My name is
David Robins:
Christian, lead developer (resume), writer, photographer, runner,
libertarian (voluntaryist),
and student.
This is also my son David Geoffrey Robins' site.
What Niemöller might say about "arms"
Political, Guns ·Sunday February 28, 2010 @ 20:45 EST (link)
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.
—Adolf Hitler
(From Reclaim America, 2010-02-25 @ 18:31, since it can't be linked to directly due to abject Facebook FAIL.)
People that replied seemed to be under the impression that they possessed, in the context of that quote, "arms", if they owned a semi-automatic pistol or rifle. They don't. The government will laugh at them and destroy them and 500 of their closest friends with a missile without bothering to get out of bed—and then blame them for any "collateral damage." We possess "arms" in the same way that a savage with a stick possesses "arms" against an enemy armed with a modern rifle. The second amendment was supposed to be about parity; but they've infringed it like all the rest (e.g., the 1934 National Firearms Act), and we didn't speak up.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
—Thomas Jefferson
By gradual and continued infringement of the right to liberty and property, specifically, in the American context, by pulling the teeth of the Second Amendment, they have turned us into sheep; and who fears sheep? As Jefferson predicted, the government no longer fears the people and there is indeed tyranny.
Books finished: Realizing Freedom.
Unanimous vote requirement
Political ·Saturday February 27, 2010 @ 17:56 EST (link)
Would there be any negatives to requiring legislative votes to be unanimous rather than just a simple majority?
Certainly it would not be perfect—if enough horse-trading took place, they could still conspire to mulct the voters.
But it would slow the speed of government growth and spending, to be sure. It would not slow down the mechanisms in emergencies (or, at least, whoever did slow it down in those cases would be shamed and ousted). Yes, it would give nay votes more power; but (as Heinlein proposes near the end of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) it should be harder to add new regulations and spend people's money than to not do so.
How would repeals be handled? Heinlein also proposed that repealing should be easier. For one, each and every law (or regulation, or tax—everything under federal control that coerces anyone to do anything at all) should have a sunset provision not to exceed two years (even, to avoid exceptions piling upon exceptions, things like federal murder statutes: nobody's going to oppose them, and it doesn't matter if they do because every state has laws against murder anyway). With this provision, again it only takes one no vote to repeal a law when it comes up for renewal.
If a straight repeal (with no riders whatsoever) comes before the legislature, should it still require unanimity? In defense of such a requirement is consistency, the possibility of repealing it at the sunset which will be within two years, and the fact that within the past two years largely the same group (given term lengths and the historical odds of incumbents being reelected) unanimously voted to pass it. Against it are some of the same arguments: if it required unanimity to pass a law three months ago, why does it not require unanimity to retain it—why the incongruous one-way ratchet?
I would also suggest that votes should be made all at the same time and secret until all present have voted, so that nobody need be the first no vote and take the fall for others that would vote no. (This would be a good idea now too; frequently a party will let its more conservative or liberal members—depending on the party of course—abstain or vote against a bill to help them in their districts, even if they would prefer to vote for it and will vote for similar legislation odious to their constituents when called on to do so by the party machine.)
We can take a look at past votes and see how many were unanimous or as nearly enough as to be potentially convertible. Less legislation appears to always be a positive thing. Even better would be a legislature constrained to never infringe on individual right to life, liberty, or property (of course, it would be voluntarily funded and spending would be in regard to donated funds, since taxation—force—would be impossible); and the next step would be to eliminate the body entirely.
Tea Partying in the rain
News, Political ·Saturday February 27, 2010 @ 16:12 EST (link)
Just got back from the Tea Party rally at 5th and Northgate in Seattle (1200-1400). Although it drizzled intermittently there was quite a crowd out and we were arrayed for a long way along Northgate (near the Northgate Mall).
James Watkins was there, and several people with signs for him (Matthew Burke and his wife Jennifer had a late flight so weren't able to make it), and some U.S. senate candidates too: Chris Widener and Art Coday (and a Rod Rieger who is apparently running to install audio/video equipment—if you're running for election, don't use your old business cards!)
