tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67770359482744444242024-03-08T14:15:19.921-05:00Anarchy Is Not ChaosFor most of recorded history, with a few shining exceptions, we have labored under the hegemony of rulers. Those exceptions and rational thought may lead us on to be an adult species without the need or desire to be ruled over.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-63473424488151991112012-11-14T06:38:00.001-05:002012-11-14T06:38:13.411-05:00Where am I? Where's my blog?Hmm. Look at this. My Blog.<br />
<br />
I haven't done anything with it in a long time.<br />
<br />
Right now, I'm really not doing much either, just getting it going again. But I'z tryin', I really is!<br />
<br />
If any of you still look at this old thing, give me a holler. I'm going to start writing again for sure. Not sure how much, nor how often. Life is often unkind.<br />
<br />
But what the hell, it beats staring at the wall whilst the caffeine wears off after work.<br />
<br />
Salud!Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-41131692923145837322010-02-11T19:39:00.002-05:002010-02-11T19:53:47.311-05:00The Empire keeps a rollin'Well, here we go again.<br /><br />Once again, a pol runs on the ticket of "change", yet nothing changes. Not for the better anyway.<br /><br />Obama is trying to fire up more bush wars and ramp up the attacks/occupations of a bunch of little places in the middle east that are simply not capable of being a threat to the American public in any meaningful way.<br /><br />Meanwhile, at home, his "change" consists of nationalizing a large segment of the automotive industry, already held captive by a union that rewards sloth and incompetence while deliberately ignoring and suppressing innovation.<br /><br />As he and his puppet masters continue the plunder, a small but growing number of people are talking state secession.<br /><br />I consider this a step in the right direction. In fact, it's an issue that I would even be willing to vote on, even knowing that voting is in itself an act of aggression. I can justify it to myself as returning fire. Whether you can or not is up to you. I can't judge another on this issue, as it's a very difficult subject.<br /><br />I think secession is the answer, of course, but I take it much further than simply one State breaking off from a larger one. Sure, that's a good idea in that it decentralizes and by implication disempowers the Federation, but it still produces yet another state.<br /><br />And yes, I know that by definition this would actually be a sovereign state reasserting it's sovereignty. But truth and definition often differ, and this is one of those cases. These United States became The United State(s) with the imposition of Imperial rule on or about June 23, 1865. This became 'law' with the passage of the seventeenth amendment in 1913. This amendment "reformed" senatorial elections by absolutely bypassing the State representation that was one of the core tenets of federalism. It states, in an oblique but absolute way, that the State government is NOT to be represented to the Federal government. Which is to say, the States are NOT RELEVANT to the operation or existence of the federation.<br /><br />Secession would be one good way to let them know that Sovereign State isn't just a catch phrase for a province. And perhaps the newly formed state could be further seceeded from, right down to the man.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-9164313718271424902009-09-25T05:06:00.002-04:002009-09-25T05:13:36.925-04:00Stupidity is a crime... and this man should not pass go.I was reading an <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6211858/HSBC-bids-farewell-to-dollar-supremacy.html">article</a> referenced by Lew Rockwell on China's diminishing taste for the dollar and it's implications to world trade. Decent article, little light on effect, but it's just a quick editorial. They didn't go deep, but they didn't really get anything wrong, either.<br /><br />Then I read some of the comments. Some, on all sides of the issue, were quite good. Then there was this idiot:<br /><br />" <div class="oneHalf gutter"> <p>I'd like to see China or anyone come and try to claim debt from the USA. We still have the big red button biaaaatches!!<br />Fred<br />on September 24, 2009<br />at 06:08 PM<br /><br />and they don't!!!"</p><p><br /></p><p>Let's just pick this apart.<br /></p><p><br /></p><p>First, China doesn't have to call in their markers. In fact, they are unlikely to do so as it would adversely affect THEIR currency faster than they are likely to be able to deal with. All they have to do to put an end to the dollar as the world's reserve currency is STOP BUYING THE GUARANTEES that the FED likes to sell to them. A refusal to take on more American debt is non aggressive and indefeatable.</p><p><br /></p><p>Then the last part. The willingness to initiate a nuclear war over a disagreement on DEBT. This moron would kill BILLIONS over a trade dispute. Never mind the wrong idea that China doesn't have nukes (they do, they can reach us, they are probably targeted on us), but just look at that mindset. If the United States gets called on it's default, this moron wants to shoot at the DEBTHOLDER.<br /></p><p><br /></p><p>See how well that one flies next time you're late on a loan payment. Yeesh.