::::: : the wood : davidrobins.net

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.

Where stops the buck?

Political ·Wednesday April 27, 2011 @ 21:46 EDT (link)

Is it the air force pilot that presses the switch to drop the bomb that is guilty of the "collateral damage" that kills innocent civilians?

Or is it the major that ordered him?

Or the colonel that made the strategic plan?

Or the general that gave him his objectives?

Or the politicians that started the war?

I think we can understand that they all bear the guilt, depending on what they know—if the airman thinks he is acting in self-defense, perhaps he is less guilty, for instance, but not if time after time he has heard of such "collateral damage" taking place (fool me once…). Similarly, when police arrest a person for a victimless "crime"—such as drug use—we can blame the policeman, his sergeant, the captain, and the chief.

We cannot, however blame the inventors or manufacturers of the tools used—the vehicles, the bombs and guns, etc.; they have no guilt in the use of said tools. They initiated no violence; and that is the key question (i.e., the non-aggression principle). It is still initiation of violence if you have someone else do it for you; if the Don orders his henchman to shoot someone, he didn't pull the trigger but he knew the result of his order and chose to take a life.

So far we have talked about the executive branch of the state. There is also culpability in the legislative branch, and to a point the judicial, for both command and give their approval to the use of violence to carry out specific objectives. If a man orders his gang to threaten, extort, or kidnap people driving a particular speed or smoking a herb or harmlessly carrying a weapon—writes it into "law"—or endorses the orders of his predecessors, he is surely as culpable for enforcement following his orders as anyone else in the chain of command. A judge that interprets or approves a law to allow harm to be done to the harmless is in a similar position. This much is obvious.

But voting muddies the waters a little. Does a legislator who votes against—or who would vote to repeal had he sufficient numbers with him—unjust legislation still bear the responsibility for its enforcement? Is he wrong as a participant in the system? Even tacit support is use of violence in favor; but I think he is exonerated if he specifically voted against a bill: we must consider actions first. But what about old laws passed by long-dead or retired legislators that are still in force and used to justify violence against peaceful people? Is it enough that a man (or woman, of course… it all applies to either sex) believably claims he would repeal any measure under concern if he could? Since we care about actions, could we not claim that the actions that made the law in question were by predecessors, and not by any present, and thus they are innocent of them? Yes: we have to blame those that actually passed the bad laws, and consider the actions of those executing them (and judges and juries). An anti-liberty attitude is not in itself an act of harm; and a pro-liberty attitude offers scant succor. There are few men in the United States (what an evil fiction that concept is) congress that have clean hands even by this generous standard; but a few might exist on particular issues (and none when they are measured against the entirety of a free society).

And how about the individual voters that voted for either a legislator that supported said assault on peaceful people, or, on the other hand, voters that voted for the "clean hands" legislator? Some would hold that even taking part in voting is violence; but there are good arguments for "defensive" voting. Are you responsible for the actions of your representative? At such arm's length, when they are acting, for all intents and purposes, independently on such a myriad of issues, usually not. But voting is action; does intent matter? Yes: the man that hits another and robs him is considered worse than the man that, while taking decent care, accidentally causes harm, and it is more likely the victim will forgo retribution (but in both cases should demand to be made whole; accident does not evade that requirement of justice). Both the retributive and restorative aspects of justice may be irrelevant by the same act of knocking someone out cold if it is in the context of an arranged match or in self-defense. Context matters.

The person that, by stealth, takes a wallet from a person is a thief; the person that takes by violence is also a thief (robber); as is the person that orders his gang to rob a specific person or generally ply their trade and profits thereby. If a man's action is to check a box so that he my profit by the extortion of his neighbor, he is no less a thief and a robber. But he might check that same box with a will to vote for the person that will do the least harm to liberty, receive no redistributed wealth, and in no wise take property from another. The circumstances of an act are thus important in whether it is good or evil.

The buck—the responsibility and someday the judgment—rests with the one who threatens or initiates violence against peaceful people; and clean hands to him who forswears it.

