Posts Tagged ‘libertarian’

The future of American politics, what do Ron Paul supporters do after he loses?

Tuesday, February 5th, 2008


Libertarian Party Logo

I won’t be able to caucus for Dr. Paul today because I am a registered Libertarian. I would have had to change my voter registration way back in December to Republican in order to participate. That doesn’t stop me from supporting him. I’ve donated significant money to his campaign and I have advocated him at every opportunity within my social group. I know, just like every other Ron Paul supporter, that he has no chance of winning today. His campaign is not about winning, as great as that would be. Nobody comes out and says it like it is, but it is true. His campaign is about spreading a message, a message of liberty and the constitution. I sincerely hope that the Paul campaign comes up with some way to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states, either as an independent or a Libertarian. If that doesn’t happen I hope that Dr. Paul, as well as his supporters, can rally around whomever the Libertarian party selects as their nominee.

The Ron Paul movement has been amazing to watch as a long time Libertarian. In example, during the 2004 presidential campaign candidate Michael Badnarik received only $1,000,000 in campaign donations. This includes donations prior to the party nomination all the way up to Election Day. Ron Paul has amassed a hefty sum of $30 million+ and it is only February. The message Dr. Paul is sharing is not new, it is that of the constitution, but clearly he has struck a chord with the American people that up until now no Libertarian has. I suspect that this can be credited to two factors. The first is the coming of age of a new generation of voters. The Libertarian message is something that hits home with young voters who are tired of the status quo. Second, I think that Dr. Paul’s affiliation with the Republican party and his existing seat as a Congressman has lent a much needed credibility boost to his ideals, as well as allowed him to participate in the debates and gather some national media attention.

Given the incredible amount of momentum that this movement has, it will be a shame if it all goes to waste. When Dr. Paul finally pulls out of the race come Republican National Convention time, where will that leave us, the unwavering Paul supporters? I sincerely hope that the Libertarian party can seize this opportunity to bring the masses of Paul supporters into the folds. One of the challenges the Libertarians have often had is finding common ground. Libertarians by their very nature are independently minded. If you have an entire political party of folks like this, it becomes a little bit like herding cats. I strongly believe that the lack of adoption of Libertarian ideals thus far is very closely related to this core issue within the party.

Dr. Paul has an amazing power to unite us to a common goal. While I don’t agree 100% with everything Dr. Paul says, and I doubt you will find any Libertarian that does, I agree with 99% of it. Dr. Paul moves us in the right direction, and as a party, the Libertarians need his influence.

We need to do everything we can to keep the spirit of what Dr. Paul is trying to accomplish alive. We can make a difference, while maybe not yet at the national level, we can influence local politics today. I encourage you to run for your local City Council where you live on the Libertarian Platform. Join the Libertarian Party. Attend your Libertarian state convention. Vote for Libertarian candidates. Maybe even run for a state level position?

Links:

Just stay active, and keep the momentum alive.

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Libertarian point of view on digital rights management

Friday, May 4th, 2007

I’ve been doing some thinking the last few days about DRM and I can’t seem to come to a conclusion on how I should feel about it. Generally with any issue I can look at it with my moral lens of libertarian ideas, and it becomes very clear what is right and wrong. In this case, I’m lost, so I wanted to toss this question out there and see if anyone has any opinions one way or the other.

First a synopsis of DRM. DRM is a method used to control how digital content is used. It uses different types of encryption technologies to prevent users of digital media (DVDs, CDs, HD-DVDs, video games, downloaded music, etc) from accessing the content without a “key” that is approved by an issuing authority. To put it in real terms, the encryption prevents you from making a copy for your friend (pirating). In no way am I in favor of violating intellectual property laws or advocating piracy. Copyright laws are important in a libertarian society I think. I’m looking at this in terms of “legal” usage of the content. In addition to preventing me from pirating the content, DRM also prevents me from watching the movie on a Linux based computer where no “licensed” DVD playback software exists, making a backup of the disc in case my original gets destroyed, or even copying a DVD movie onto my video iPod so I can watch it there. All of these things in my opinion are 100% valid, and in my mind, legal uses of the original DVD, however according to the DMCA they are illegal because they require the circumvention of DRM.