<br /></p><p>There are moments when I'm ashamed of being born American. This is one of them.<br /></p> </div>Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-3774649037067209952009-09-24T08:06:00.002-04:002009-09-24T08:23:18.032-04:00More on survival.Bugout Kits. Gold. Passports.<br /><br />All of the above.<br /><br />As the dollar continues to decline, it becomes increasingly obvious that at some point, the currency will reach a negative value. The question is really only "when".<br /><br />So, what are some of the signs?<br /><br />Well, historically, the most obvious sign that the line has been irrevocably crossed is when merchants stop taking the currency in favor of something "a little more real". That hasn't happened yet, though more are giving <span style="font-style: italic;">preferential treatment</span> to<span style="font-weight: bold;"> gold</span> and <span style="font-weight: bold;">silver</span>.<br /><br />On this issue, I'm going to take exception with Murray Rothbard and state that a dual metal standard might be desirable, as gold is TOO scarce for small purchases. However, I would state that the use of which metal, and it's price relative to the market, should probably be left entirely up to the actors rather than any sort of imposed or regulated standard. Not that there is any problem with a PUBLISHED standard, or series thereof, just no requirement that it be followed.<br /><br />So, I'm all for purchasing silver. I in fact intend to start doing so on my next available payday, as a hedge against inflation and a preparation for when the Shit Hits the Fan.<br /><br />In a previous post I talked about some of the things you should have for very basic survival. But that's only part of the equation. Eventually, and not very eventually, after a currency/regime collapses, trade must resume. Thus, part of preparing for the end of a system is to establish the beginnings of another. As an anarchist, this means preparing to both stand alone AND voluntarily trade your goods and services as necessitated by both survival and your long term goals.<br /><br />Survivalism, despite the bum rap it gets in the media, is a good strategy for the short term. Worst thing that happens if you train regularly for basic survival is that you never need the training. Since it's a lot of fun, that's not a terrible consequence, eh?<br /><br />But.<br /><br />Survivalists often paint their scenarios as if the "post apocalyptic" world will never renew itself. This has never been the case. Trade will always re-establish itself. It always have. If there are humans alive, there will be trade. So, in my arrogant opinion, way too much of the survivalist's focus is on the near term. Now, I know this is not universal, but I've been involved in survivalism to some degree since I was a young boy. The attitude is prevalent. When the SHTF, the fan will keep spinning and the shit keep flying. I don't buy either side of the equation.<br /><br />So, what should your plans include for the mid and long term?<br /><br />The above mentioned precious metals are a good start, so you have something to trade that has always been of general utility in markets. After that?<br /><br />SKILLS. Multiple skills. Learn how to do things that make you marketable. Not artificially marketable, as you and I have NO CLUE how the market will shape up after a major collapse. If the dollar falls, a lot of the world's accumulated capital goes with it. In the short term, that will be disastrous. In the mid term, it'll probably be a new renaissance, as people rediscover that spirit of individualism that made their ancestors brave 3000 miles of ocean in crude sailing vessels to start a new life. The more things you can do, the better.<br /><br />Now, as I know that a lot of my audience are familiar with Austrian economics and the division of labor theories, you might wonder why I have and continue to promote the "jack of all trades, master of none" philosophy. It's because I don't believe in specialization at an individual level as a defensible paradigm. Sure, you might want to master one or two trades, but NOT exclusively! A guy who is a great programmer, but can't fix his car/plumbing/clothes/etc. is at a huge disadvantage over the guy who's a good programmer and can do all these other things and many more. Specialization in employment makes a large amount of sense, and in fact drives major economies upwards. Specialization in your life HARMS you.<br /><br />Try to make an effort to either learn something completely new or expand your knowledge and skill on something you already know EVERY DAY, and when the shit stops flying, you'll be in a better position to prosper in the coming world.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-39624455293449571102009-07-31T14:54:00.004-04:002009-07-31T15:03:02.724-04:00Ron Paul blew it.<span style="font-style: italic;">The Congress shall have power to[..] </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">-Constitution of the United States of America</span>, Article one, section eight.<br /><br /><br /><br />Ron Paul, in a recent <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/31431.html">speech</a> before Congress, has pointed out that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in his stated opposition to the bill requiring an audit of that same body that such an audit would "politicize monetary policy" and allow Congress to SET monetary policy. Dr. Paul goes on to say that his bill does no such thing.