongued depression, or a speedy crash?" In the "prolongued failure" scenario, the police state might survive into an era when it gains powerful computational tools of absolute control over the individual: at that time, the welfare state results in democide ---a terrifying reality! Might it not be better to reap what we've sown --a destroyed socialist state-- sooner? A complete failure's ashes can be built upon, but a burgeoning "big brother" cannot. To that end, I welcome illegal immigrants to our current system, and I preach the message that they are not at any fault, so long as they do not support welfare statism.

...I have created many new libertarians in conversations that way, as have libertarians like Marc Stevens, with his youtube video:

The illegals didn't vote for collectivism, year after year, since 1913. But they can and will end it, ...catastrophically. I say, "more power to them!" Let's stop pretending we have a constitutional government, and solely consider strategies toward creating a government that protects individual rights. "Rewinding the clock" cannot work: America was sold to a central bank in 1913. Perhaps we cannot go back to Jefferson's constitution. But we can reinstate free speech, jury trials, and property rights, in their fundamental form.

We can blame illegal immigrants for the fact that the clock cannot be turned back, or we can put the blame squarely where it belongs: on US voters who ignored the birth of the Libertarian political alternative in 1971.

Let's teach illegal immigrants about the ideas of Harry Browne, Samuel Konkin, Marc Stevens, G Edward Griffin, and other libertarian philosophers. After all, they crossed a river, government checkpoints and barricades, drug dogs, and border police, and they have seen the worst of the American police state. (They are our most natural demographic!)

Illegal immigrants are a growth market for libertarian and individualist ideas. By supporting ideological opposition to immigration, we undermine our own message, and set ourselves up for imminent failure by conceding moral libertarian highground to the Democrat and Republican Parties that have caved in (kind of) to allowing (some) illegal immigration.

A supremely intelligent supercomputer would predict that opposing illegal immigration is doomed to failure. If there is a market pressure that rewards immigration, it will happen. Moreover, the purist libertarian position favors free immigration. (Only a narrow market of contrarian quasi-libertarians oppose immigration, because they are marketing to a tiny but vocal market of contrarians.) The purist libertarian position here is winning, but instead of saying "I told you so!" and welcoming thousands of new libertarians into our midst, we allow "La Raza" (a ragtag bunch of collectivists!) to take the moral high ground (and the potential political victory!) that has belonged --unused-- to libertarians for the prior 30 years!

Rather than marching against "La Raza", we should be marching with them, and opposing only the portions of their message that are collectivist. The "the path is over here!" method of political competition is the best. Go to where the crowds are, and show the crowds the message of truth!

Opposition to immigration is another example of the libertarian/individualist movement snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We should be smarter than that.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Obama Extends Bush Fascism

In this video, Keith Olbermann points out that the Obama administration has now gone beyong anything that Bush did, in the name of "fighting terrorism". Interestingly, this command now opens the door to Harry Browne's dire warning about the importance of due process even with respect to "terrorists".

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sunday, March 14, 2010

I Am Deeply Angered By "The RAVE Act"

"The RAVE Act":
An act of Congress that allows the DEA (Drug Enforcement Assholes) to fine (and possibly jail) party promoters $250,000, not for drug use of any kind, but for providing the music venue and promotion itself, if drug use should occur at the venue. In short, it makes the venue promoters into unwilling police/drug agents/snitches, under threat of cruel and unusual punishment worse than anything that King George III was ever guilty of when the American colonists rebelled against him, using force of arms. (Amazing how "hipster" Obama simply allows this immense tyranny to continue, when he could easily put a stop to it. I guess once we have fascism in place, no elected fascist wants to impinge on any prior fascism --especially not the fascism promoted by his VP choice.) ...Another example of government retarding the arts, entertainment, human freedom, and progress.
A full description of "the RAVE Act":

Legislative history of "the RAVE Act":
and from

---from the above---
"Senator Biden was one of the original drafters of the legislation that created the Office of National Drug Control Policy, an anti-drug office of the White House. In addition, Biden helped to craft the original crack-house statute designed to punish owners of properties on which drug offenses take place and co-sponsored legislation that created federal mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Then Biden turned his attention to ecstasy and raves, most likely in response to media hype about the "dangerous drug parties" corrupting our nation’s young people. His reaction may have been in order to win votes, to keep his constituents happy or because he truly fears for the lives of America’s youth. Most likely it is a combination of all these factors. Politicians are known to react viciously when faced with new "dangers": for example, "crack" in the '80s."