Natural political progression

Political ·Wednesday April 27, 2011 @ 20:46 EDT (link)

Liberal: callow youth default—brainwashed by government schools to think the government is supernaturally wise and does good, that it does what it does through consent, even perhaps a "social contract"; that taxes are voluntary, and can be spent better by the government than individuals. Burns books instead of reading them (except the Communist Manifesto and whatever their liberal professors have written).

Neoconservative: doesn't believe everything government does is good any more—starts to believe in cutbacks, in limits, in some individual responsibility (eliminate personal welfare), but still fine with aggressive wars, tariffs, licensing of professions, corporate welfare, and government control of banking. Can talk a good line, but fundamentals are shaky and doesn't delve too deep because of the moral implications.

(Goldwater) Conservative/minarchist libertarian: realizes government screws up almost everything it touches; that taxes are taken and wasted; has an uneasy feeling that the political process is broken; government should be limited to police, courts, and military, or at least to "constitutional" size. Some attempt at consistency and principles: you own what you produce, and so forth. Reads books instead of burning them.

Voluntaryist/libertarian anarchist: understands government cannot be kept limited; that taxes are collected through extortion, that regulation is a non-monetary tax, that the state cannot follow its own laws (e.g., against theft and violence), and is unfit to exist in any society calling itself "free". Understands non-aggression axiom and its foundation on self-ownership. Knows what "metaphysics" is.

Books finished: The Food and Drink Police, Temple of the Winds.

Anarcho-capitalist flag stand

News, Political ·Monday April 18, 2011 @ 01:51 EDT (link)

Previous imageEnlargeCloseNext image
Image of
Inspired by this tea party visitor—perhaps a tad too confrontational, but it was disgusting the way they treated him—I ordered a black and gold anarcho-capitalist flag from the only place I could find it—and one of the most free markets out there, with, to a large degree its own effective security and dispute resolution—eBay. It arrived, as specified, about a week ago, as promised—a polymer flag (much thinner material than the thick cloth in the video) with two grommets along a white strip at the end for attachment.

I then set out to figure out how to support the flag; I wandered over to Home Depot and initially thought about using wood but settled on ¾" white PVC pipe (reminiscent of my target stand, which used black ABS pipe). There were two sub-plans: a straight length (joined in the middle by a coupler so it could break down for transport) with a cap on the top and two screw eyes to attach the flag, so it could be attached and waved; and the second, shown here since it's what I built (although the other could still be built as an alternate without interference) is a hanger, like those used to hang banners around town at holidays: it adds a cross-bar to the top of the straight post, and attaches the flag via screw eyes on each side. As shown it's attached to a 6' length of pipe, which was actually the remainder; two 5' lengths are meant to be used, but that's higher than our roof (and using one means the flag touches the floor; it's 3' x 5').

Parts list: I brought a hacksaw and tape measure to the store but the actually had all that and a miter box too a few aisles over (for trim) so I cut it at the store: beat trying to cut it in the parking lot.

It's a little late for tax day rallies this year, but it was a cheap and fun project and it'll be ready for future events now.

Atlas Shrugged part I movie

News, Media ·Friday April 15, 2011 @ 17:51 EDT (link)

Went to see it at 1445 at the Lincoln Square Cinemas, supposedly with CLAMS, but only a couple others showed up, none I knew by sight, and we didn't sit together: we sat lower down so Honey wouldn't be blocked (still an excellent seat—front center of the second block of seats, with plenty of leg room).

We thought the movie was quite good; it captured the book well and being set in the future was no loss, as they explained why trains were again necessary (basically the government had done to the nation what they did to Detroit). Taylor Schilling (who we knew as Veronica from the short-lived drama Mercy) did a good job playing Dagny, as did the other actors; portrayals were good, they stayed on-message (as one would expect with the Ayn Rand Institute owning the rights and probably maintaining script approval at least). On the whole worth the money; a well done production; we're looking forward to part II.