<br /><br />Now, even though I think he's tilting at windmills, I usually admire Dr. Paul. He's a believer. A man who thinks that the constitution means what it says, and that a minimal state is both possible and desirable. As an anarchist, I completely disagree and thus could not support him or any other Statist.<br /><br />But this time he fuckin' blew it. His response SHOULD have been to tell Mr. Bernanke straight out:" CONGRESS ALREADY has that authority, you mealy mouthed, arrogant, scum sucker!"<br /><br />Of course, Dr. Paul is much more polite than this, but he's never really held back before on issues where congress' mandate is obvious, such as this case. While I suppose it could be argued that Congress made no legal transgression in outsourcing one of their duties, the idea that the contractor can keep itself separate and secret from the body <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">FROM WHICH IT SOLELY DERIVES IT'S AUTHORITY TO EXIST</span> is outrageous.<br /><br />The moment the Federal Reserve started objecting to this, they should have been fired. Yes, that's right, FIRED. Terminated. Sorry, but your services are no longer required due to demonstrated incompetence and malfeasance, nevermind that part that you've hidden.<br /><br />Central banking schemes have never worked, even when they are transparent. Secret banking schemes such as the Fed have ONLY one purpose: The absolute denial of the free market.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-19062312099964161512009-07-26T16:27:00.002-04:002009-07-26T16:41:41.580-04:00Some general thoughts on things and suchOk, so I didn't get to it on Thursday. Life is full of mostly unpleasant surprises and many tasks, none of which ever seem to come when you plan for them. But enough whining.<br /><br />Some things I've been thinking about, given the disastrous state of the American Dollar and the vacuous state of the American public...<br /><br />One, if the dollar fails utterly (hyperinflation, loss of faith, Chinese Foreclosure) what will happen?<br /><br />While I think in the long run, such a thing will be good for the whole world since the collapse of the dollar would take the empire with it, in the short run it will likely be catastrophic.<br /><br />The United State of America (s deliberately omitted) is ill prepared for individual survival. A great many people are so interdependent and straight up dependent upon the "system" that even a week without officially sanctioned commerce would probably lead to starvation for a lot of people. Ridiculous, but there it is.<br /><br />So what do you do?<br /><br />I highly advocate, right now, that as many people as possible (this means YOU) put together an emergency survival kit. Actually, two of them. One portable, one not. Canned goods and water reserves, dry beans, rice, corn and possibly jerked meat. Not foods that depend on refrigeration, as power might fail. This is the non portable, or limited portability.<br /><br />Portable? TWO good knives. They don't have to be the hyper expensive sport model, just a good long and short knife. A backpack. A sleeping bag. A tent. An endless match (magnesium strip). Some rugged clothes, hiking boots, raingear, and a small cooking kit. First aid kit and sewing kit (I also highly recommend dental floss. It's a fantastic thread for quick and durable repairs to things like your backpack and tent). A good compass, if your knife don't have one. One hundred feet of light gauge rope. A hammer and a multi tool like a leatherman. Do your best to keep it all under 40 pounds. I know that don't sound like a lot, but after a day with it on your back and belt, you'll sing another tune :)<br /><br />I would add some weapons to that if possible. A bow is probably better than a gun for hunting and defense as well, for two reasons. In a SHTF scenario, you don't want to draw attention to yourself, and guns are noisy, and arrows are reusable. You might not be able to acquire bullets. Nevertheless, a gun is probably good to carry as well, for Mr. Case.<br /><br />This emergency kit should be with you at all times. In the trunk of your car if you are away from home, or easily to hand while you are. You should check it frequently to be assured that it's intact. This is a good idea even in GOOD times, because things happen without your planning or consent even when you think you got a handle on things. Being the kind of guy that trouble seems to know where I am no matter how hard I try to avoid it, I can personally attest to this.<br /><br />I had more, but it escaped. Later!Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-46031839821719241352009-07-19T17:28:00.002-04:002009-07-19T17:39:52.654-04:00Anarchy is not the answer!Once again, someone more eloquent than I has said what I'm trying to say better.<br /><br />Dale Everett, author of the web comic "anarchy in your head" wrote an excellent article on this, linked <a href="http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/28/anarchy-isnt-the-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-4906">here</a>, and I encourage everyone to read it!