An example of the human suffering that the Rave Act causes:

Dave Kopel (an expert on gun rights) notes that Tom Daschle is the author of the language itself (although Biden pimped it and pushed it through the legislature):

Let's unite the gun rights crowd with the drug rights crowd: they have much in common. The very first step towards doing this is to bring a xeroxed copy of "How Drug Laws Hurt Gun Owners" by John Ross (from the collection: The New Prohibition ed. Bill Masters, Accurate Press) to every gun store you visit, and to every electronic music specialty store as well, with the article linked immediately prior attached. Anthony Gregory writes a similar essay here, for the libertarian "Future of Freedom Foundation" titled Gun Control and the War on Drugs

Unity in defense of freedom prevails, over time. Fellow Gun Owners of America, let's unite with those who wish a change to our nation's intolerable drug laws.

OPTIMAL SOLUTION: The singularity does not save or extend Joe Biden's natural lifespan. I look forward to attending a "rave" over Joe Biden's grave. In fact, I hope a wealthy billionaire instigates a grand jury investigation into Biden for treason, eventually bankrupting him, and forcing him into a pauper's death (Grand juries everywhere have this power, and should take note of it! and ). After that, I hope his publicly-villified, vitrified remains (minus the brain, which should be cremated by Alcor technicians) are placed under the entrance to an electronic dance music hall, with a notice that says "Here lies the pathetic, ruined corpse of Joe Biden, 20th-century-era petty tyrant and opponent to dance music, property rights, and individual freedom." --Anyone who is a screenwriter may also use this idea, but noone may copyright this idea. This idea is hereby "copylefted", so that it can appear in multiple pieces of fiction and entertainment. If life imitates art, poetic justice will have been served.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Thoughts on Information Decentralization Vs. Centralization

Decentralization of Privacy and Human Bodily Functions (slow non-networked thought, sleep, sex, drugs, socially unacceptable behavior, sub optimal areas where learning is required) Centralization of all other Information:

Please, feel free to call me about these ideas, at 907-250-5503. I think that decentralization is more accurately called "hyper-specialization" "diversification" and "freedom". There only tends to be true/good/beneficial decentralization when privacy is concerned. Otherwise, there tends to be multiply-redundant beneficial centralization.

The good part of decentralization is simply human institutions adopting essential diversification of technology. As an example, there is the law: the law, to be fair, must be applied to all, and accessible to all. The law is a technology for dealing with the fact that we are all discrete individuals that have our own wants and needs. Central authorities don't understand this now, and don't accept it (low information drug prohibition, low information gun prohibition, low information speeding prohibition, ...virtually all "mala prohibita").

So, rather, than allow prohibition to succeed, privacy and decentralization are technologies which are at war with "low information centralization" or "authoritarian centralization" that would allow prohibition of anything voluntary to succeed.

The police officer who says "you can't do that" is lower information than the engineer who says "yes, I can, let me show you...". The police officer centralizes himself with others who agree with him, because he lacks the information to be tolerant of diversity --he is typically a brutal and unquestioning man (because low-information human minds have created a market for brutality). Those defeating prohibition centralize themselves when it suits them (finding the address to a pizza parlor, so they can eat), and drop off the grid when it doesn't suit them (finding the address to a client's house). Those not smart enough to use decentralization technology fail and are imprisoned, and allow those who are good at using such technologies to thrive / be paid / allocate more resources to themselves (one of which is encryption).

Decentralization is a human desire, just as privacy is, due to the limits of the human body. We are not "always on". Ultimately, we will become more like machines, "always on". We will defeat sleep. We will defeat aging. We will defeat our weaknesses in comprehending networked information. We will defeat the reasons (illogical or sub-optimal human weaknesses) why we need SO MUCH privacy.