I wasn't "feeling it" as much as before—perhaps it was the rain, but people seemed unusually dour and non-talkative. I did talk to a few people, including Gordon (above with the triangular yellow signs) and Thomas (with the Watkins sign), and saw Dan (the organizer and organizer of the "Coffee with Conservatives" meetings), but didn't see any CLAMS—shame, shame. I expected to see at least Lori C. and John D. Gird your loins!
Coffee with Conservatives: Burke and Watkins
News, Political ·Saturday February 20, 2010 @ 17:02 EST (link)
We just got back from "Coffee with Conservatives" at the Family Pancake House in Redmond—good to see Dan, Lori, Alan, and others there, as well as meet two congressional candidates, Matthew Burke (and his wife) and James Watkins, running against Jay Inslee (who had the audacity and ignorance to refer to opponents of the administration's creeping socialism as "the forces of darkness"). We got to talk with both of the candidates, and Matthew's wife Jennifer, and others, about various topics such as schools, government waste, libertarianism, and shared goals. I mentioned Freedomain Radio to Mr. Burke, and he seemed interested.
Republicans, libertarians (and Libertarians), objectivists, and anarcho-capitalists (voluntaryists) would all agree that smaller, Constitutional government would be a good start. For some, it would just be a stepping stone to a completely free society with no (coercive) government; but for each it would be an improvement. We ate there too; reasonably decent meal. We had a big room that held all 30+ of us (full count for the venue space and the meetup.com event).
The Big Bang Theory: pretty funny
News, Media ·Saturday February 20, 2010 @ 03:07 EST (link)
We watched the first three episodes tonight; not bad.
We also tried an episode each of How I Met Your Mother (thought it was OK) and 30 Rock (thought it was rather lousy; willing to give it another try, but it's definitely on notice for being deleted and forgotten).
Requisceat in pace, Joe Stack: your labors are ended
News, Political ·Friday February 19, 2010 @ 18:30 EST (link)
Rest in peace, Joseph Stack. Joe Stack, the man who, on February 18, flew a small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, was so frustrated with the government—our government—that he felt he had to kill himself. He left a six page note telling why he did what he did. He was not crazy, just angry and frustrated as so many of us are. The note tells of how the government so many times oppressed him, twice taking his life savings, jailing him for no crime, remorselessly destroying his life. To ensure people would read those six pages he gave his life. He should be honored. He is a patriotic American.
In a war, the file clerks and munitions factory workers are as valid a target as the front-line soldiers; and in Joe's war, the IRS agents and staff were part of the oppressive machinery of government. They voluntarily became part of a repressive, destructive mechanism to rob the people of this nation. So let me never hear them called "innocent"; they were not.
As someone posted to a conservative/libertarian mailing list at work, said: "I consider it a cautionary tale though. Suffered what he perceived as injustice at the hands of the IRS. … This guy had a lot to lose. When he snapped, he didn't tip over a dumpster in the street and light it on fire. When college commie kids riot, a Starbucks gets burned. Curfews imposed. When responsible adults riot (who tend to be Conservatives), it's something else entirely. If enough of them do it, it's a revolution or an insurrection, and new nations may be born. Whatever you call it, it's a lot closer to actual war, than tipping over cars and burning a dumpster in the street. Not impossible, and not something to be taken lightly. It's how the United States was created." (Emphasis mine.)
Chuck Baldwin wrote an article regretting this man's death. I regret it too; I consider it unspeakably tragic that a man felt he had to kill himself to escape the violent predations of his government. But if he did not die, would we be talking about him?
He gave his life so that we'd read the six pages he wrote; he sacrificed himself, in part, for some time in the media that we would become aware of not only his complaint, but the complaint of millions, a complaint familiar to lovers of liberty across this nation and others. Government takes and takes; government is an unstoppable force of causeless coercion and robbery. It is moral to resist violence with violence; it is self-defense, and this man felt it was time to join the fight with more than (what he considered) ineffectual voting. Did he perhaps bring to mind the words of the Declaration of Independence, "We mutually pledge to each other our lives…" when he died?
So take the time to read his six pages. It's the least you can do to make his sacrifice not in vain.
Books finished: Disabling America, I Am America (And So Can You!), Bitterly Divided.