If I don’t like DRM then don’t buy content that is protected with DRM, right? The problem with that argument is that it isn’t possible. The standards body that created the DVD format and the HD-DVD format was the MPAA. The MPAA is controlled by movie studios and so a core component of the format is the DeCSS DRM encryption (Or AACS in HD-DVD movies). Put simply, no movie can play on any player without the encryption being in place. Thus, even small independent movie distributors are forced to include the encryption on their disks or else they will not play in the vast majority of players that are installed in the homes of their consumers. Also, there is a specific clause in the DMCA under title 1 that requires all analog video recorders to have support for a specific form of copy prevention commonly known as Macrovision built in. Macrovision is used in combination with the DeCSS encryption sponsored by the MPAA. The organizations behind it (MPAA/RIAA) and the DMCA have effectively made it impossible to get DRM free content, so voting with my dollar is out of the question, short of not consuming digital media at all.

The DMCA is also the primary tool used to combat violators of DRM technology. In practice it is fairly trivial to circumvent the encryptions put in place. There are tools readily available that will decrypt a DVD and copy it onto my iPod, or allow me to make a copy of the DVD disk for archival backup purposes, and yes tools that would allow someone to pirate the content. These tools are all technically illegal under the DMCA, but easily obtained. The MPAA/RIAA will send cease and desist letters to anyone making them available, but the internet is an international anarchy, so no matter how hard they try they can’t control what gets posted online.

A quote from Timothy B. Lee, in a paper he wrote for the Cato institute

“The DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holders — and the technology companies that distribute their content — the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates.”

So I think I’ve built a sufficient case to say that the DMCA is anti-libertarian, and borderline unconstitutional. The DMCA uses a government sponsored monopoly to force encryption on the digital media we consume, and makes it illegal for us to use tools that would free us of their constraints. The core of my question however is about DRM, not the DMCA. Assuming for a minute we lived in a society where there was no oppressive DMCA, what then would be the position on DRM?

I have a number of arguments in my head both in favor of DRM and against DRM from a libertarian perspective. At the 30,000 foot level the question is simple. If I buy something that contains DRM, a DVD for example, and take it home, does the manufacturer of that DVD have the right to dictate to me how I use it? Post purchase, do they maintain any rights beyond copyright?

I’ve been looking at this from a couple of different angles. The first way that has made it easier for me to conceptualize is not thinking about “digital” media, but instead thinking of analog media, like a book. We are still talking about copyrighted, intellectual property. Instead of coming in a digital world where controls are possible, it comes in a physical world. If I take my book and decide that I don’t like a certain chapter because I don’t think it is appropriate material for my child to read, is it illegal for me to remove these pages from the book? This is analogous to me removing DRM off of digital media in order to modify it. Now in actuality the likelihood of me stripping DRM off of a movie and editing a scene that I didn’t like is very slim, should I not be allowed to do so if I wanted? Another good example of this thinking is sheet music, again intellectual property without DRM. What if I wanted to perform only a certain section of the composition. I am allowed to copy the sections that are relevant to create a derivative work, only for personal use. Because in the physical world the “protection” that DRM allows was not possible in intellectual property, nobody ever bothered to think of their implications. Intellectual property was treated just as any other physical property, with the expectation of attributing copyright to it.

Now, here is the crux of my dilemma. Clearly DRM (outside the DMCA) is something that private enterprise has decided that they think is important, and therefore have implemented. Assuming no draconian laws like the DMCA, the government has no place in controlling how content is licensed and consumed. If the MPAA/RIAA have enough power to force standards on the industry, then it is not the governments place to interfere. As much as I hate DRM, I think I’m leaning towards the side of the MPAA/RIAA on this one. However, if I violate their terms, and circumvent the DRM there is no criminal punishment to me by the government. I’m only violating the agreement between myself and the content publisher. For DRM to ever be successful it will require the MPAA/RIAA to come up with DRM methods that are “unbreakable”, which I don’t see happening anytime soon.

The industry should be allowed to do whatever it wants. They just can’t use the guns of the government to enforce their choices on us.

What are your thoughts? Am I wrong? Tell me about it in the comments.

For further reading: The full policy analysis from the Cato Institute [PDF]

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Review of Penn and Teller: Bullshit! Immigration

Thursday, April 26th, 2007

Penn and Teller did it again, this was a great episode. I’m glad to see them taking on the immigration issue. Most American’s are opposed to immigration, and support stricter border controls. I think changing that opinion will be a hard pill for most American’s to swallow.

Penn and Teller are critical of the government’s plans to install 700 miles of fencing on the border at the cost of $60 billion dollars. They setup a mock version of the wall and show how easy it is to circumvent. Their illegals are able to get past it in around 3 minutes using a variety of different techniques. In addition, they pointed out that majority of illegals actual enter the country on legal visas and overstay their welcome. I think the most fascinating fact that they pointed out is that the contractor, golden sate fence company, who was hired to build the wall was actually fined for using illegal workers!