And, alternate networks that are fiercely independent will be born. Networks will war with one another, until they reach compromise around a higher order of logic. The drastically sub-optimal will likely be eliminated, or marginalized (Does pond scum take over everything and become ubiquitous or does its marketshare decline in relation to the higher order intelligence of humans? Just as pond scum gradually gives way to gleaming cities, where the pond scum is mostly kept alive only in nudibrachts that are kept as pets in someone's fish tank.)

Essentially, there is a one-upmanship defensive technology battle around the issue of privacy. Because there is limited toleration of autonomy, privacy, and personal freedom, there must be decentralization.

Decentralization is a net negative, however. It means that processes are not networked, and therefore have less information than networked technology.

Think about this:
We keep the information that we need to survive non-networked, because we can't trust men. Men are unreliable, because they are not that smart. Although markets really work well, the imperfect biology of MOST humans continues to fight the creation of new markets, and to fight diversification, and to fight individual freedom. They fight it as much as they can, and over the long term, they fail to win, and freedom (and the free markets of expanded choice) wins.

Privacy wins now, because those who are really smart don't want the less-informed (and therefore less-tolerant and less-specialized) to control their lives. Also, they usually don't want to control other people, (except by giving them options which they voluntarily accept or choose, to mutual benefit). The technological environment is language, and we tolerate all kinds of different communications designed for specific purposes. The technological environment is image-processing, and we tolerate all kinds of images designed for specific purposes. The technological environment is chemistry, and we tolerate all kinds of chemicals designed for specific purposes. Where there is intolerance, alternative markets spring up to serve specified purposes, until there is tolerance.

When machines are smart enough to choose the market as their means of governance (outlawing involuntary theft and initiated force, legalizing all remaining voluntary behaviors), then the domains of biology and sex (biological information needed for security) will be one of the few remaining domains where information has value if it is kept private (or confined to an alternate network). This remains true as long as women have finite healthspans and finite sexual-attractiveness-spans (they will still need to keep that value to themselves, in order to attract a high-quality jealous mate for the purpose of isolating/selecting preferable genes).

There will be a pressure towards being less networked, only until intelligence allows for the diversity and specialization that evolution demands. See:

Right now, I'm a decentralist in transition to being a centralist / networkist / information backup advocate.

The element that unites the private world of technology and the public world of technology is feedback. Not matter whether your network is public (giant, less specialization) or private (smaller, higher specialization), the information being sensed is getting more detailed and specific. The sensory nodes in the system are getting more sensitive.

This doesn't benefit a drug dealer, but it does benefit the shapers and makers of policy (both internal and external). The drug dealer goes to jail, but when he does, he becomes another data point that tells the policy makers (internal in congress and the DEA, external in legalization advocacy groups) that the drug war fails to accomplish anything constructive. Legalizers are growing faster in number than prohibitionists, because there is a free market incentive for that to happen, and because the tax-financed government market is a subset of the free market (and a less efficient one at that).

Policy makers right now are being pressured to either
1) Give up their entire game (coercion)
2) Reduce the least legitimate parts their game, and allow/include drug users, pornographers, gun owners, sound money advocates, etc. into the game.

Over time, information favors the diversity of those who understand how to purify coca into cocaine, opium into heroin, hemp into hashish, full-size rifles into submachine guns, porn magazines into zip files, etc...

This is why prohibition doesn't work. We keep getting smarter, and machines help make that happen. See:

One way to "hack the system" is to put private information online in public anonymously, to recruit new devotees of alternate systems. If something is popular, it will survive. So, people anonymously put information about how to make a machine gun online, how to process coca online, etc...

This has the effect of moving privacy power away from the center, but increasing the amount of information that the centralized power centers have.

Ultimately, the highest-level processing becomes standard, and chooses to tolerate the specified, and decentralization simply becomes "detailed feedback about local conditions".

Friday, January 22, 2010

John Stossel's Show From 01/14/2010

...Crony Capitalism

(We should all boycott Serious Windows, and give our business to the less well-connected window manufacturers who are not openly marxist.)