Snohomish County Council closes Sultan shooting pit
News, Political, Guns, Law ·Wednesday February 17, 2010 @ 14:05 EST (link)
The following notice was circulated by Snohomish county, making its way to local gun shows and message boards and eventually to the Microsoft gun list (thanks Jason):
NOTICE OF INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE
AND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HERBY GIVEN, that the Snohomish County Council will hold a public Hearing on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 at the hour of 10:30 a.m., in the Henry M. Jackson Board Room, 8th Floor, Drewel Building M/S 609, 3000 Rockefeller, Everett, Washington to consider the following:
ORDINANCE NO. 09-151
RELATING TO NO SHOOTING AREAS, ESTABLISHING AN ADDITIONAL NO SHOOTING AREA, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 10.12 SCC
I felt bad for missing the Olympia "Push Back the Tax" event (long drive, poor parking, and couldn't any sort of speaker or event guide), so I made sure to attend this one, and speak, too. Here's the report ("Report from Snohomish") that I posted to MSGun:
I just got back from Snohomish. 3 hours of testimony, 5 minutes of deliberation, and they closed the Sultan pit to shooting. I'm not sure if that means it's already illegal or not. I am fairly sure they don't need to wait for DNR (but there was a DNR rep there who was in favor of closing it), since the particular Snohomish county ordinance is just to extend a No Shooting area. I suppose we should expect signs to go up soon. So much for March 2A day at the pit.
There was quite a parade of local rich wives who, to hear them tell it, were living in Viet Nam in the middle of the war with bullets ricocheting around them and their children every day (said tearfully with feeling, and sorrow for humanity). There were also many good people debunking the alleged safety issues so what it really came down to was (1) noise and (2) unrelated bad behavior (loud parties, drinking, trash) which really ought to be dealt with separately.
I certainly have sympathy toward the property owners about the noise—for most it wasn't as noisy/busy as it is now when they bought their properties, but of course it's been getting busier as every other local public shooting area has been closed (which several people mentioned). Really it just goes to show that the very existence of public land is a terrible idea (if it was private, then the issue would be property rights: the owner would be responsible for not interfering with others' safety or enjoyment of their property, and otherwise would be able to manage their property as they saw fit; the issues of people littering and partying are of the same kind).
Many brought up the plans for a new range down the road from the pit, and apparently progress is being made—and they're making a volunteer list—but since it has been discussed and "in progress" for literally 40 years, there isn't that much hope there. Several people suggested or indicated that the pit should not be closed until the new area was opened. Would that the council was that sensible.
I was most disappointed in the NRA guy (area technical range expert) who testified against the pit. It's not a fancy official range; nobody claimed it was. If I wasn't a life member I'd consider not renewing. Speaking of NRA, "I'm in the NRA / a NRA life member" or "I have guns and family with guns and used to shoot and really wish I still could [who broke your arms?]" was the "I have black friends"-type quote of the day, to the point it became amusing.
I did speak and mention that a group from Microsoft liked to shoot there, some of whom lived in Snohomish county, and that we were always safe (with our own range master even!) and packed out our trash and much more. I figured I'd see at least one other person from this group. On the other hand, it's a lot of time to dedicate to such an event if you work—I felt bad about not going to Olympia Monday, which is why I took the time today—and also why a large number of the testators were well to do women that didn't work, and retired people.
Books finished: The Collected Short Stories, The Probability Broach, The Panic of 1819: Reactions and Policies, The Keeper of the Isis Light.
Adjusting TI-25 magazines for the 10/22
News, Guns ·Saturday February 13, 2010 @ 19:27 EST (link)
My TI-25 magazines arrived from Cheaper Than Dirt this week (25 round .22LR magazines for my Ruger 10/22). I was a bit surprised that they had to be adjusted before use, but I followed the directions and took the barrel out of my rifle as required to adjust them properly. I had finally ordered them after a miserable range session with the Butler Creek magazines (many FTFs); the Tactical Innovations magazines came highly recommended by MSGun and THR participants.
They seem to sit fairly snug now, but I won't be able to finish adjusting until I go to the range; later stages require chambering a round, and while that certainly can be done legally and safely at home, it makes sense to do it at a range with a much safer backdrop. Already, though, they load a lot better than my Butler Creek magazines—with Butler Creek's own speed loader.