Ripping away the judicial mystique

Law, Economics ·Friday April 15, 2011 @ 00:19 EDT (link)

Theory: the reason why legal penalties are so arbitrary—arbitrarily harsh, that is, never arbitrarily low—is that the courts do not want people to be able to test them or to become a useful service. They want to be a "big deal"; a false pomp and majesty where god—or the king, acting in his stead as was the "divine right" myth—comes in and blesses the worshipful supplicants with guidance and a verdict (or directs a jury to same, doing their best to ensure they don't do anything "radical" such as nullifying bad law). Fees are added everywhere for everything; reams of paper must be filed in triplicate. If it were commonplace and simple, the shroud would be removed; it would be a common thing for two disputants to drop in (rather than have the most inconvenient date possible assigned to them by god's secretary, forcing them to come to a distant location with poor parking), argue without the redoubled expense and obfuscation of lawyers, get a verdict; and the detailed verdict would be published on the Internet for discussion and critique.

Yes! Critique! Why should not any man with half a brain, even without a political appointment be able to discuss with his fellows the judge's—who after all, is but a man—decision, the weighing of evidence, the logic or lack thereof, fairness, and so forth, for both civil and criminal matters. The jury may not nullify: but the court of rational men may put the law through the wringer! Sure, court cases are discussed today: but usually just the big ones, and with whatever drabs and trickles of information the court allows to slip, graciously, to the unwashed masses. We can do better than that; these are our employees, and their work product is ours, lock, stock, and streaming video.

So artificial barriers to use are set up: the supply of judges is artificially limited; they are given powers to jail people for nothing ("contempt"), rather than the powers of a private property owner or agent to merely remove disturbances. After being made artificially scarce, they are robed and given high benches in expensively furnished (thanks, taxpayers!) rooms to sit and pronounce judgment, frequently on the unwilling who have done no wrong. The plethora of laws aid them in this power, and together with the "prosecutor" they gang up on individuals to extract terror, wealth, and life (time) from them in a singularly corrupt and involuntary system.

How would a free system be different? First, the supply of judges would be a market good: anyone could offer their services, and respect and thus use of particular judges would depend on their reputation for fairness. Nor would "the rich" have particular advantage: a judge whose decision was "for sale" would not attract consenting customers, and that's the only kind of customers that would be possible. Due to the supply, and the fact that customers have to be persuaded rather than being forced, judges would be incentivized to make their service convenient: paperwork at a minimum; some may forbid lawyers. Judicial services will also want to demonstrate their openness: in most cases court will be videoed, and generally broadcast live on the Internet with the exception of some sensitive matters which would be edited and broadcast with necessary redaction. To show fairness, judicial services would open their records, publish their cases (transcripts and the aforementioned videos), and judges would (as they do now) write the reasons for their opinions, but with a view to being approachable rather than an eye to the law journals (or some may write two opinions, at their choice).

These services could indeed be put to the "test" cheaply (much like hidden camera shows evaluate mechanics to see if they're ripping off clients): people could see how the same dispute was resolved across adjudicators without paying an arm and a leg in court and lawyer fees, losing a day of work (heck, the judge might even come to the person's place of business or a mutually agreed-upon spot, especially lesser-known ones desiring to build a good reputation), and with the risk of jail or other rights infringement. (Can't help you regarding victimless "crimes"; they wouldn't exist. I suppose a court could be asked if there was sufficient evidence that someone used drugs for a private employer, or, heck, a parent, though….) For actual crimes, in the Rothbardian sense of aggressive acts against individuals or their property, the opinion of a court can be taken to one's private protection agency or dispute resolution organization (DRO) and justify proceedings—including retaliatory force—against the criminal.

More Walter Block: against taxation, minarchy, public schools, and slavery

Political, Economics ·Thursday April 14, 2011 @ 01:15 EDT (link)

Read a couple more Walter Block articles tonight (some written with other authors; see individual articles): All quite good and up to his usual standards. A little while ago I opened a raft of tabs from his publications page, and am slowly working my way through them, while reading a few full books, both paper and PDF, at the same time. Great writer, very clear, prone to making devastatingly incisive attacks on weak arguments.

New photo viewer

News ·Sunday April 10, 2011 @ 20:07 EDT (link)

Previous imageEnlargeCloseNext image
Image of
The first post to use the new viewer was the FN SCAR post, which has a couple pictures up. The RSS feed uses flat photos still because Facebook and other importers probably don't allow CSS/Javascript through anyway. This viewer is based on jQuery.popeye 2.0, with a few modifications.