The one thing that they didn’t get into that disappointed me a little bit is the philosophical side of immigration. Immigrants are the core work force of this country. America was built on a tradition of immigration. By limiting immigration, you’re increasing manual labor costs, which in turn increases prices and lowers the value of the dollar. Immigration laws are another great example of “unintended consequences”. On the face it sounds like a good idea, limit the number of people entering the country, thereby ensuring jobs for the people already here, lowering the demand on social services, and controlling population growth. The problem however is that if you try and control the immigration you are forcing the “illegals” deeper into a black market. Mexicans will always find a way to get here, there is no physical way to stop them. Once here, the harder you make it for them to work, the harder you make it on everyone. You not only put the “illegals” into harms way, but you put Americans into danger as well. If their existence here is criminal, they will avoid authority at all costs. They might be witness to a crime, but they won’t report it. They might be in medical danger, but they won’t go to a hospital. They might resort to identify theft in order to remain here. You’re forcing honest, hard working, principled individuals to become criminals, just so they can provide for their families and better themselves.

A bit closer to home, I have a guy that takes care of my lawn every summer, let’s call him Bob. He is one of the hardest working guys I’ve met. He does a fantastic job, is punctual, and cheap. Of course, he is also probably illegal. Last fall he came to me and said “I’ve got to go back to Mexico, so I can’t take care of your yard next year”. Of course I don’t know the details, but I can only imagine. Why would we do this to someone who wants to work hard and make money. He has capitalistic intentions, he knows that he has to earn what he makes. He embodies the spirit and work ethic that this country was founded on. I’m proud to pay him to do the work, I feel a sense of satisfaction in our transactions. It’s hard to explain, but he lives for the ideas and principals that I believe in with all my heart. Yet someone has the balls to tell him that he can’t work here? That what he is doing is illegal.

Before we turn away men like Bob we need look in our own backyard. Some American’s are nothing more than looters, living off the system, living off our tax money, our social services, and our charity. Perhaps we should worry more about our existing problems in society before we cast stones on the immigrants. Instead of our money being taken at the point of a gun by our government to feed these American looters, maybe we should embrace the work ethic of our neighbors to the south and force the unproductive members of our society to take these men as examples. I say open borders for all, any man that has a work ethic like Bob and can help make this country a better place is welcome here in my book.

Here is the Libertarian party’s official stance on immigration.

The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.

The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.

Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments »

Gun control in America

Tuesday, April 24th, 2007

I’m sure you could take a guess and figure out that I am an atheist, a libertarian, and generally considered a nut job by my peers. I find it interesting how seemingly separate areas of ideology (religion and politics) so often intersect when you become a free thinker. Almost every libertarian I know is an atheist, and almost every atheist I know has at least a slight libertarian bent. I mentioned in an earlier post that I had been reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I just finished the “John Galt Speaks” chapter, which is essentially a 58 page monologue describing Ayn Rand’s theory of Objectivism. It amazed me that this book, and this philosophy which was written over 50 years ago, describes exactly what I believe today. It amazed me that Ayn Rand was essentially an atheist libertarian, before it was socially accepted to be so (Not that it really is today either I guess). That isn’t the point of this post though.

One of the core tenants in Ayn Rand’s objectivism philosophy is in relation to use of force. The use of force should be reserved only for occasions where force has been used upon you. If your life is threatened by a gun, you should use a gun to defend you life. The problem is that, our society has taken it upon itself to limit the ability to defend ourselves when we are threatened by force.

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, everyone seems to be shouting about new gun control. The re-introduction of the federal assault weapons ban has new momentum thanks to Carolyn McCarthy touring the talk shows and news programs speaking as if she was an authority on gun control, even though that bill would have had no impact on the shootings that took place. A new law has been introduced to close certain “loopholes” in the NCIC system for background checks. The new law would force doctors and other mental health professionals to hand over confidential mental health information to the government, in violation of our privacy. All of this is a vain attempt to tackle the problem by punishing the victims, and enabling the perpetrator.

Of course it is already illegal, even for concealed carry permit holders, to take a gun onto a college campus, but that didn’t stop Cho from doing it. The harder you make it to legally obtain a gun and to carry that gun in self-defense, the harder you are making it for victims to protect themselves. If just one of the staff members or students at Virginia Tech had been legally carrying a firearm, how many victims would there have been? I’m quite certain that it would have been less than the 32 that were killed, and 15 that were injured. It’s interesting to note that of the 14,000 concealed carry licenses issued in Oregon, only 4 individuals (0.03%) were convicted of criminal (though not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm. That rate is lower than the crime rate among police officers! The point is to say that carrying a gun does not make you a criminal, and the vast majority of those who do carry a gun do so in a safe and responsible manner.