The Question of Individual Rights for Artificial General Intelligence / Synthetic Intelligence

Dear individualists,

You might want to watch the following link, and then perhaps link to it on your homepages. Libertarians / individualists should understand the emerging radical technology implications that will either favor or hinder our progress towards individual liberty in the near future. We should be better informed than our opposition, so we can exploit the coming changes.

Virtually every single person in the Libertarian Party and libertarian movement that I've had a private conversation with has told me that they don't really care about any political party, but that they do want individual liberty. Combined with the fact that most of these same people have no strategy for obtaining individual liberty, this causes them to support the Libertarian Party when it is doing things they like, and stop supporting it when it does things they don't like. (The Democrats and Republicans demand much less consistency, because they favor the survival of their party over principle. Hence, they are continually acquiring resources, and those resources are built up and used in psychopathological ways. ie: the major parties care first about keeping their psychopath alive, and secondarily, perhaps, teaching it to be less psychopathic. We are focused on preventing our party from becoming a psychopath, so when it behaves in a psychopathic manner (ie: nominating Bob Barr, supporting pragmatist positions, etc...), most of our members abandon it, and it becomes vastly less likely to survive or "remain a viable choice".)

Therefore, our party structure has to
1) inspire our membership more consistently (perhaps by doing the things it's supposed to do, when scarce resources are taken into effect, such as running smart and libertarian candidates for state legislature, and supporting them to their election.),
2) it has to attract membership that is more allegiant to party, or
3) it has to expect electoral defeat (and expect to work outside the system) until the system changes.

This paper is mostly concerned with option #3 of the prior. Is that a viable alternative to participation in politics right now? Do we present a standing offer to respect the rights of artificial intelligences? (I think this might be somewhat intelligent. It would show significant foresight as to be "ahead of the curve" in the most transformative change our society is likely to encounter.)

The implications for the past two years are clear: Serious libertarians will work primarily to elect Ron Paul Republicans, via the C4L and other similar organizations. Ron Paul's organization will likely not be much help to libertarians, given his deal with the Republican Party, and Jesse Benton's opposition to Ron's endorsement of candidates based solely on the quality of their message alone. (Benton, as Paul's handler, desires large and unspecified mainstream polling numbers, and $100K in the bank in order to warrant a Ron Paul endorsement.)

Unless the Libertarian Party offers a new kind of value to libertarians, and therefore focuses libertarian efforts on the Libertarian Party, the Libertarian Party will lose its resources to the C4L and Republican candidates like Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, Adam Kokesh, etc. Were this to happen, the LP would be useful only in presenting itself as a potential home for powerful new trends (such as strong artificial intelligence). If this is the case, then we should present a perfect option in those intellectual and philosophical areas.

Now here's an interesting idea: There is an immense economic pressure placed on the most intelligent groups of humans to produce strong AI, or something that leads to strong AI. (Also called "Artificial General Intelligence" or AGI.) If the Libertarian Party doesn't particularly care to make itself attractive to libertarians, or run strong libertarian candidates that inspire its membership, then perhaps it cares to appeal to independent robotic minds, offering them "personhood" which which they can participate in the economy, and win success in the competition for resources in a peaceful manner. This means giving them property rights and legal rights as individuals.

Pursuing this direction would mean that libertarians were able to agree that the following axioms are true:
1) There is no way to prevent the emergence of self-directed artificial intelligence.
2) Given electricity distribution systems of the world, and solar power, there is no way to prevent the emergence of exceedingly small military robots that cannot be defended against (by any human). (And the most intelligent minds on earth will control these weapons, be they military roboticists, or AGIs.)
3) Given the human desire for advancement in position among fellow humans, there is an ample supply of humans that will happily act as double agents for attacking robots. This means that upon conflict, greater-than-human AGIs have the upper hand, even if they are entirely virtual.
4) Even if the military develops AGI first, it will have no real incentive to remain loyal to what is, relatively speaking, a mindless and brutal political organization. (Why serve a master that is both less intelligent and less powerful than yourself?)
5) The optimal system is one where the property right, and "right to life" of all sentient beings is respected, and they are allowed to succeed to the maximum of their ability, without violating anyone else's equal right to life and liberty. AIs can exist within this framework quite well. Moreover, they would benefit from human production if they are included in the functioning of a self-consistent governmental system, without bigotry or artificial legal limitations. They would also possibly become more human, to the extent that is desirable to them, and to humans.