There's also one random photo on this post because I was doing some testing to ensure that having multiple photo sets on the same page worked properly. Seems to be fine. Still some things I want to fix and tidy up, though.

Books finished: Blood of the Fold.

Ultimate rifle case, not so great sling

News ·Thursday March 31, 2011 @ 11:22 EDT (link)

Previous imageEnlargeCloseNext image
Image of
I bought a ModGear Ultimate Rifle Case (42", OD green) for the SCAR; really like it, lots of pockets, fits the rifle really well, appears to be good workmanship. Thought of going with tan to match the rifle but the green looks good. Getting it online was almost $30 cheaper than buying it locally (~$50 vs. ~$77 at WCA with tax, or 54% more); I like to buy local when I can, but not at that premium. You can also see the anarcho-capitalist flag I picked up from eBay recently in the background.

The KNS AR-15 sling I bought for it unfortunately didn't fit—one end was a normal strap on a quick-release buckle, the other a swivel; the swivel didn't fit into the SCAR's attachment point. Hard to see the sizes on the site; live and learn, etc.; I'll keep it to use on my 10/22 (when I attach swivel mounts, perhaps for Appleseed), or some other rifle, or as a backup for the AR-15. I've ordered a replacement sling—and a scope, both from Botach Tactical, but they delayed the scope "3-4 weeks" even though they said nothing about it before the order was placed, which seems like a dirty trick from here.

Bitcoin paper and presentation

News, Technical, Political, School, Trading, Media, Economics ·Wednesday March 30, 2011 @ 00:42 EDT (link)

My final Master's course, Practical Applications of Modern Cryptography (CSEP 590, which is the catch-all course number for "new" courses) required a final project and presentation in lieu of an exam. I am making my final presentation and paper available online—attribute them if you use them, but otherwise use them as you see fit to advance the cause of liberty.

Greenfield rights infringement

News, Political, Law ·Wednesday March 30, 2011 @ 00:27 EDT (link)

There is an email-writing campaign on behalf of Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre, arrested in 2010 in Greenfield, MA for filming police, and charged with illegal wiretapping (despite recording in plain sight) and other sundry crimes (e.g., resisting arrest, when they practiced passive non-resistance). Videos and a detailed timeline are available on CopBlock.org, a great site that collects videos and evidence of police misconduct. To borrow from L. Neil Smith in his (beta) book Where We Stand: Over the hundreds of years of police activity in the US, none have had to contend with such a thing as individuals who have their own portable recorders and information sources—hearing them whimper about the Internet (which is shining light on their many abuses) is nothing but sweet music to my ears.

Here is the letter I sent to EyesonGreenfield@gmail.com, which is collecting them to forward on to Greenfield's police, the judge in the case, city council, and so forth:
To whom it may concern:

I am writing to lend my support to Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre, arrested last year in Greenfield, MA for no other reason than the police had the power (force) to do so: "might makes right"! They had harmed nobody; they had not even broken any rules; and for that they are subjected to violent incarceration and infringement against their right to liberty. Is that how things work in the town of Greenfield, in the state of Massachusetts, in America? This violence against peaceful people must stop. The people of Greenfield and their representatives must step up and say, "It stops here."

Restoration of America as a nation ruled by moral laws rather than arbitrary and capricious men must begin at the local level. I call upon people of conscience to abjure the wickedness that condemns harmless acts and to free Mr. Mueller and Mr. Eyre, with apologies for the aggravation they have been put through and grateful acknowledgment and thanks for the wake-up call that these two and their supporters were able to deliver. It is time that victimless so-called crimes with arbitrary penalties enacted by petty, officious employees of the state—our servants!—were put to rest as a relic of a barbaric past. May it begin in Greenfield.

David B. Robins, BMath, MS
Writing an email is an easy thing to do and the cause is certainly just and worth the time to set a few thoughts to paper (perhaps it aims a little high, but one's principles should energize a reach for the stars).

Books finished: The Witling, Hamilton's Curse.

<Previous 10 entries>