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.
More coffee, more conservatives: Coday and Widener
News, Political ·Sunday March 7, 2010 @ 18:54 EST (link)
Couple more meetings with the Puget Sound Conservative Underground thus Sunday afternoon and last, with a couple US senate candidates that are hoping to run against incumbent liberal Patty Murray. Liberal in the "progressive" sense, not the liberty sense—heck, "liberal" and "progressive" are both euphemisms: what I meant was liberal in the "rob you blind" sense, not the classical liberal (libertarian) sense.
Last week, Art Coday (February 28), at the Woodinville library. He was well-spoken; he's a doctor; he came across as very polished and willing to stand up for his beliefs. On the topic of abortion, he made no bones about being pro-life, believing life begins at conception, and justifying laws against abortion as protection the right to life of the child, drawing from the Declaration of Independence. (I'm aware there are attempts at counter-arguments, such as Thompson's violinist, but his position makes sense.) He misstated Roe v. Wade, though; it does allow states to restrict abortions after the second trimester.
I got to talk to him one on one after the group discussion and he is very much pro Second Amendment (I buttonholed him on his statement that the state should not be able to "unduly" restrict the right to bear arms and asked him what that would mean; his example of a courthouse where sufficient security is generally in place to protect people was at least cogent, even though, of course, those people are generally not protecting visitors per se, but rather judges and perhaps prosecutors, and have no duty to protect individuals, and individuals may need protection from unarmed violence or those that manage to illegally get weapons in.)
He was also open to libertarian idea such as abolishing government departments and small government, but anyone will say that. I think he'd be a good choice, but unfortunately Widener probably is easier to get elected.
Yellow-haired plump lady was there droning on and on; she seems to be a bit of a fixture; she can't get out a short direct question to save her life. There also appeared to be someone who was perhaps a union plant there? And we even had an entitlement-minded older gentleman whose only concern was "his" Social Security. I suppose it's a conservative gathering, not libertarian, so he's not really out of place. Art fell into the trap of these entitlements being what "we" have promised; I never promised any such thing, and I don't owe him a dime. Government owes him his money back with interest perhaps, but no more than it owes all of us all of our taxes back, and if it's bankrupt, then everyone loses everything, or only gets a portion back (either a percentage or pay everyone so as to equalize what everyone loses; those that would lose less than the average get nothing back).
Today, Chris Widener. He seems to be a front runner in terms of electability; he believes the "tent" should be big enough to get 51%, since you can't make policy if you're not at the table. He talks a good talk—he'll vote down spending increases even if the bills have other good things in them (even if people claim those things are "for the children"); he would like to do big things like eliminating the Department of Education and the income tax but realizes that he's only one voice and doesn't want to make any "red meat" promises that he isn't sure he can keep.
Some negatives (learned through his web site and today) are that he will still fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would pursue similar military adventurism and projection of power in the future—he certainly wouldn't close any overseas bases—which means there's a large area of spending that he's completely blind to and won't touch. He said Campaign for Liberty was one group he had talked to, but he misclassified the libertarian non-interventionist position as isolationist; either as an error or an intentional misrepresentation it's disconcerting.
With illegal immigration, he talks a good talk but doesn't say what he'll do once the border is secured and we know who's here. His site says an ominous, ambiguous "deal in an effective manner with the millions of illegal immigrants we already have here"—if he meant deport them, then he'd say that; "deal with" could mean anything from deportation (unlikely) to a "path to citizenship". I'd like to see a clearer statement there.
I would have liked to ask him what his philosophy of taxation was—what justifies taking money from people: is it just that the government has more guns (might makes right), some sort of social contract theory; in his view does voting imply that you endorse the entire system and agree to every result? However, part of his philosophy was to call on people only once (or so he said—he called on a few ladies more than once, but I suppose I can't blame him).
Aero Precision stripped lowers group buy
News, Guns ·Saturday March 6, 2010 @ 19:46 EST (link)
KA of the Microsoft gun DL coordinated a purchase of Aero Precision AR-15 lower receivers; all told we bought about 50 as a group. (The lower receiver of a firearm is the part with the serial number and the part which is regulated as a "firearm" by the state. "Stripped" means you get just the received—no trigger assembly or other parts. Since those parts aren't regulated, they can be bought online and shipped directly to one's home to assemble a working rifle.) I bought a couple as investments (we got them for about $60 apiece; they're probably already resalable for $80, maybe $100 soon); I'll hang on to them for a while in case anti-gun legislation comes down from Obozo and his cronies and makes prices go up ridiculously.
I also picked up some Federal .22LR and some 9mm hydrashoks (as personal defense ammo, provided my guns like it, switching from Gold Dot hollowpoints) and a couple Magpul "P-Mag" AR-15 magazines with windows. I was going to go to Cabela's, since their store is only another 20 minutes down the highway, but Surplus Ammo's price for the ammo I was going to get was already cheaper than Cabela's sale price, so that saved me a trip. Last time I was there to consider a shotgun they fell through on the advertised price, anyway (didn't have any, or tried to claim it was a different model).
Surplus Ammo, the store where we got the lowers, is down in Lakewood, about an hour away (they also have a booth at the WAC gun shows, but they only sell ammunition at the shows—probably because they already do a brisk business and don't want to hold it up with NICS checks for selling firearms, or don't want to devote shelf space to firearms and accessories that might have lower profit margins or not sell as well?)
Traffic on the way back was rather miserable both on I-5N and WA-520E, but there was no sign of an accident—must have been just volume and lousy driving.
Honey's Aunt Linda is coming home from hospital, but this is not because she is coming home healed; she has been given one to six months. And now Honey's dad, who has been spending a lot of time taking care of Linda, is in hospital with chest pains, not good with a history of heart problems. We pray the doctors will be able to take care of the problem quickly and that he will be restored to full health.
I finished volume one of Philip K. Dick's selected stories on audio book in the car Friday, but I can't find an equivalent book to add to GoodReads (maybe there isn't one), although I did put a hold on volume two.
Books finished: Where Keynes Went Wrong.
Depression point
News, Political ·Monday March 1, 2010 @ 19:34 EST (link)
State Blood Milk Addiction by Stefan Molyenux really depressed me. I had been hanging on to an irrational belief that we could vote liberty in and the looters and their enablers out. But it's not possible. Too many people depend on government sinecures, pensions, indirectly created jobs (think accountants and lawyers), and of course handouts. Think federal employees (SEIU), teachers, the military; welfare and Medicaid/Medicare recipients; companies that receive most of their funding from government contracts; all of these are parasites that believe they are entitled to a continued flow of funds obtained from working people at gunpoint. And nothing you say will convince them otherwise any more than you can convince a lottery winner to tear up their ticket.
There are two possible solutions: change the culture (neither Hitler nor slavery are popular any more, but they were very much so in America in the 1930s and 1860s respectively) or violent revolution. I don't think violent revolution will be successful (we have semi-automatics, they have tanks, air support, missiles, artillery, and automatic weapons, and far more training), unless the military can be convinced to join us, but they're generally trained to be perfectly obedient killing machines (Oath Keepers may help there). But even so, that would require the first plan: changing the culture. And that's really hard, because the state controls the schools; as Hitler said, "Your child belongs to us already."
If even one state—or even one county—could break free, the whole mess would unravel. Which is why they will tighten their grip and throw down more bread and circuses. Forever.
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.
<Previous 10 entries>