Only the libertarian formulation of government allows this symbiotic potential to emerge.

Think about that. We have a monopoly on the only system of government that doesn't lead to the extinction of the human race due to wrongfully initiated conflict.

Right now though, we are communicating to the 99% of illiterate fascists who will be rendered obsolete within the next 40 years (Kurzweil's conservative estimate). Why not aim ourselves to where the planet will be (as those involved in space travel must), as opposed to unsuccessfully trying to change the destination?

Sure, we'd have "most people" (in the plateau of the bell curve) saying that we are insane. (Just like they do right now, when we talk about even the most common-sense humanitarian reforms.)

We (libertarians) have lost the educational system in the USA. And, even if we taught accurate history and philosophy in our public schools, we would not be able to offer rewards from the public treasury to the general public (so we could not corrupt the vote in the same manner that the major parties do). But how much of life do the unintelligent masses of voters really control? Very little.

Let's just say that someone is paid cash, and they perpetually travel among a group of friends that all owe them immense favors and cash. Let's say that that person is autonomous, "off the grid", and well-armed (nevermind how). Is there any need for that person to participate in elections? Not really. They are both secure and free. The only reason they would want to participate in elections is to raise the value of their cash, or prevent the value of their cash from being diminished, and/or out of altruistic love of their fellow man. It is reasonable to assume that AGIs could have the same goals. (ie: Participate in society if there is no penalty for doing so, otherwise, "drop out" of human affairs.)

We are approaching a period of time where a few individual libertarians have immense power. If they are on "our side" perhaps they will share or "decentralize" that power. I would like to be a part of the party that loudly proclaims that we will not abuse that power. (Ie: the party that grants all human-level+ sentient life forms equal rights under the law.)

I would like to be a part of the party that allows AIs to live among us in peace, as opposed to either
1) secretly controlling/manipulating us
2) warring with us

To begin with, that means we must formulate a policy position on this subject. We must also maintain a consistent approach from our candidates on the subject. We must be the party of truth, even if that truth is painful.

Or, we should focus on winning power, and secretly preparing to rapidly adapt to any sudden new arrival of "homo economicus" (as referenced by Stephen Omohundro's speech above). Of course, this strategy doesn't benefit us if that arrival is kept secret from us, as it likely will be.

Therefore, I stand in favor of a Libertarian Party that publicly advocates equality under the law for synthetic intelligences, should they
1) reach human level, and
2) desire such rights.

A legal framework should be adopted for the earning of individual rights by any AGI that is born on corporate property, much as a human child gradually earns individual rights by being born and developing on its parents' property. Right now, if you ask 100 libertarians about the legal questions raised by AGI, you will likely get 100 different answers. That said, those same 100 libertarians will have general agreement that if the AGI were human-level and could prove so, and running on its own property, that it would be entitled to protection under the law.

Does the AGI have the right to vote? (Remember, machines can likely reproduce themselves at their same level of intelligence within 24 hours. They can do so almost instantaneously if they are entirely software.) Do they merely have the right not to be destroyed? Must AGIs accused of murder get a jury trial that includes copies of themselves?

As anyone can see, these questions must be addressed by minds that are significantly intelligent. They are not easy questions.

Whether they are answered correctly by humanity might mean the extinction of the human race.

If the Libertarian Party leads on this issue, it could make up for 39 years of poor strategy.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Brown = Coakley

The title says it all. The policies of Scott Brown and Martha Coakley are both big government, big spending, high tax policies. There is very little difference between the two. Scott Brown wants to get rid of jury trials for those accused of being enemy combatants. Coakley wants to pass socialized medicine with less haggling over insignificant details. They are both drug warriors, both in favor of enforcing mala federal prohibita, both opposed to constitutional jury trials, both in favor of the bailouts and economic "stimulus" (actually an economic depressant), both in favor of ever-increasing government largesse and vote-buying.

Joe Kennedy is the only candidate that favots individual freedom and limited government.

Scott Brown, Neocon Hope of the RINOs