Last weekend was almost entirely taken up by a large paper (one of two "state of the research" reports that make up 30% of the grade) for CSEP 504 (which I've dubbed "extremely obvious topics in software development"; although the doctoral student that presented a lecture self-organizing computing, including tile computing, was a rare ray of excellence). I wrote on Complex Event Processing (CEP); the paper was about 8000 words (10-12 pages in ACM format, although other students failed to read and submitted 10 pages double-spaced; length difference between the formats is about 2.5x). We also have to comment on other students' papers, and submit two short (200-400 word) reports on two papers chosen from a list given by the instructor every two weeks.
Books finished: Molon Labe!, Libertarianism.DVDs finished: Every Which Way But Loose, Star Wars Trilogy.
At least socialists are honest
Political ·Sunday January 31, 2010 @ 16:46 EST (link)
If I am debating with an avowed socialist (or communist, or Marxist, etc.) at least I know where their principles lie. Nor do I need them to adhere to a particular label; as long as their principles are made clear we have a point for discussion. I can attempt to convince them that, for example, man is an end in himself—that man has a right to his own life—and not a sacrifice to the state, and that such sacrifice ends in tragedies like the former Soviet Union. I can convince them that property will always be owned, and if owned by "the state", will (and always has) devolve to ("private") control by the biggest tyrant, and that private property is a necessary extension of man's rights. I can point them to such documents as Rand's essay The Objectivist Ethics for a philosophical grounding of man's rights, and to her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for more on property rights.
But I cannot help those without firm principles. We have nothing to talk about. If your principles are, for example, encompassed by terms like "pragmatism", i.e., do what works, which actually sounds fairly good prima facie, we will have problems. First, in who is "doing"—usually some state, by force—and then in what defines good (clearly violation of individual rights must not be defined as evil in such a system, or as a goal or constraint of any sort). Then there is the problem of the first time: a "pragmatist" might claim that program X is good because it works elsewhere (for some definition of "works"), but it's never the same program in the same culture, so without precedent the pragmatist is an experimenter. Which is great, if his subjects were not men and his effects not the ruination of the lives of men, as if they were so many white mice in a lab. How many millions have died because individual rights and freedom were subjected to some vast ideal that failed?
In fact, history shows that greater freedom leads to greater prosperity (see, e.g., The Link Between Economic Opportunity & Prosperity: The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, and history in general) and higher standards of living. So by happy coincidence, supporters of individual rights are better pragmatists than most that claim that title but actually lean towards statism.
However, after a long enough discussion, one can usually tease out some principles from a pragmatist (see upcoming post on the relationship between liberty and respect for private property). Frequently these are statist: unlimited tyranny of the majority, the sacrifice of man to the (purposes of the) state, and the state as liege lord over a fiefdom of citizen serfs. I suppose I cannot complain at the work I do to tease out an unprincipled (or weakly or vaguely principled) person's values, because in doing that I also engrave, clarify, and strengthen my own philosophy and the application thereof.
Ten
News ·Sunday January 31, 2010 @ 16:20 EST (link)
My OneNote TODO list has gotten rather out of hand. I have big projects that will take more time than I have at present, and little urgencies, all on one list. So of course the solution is another list. (Hey… wait! Where are you going?)
To ensure I make progress on things, I've created a new page with a limit of ten items, and each has a date that it was added. If I go more than two weeks without making progress on an item, it gets removed (to languish back on the big list). For recurring items, like shooting practice, the date is updated whenever I carry them out. Having an item move off this list is accounted a failure; it's not something I want to happen, and by the removal policy I'm conditioning myself to not add things I can't get to soon. Crossing things off, like schoolwork, gives a certain sense of accomplishment.
While it's unlikely I'd forget about the more urgent items (schoolwork, again, as an example), a short list keeps these things uppermost so they can be distributed over the time available before the due date, and adding smaller parts of larger projects ensures that progress is made on them too, a bit at a time. Or at least, that's the idea. (No, I'm not claiming a short TODO list is a revolutionary idea. I'm just making a note.)
<Previous 10 entries>