As a society we need to wake up and realize that more laws, more protections, more limitations of our freedoms are never the answer. Our laws might not have caused Virginia Tech, but they enabled the perpetrator to take advantage of those of us who abide by the laws. Cho was able to kill far more individuals than he would have had these controls not existed. You can’t assume that someone who is capable of breaking the law and committing a crime like murder is going to be deterred by a lesser law like gun control or the inability to carry a weapon on campus.

This week, in response to the shootings, and out of fear of what kinds of laws might be passed in their wake, I’ve taken several steps to protect myself and my family. I’ve filed the required paper to obtain my concealed weapons (CCW) permit. I’ve purchased an additional sub-compact Glock 26 that will be my primary weapon for concealment, and I’ve purchased a AR-15 rifle in fear that it will soon become illegal to obtain. None of these are things that I would have considered doing a few weeks ago. Now, I feel compelled to do it in order to protect and exercise my 2nd amendment right.

jrvglock.jpg

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments »

Penn and Teller: Bullshit! Wal-Mart

Thursday, April 5th, 2007

I have to admit, I’m a huge fan of Penn and Teller. When I heard that they were going to be covering Wal-Mart on an upcoming episode of Bullshit I was extremely excited. Like many small and medium size towns across the country, Wal-Mart hysteria has come to my home town of Longmont, Colorado and I was in the front lines of the debate.

Back in 2003 I had decided to run for City Council here in Longmont, and at that time Longmont was looking to annex a plot of land right outside of town by request of the Wal-Mart corporation. The plan was to build a new Super Wal-Mart store on the lot, and the city wanted to get the tax revenue. Typical to these decisions, the public outcry was immense. The anti Wal-Mart groups arranged speakers from all across the country to come and petition our City Council against the annexation. Of course, in the end cooler heads prevailed and the City Council voted to annex the land, and now we have a brand new Super Wal-Mart (to complement the smaller Wal-Mart across town).

Penn and Teller did an okay job in this episode, I’m just a bit disappointed that it didn’t go into more detail around the pure capitalistic nature of Wal-Mart, and really get down into the philosophy behind it. As anyone who knows me can attest, I’m a hardcore Libertarian. I live, eat, and breath free market capitalism. Nothing gets me more excited than seeing it in action, and nothing pisses me off more than special interest groups with agendas trying to stop it.

You see, Wal-Mart isn’t evil, capitalism isn’t evil, outsourcing and sweat shops arent’ even evil. They are all the natural product of a free market doing what it does best. Wal-Mart is one of the most amazing American success stories ever. A company that was able to find efficiencies in everything they do. Reinvest their profit into smart growth, cut costs where they can, negotiate bulk buying deals with manufacturers. There is a reason why Wal-Mart is the number one retailer in the United States, it is because they are the best at doing what they do, selling us household items at cheap prices. Wal-Mart isn’t here to put small business out of business. If that is a by-product of giving the consumer choice, then that is the essence of the free market.

What is evil is groups that preach the “social good”. Perhaps this is because I just finished reading it, but I’m reminded of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. The world is so concerned with the social welfare of the disadvantaged, the poor, the needy, that they “loot” from those who are productive members of society to give to the unfortunate. The same thing is happening with these anti Wal-Mart groups. They are going around spouting about the evils of Wal-Mart, using the plight of the common man as their evidence. Their motive may be well placed, but the outcome of such actions will eventually mean that Wal-Mart won’t be able to open new stores. They won’t want to deal with the headache and the legal loopholes that are put in place against them. Like the example Penn and Teller gave in Chicago requiring Wal-Mart to have a higher minimum wage than other retailers (Which gets me on an entire different minimum wage tangent, which I will save for a future post). The hurdles they will encounter will be so high that it will impact the profitability of a given store, and then they won’t have the justification to build it. What happens then? Who really suffers? Is it Wal-Mart, or is it the common man that now has to pay more for his television set at the local electronics store? Or is it the unemployed mother who still can’t find a job because nobody will hire her? Maybe it is the city who now has less sales tax because their residents are driving to the next town over to shop at Wal-Mart?

One of the great things about this country is that not only do we get to vote on election day. We get to vote every time we go to the store. Consumers vote with their dollars. They are saying that they want a higher quality of living for less money. They are saying that Wal-Mart offers them what they want at the best price. If the established businesses are adversely affected by the opening of a new Wal-Mart then that is the product of the kind of change the market is dictating. To survive, the established businesses must learn to adapt to the changing economy. People want convenience and they are casting their ballot loudly and clearly with every dollar they spend at these “big box” stores.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 30 Comments »