<br /><br />Also, check him <a href="http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2009/06/29/is-minarchy-possible/#more-660">here</a>, where like me he talks about building better humans instead of better empires.<br /><br />On to other things.<br /><br />I've moved, and FINALLY have high speed internet access again, so I'm going to try to be a lot more regular on the blog. In fact, I'm now intending to put up a post every other Thursday, starting next week. Why Thursday? Well, why not? Ok, it's not that arbitrary. I'm usually off on Thursday. I'll post more often if the urge strikes.<br /><br />Further, as soon as I get my basement "hideaway" properly set up, I'll be doing videos again. Hopefully better production, as I've learned a lot of stuff that I didn't know before AND have a dedicated space. I'll probably be posting most of the new ones to filmrookie instead of Youtube, since I don't intend to stay inside the ten minute time limit, nor do I really care for the direction Youtube is taking. I'll probably do the random vlog over there, and trailers to the stuff I put real work in to.<br /><br />Well, enough babbling for today. L8R!<br /><br />-KevinKevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-23340798453784330492009-06-13T20:53:00.002-04:002009-06-13T21:08:05.501-04:00MoneyI thought I'd talk a little bit about establishing a separate gold standard that we could all use. I'm not sure how to go about it, but I did discover that you can buy gold in one troy grain coins, which is rather small. market value on that right now seems to be around four United States Fiat Dollars, which means in all likelihood you'd double your purchasing power by investing in such coins within the next few months. I base that on the inevitability of hyperinflation now that King Obama and his loyal henchmen have doubled the M1 monetary base over the last few months.<br /><br />But to get more basic, why gold in the first place? Rothbard and his peers have gone very in depth on this, and I'm not going to retread them at this point. Instead, I'm going to do it very simply. Since a great many anarchists are NOT market oriented, I hope this will educate somewhat on the market anarchist's stance.<br /><br />Gold is not the only possible money. Most of us adhere to it for a multiplicity of reasons, though we know other things could be used. Here's the main reason:<br /><br />It's scarce, valuable for many things, and does not tarnish.<br /><br />Money is not a magical thing. It's not some "grand system" that must be overseen by overlords. It is simply something commonly accepted IN LIEU OF goods and services to facilitate trade. Without money, direct trade is the only real possible way to exchange goods and services. Direct trade, while definitely valid, has serious problems of both scale and reach. With accepted monetary standards (plural deliberately), one person can leverage their goods and services to a much greater degree. This allows specialization without enslaving the specialist. Direct trade runs against serious problems of comparative value, whereas money can be set according to what the market will bear.<br /><br />So, what are the main things a good needs to be useful as money?<br /><br />First, Scarcity. Paper ain't scarce. The less of a desired thing there is, the more valuable it is. Too scarce, and it won't work as a unit of exchange, but that's an argument for another time.<br /><br />Second, and probably just as important, portability. This is why gold makes good money and oil doesn't. Oil is more useful to the general public, but it's basic unit of sale is a 55 gallon drum. You can't really put that in your pocket.<br /><br />Third, durability. This is less important than the first two, but not much.<br /><br />Gold meets all of the above better than just about any other substance, though silver and other precious metals can be used as well. In the open market, any set of standards or even just two people agreeing is good enough.<br /><br />But for wide trade, there need to be published and accepted standards. They don't have to be "one size fits all", as the market will weed out the poor or less popular ones without any external interference. To that end, I'm trying to work out a gold based monetary standard that anyone who can acquire gold could accept. I'll post it as I go. At the moment, I'm basing it on one grain of gold as the base unit, which is 480 grains to an ounce. Currently, this would be about two to three dollars per base unit. And yes, smaller divisions than that are available on the market.<br /><br />Comments are greatly appreciated.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-79433702879524308512009-02-18T19:46:00.002-05:002009-02-18T19:57:02.269-05:00I'm Back, sort of.Hello everybody.<br /><br />Sorry for the immensely long absence. I've been through several kinds of hell lately, starting with the sudden and untimely death of my mother in law. We never got along, but I miss the crazy old lady. I think there is something inherently self destructive in the genetic predisposition for diabetes. She, like many other diabetics I have known, was casual at best about maintaining her health, and usually could be seen consuming more sugar than would be healthy for anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Her disregard for her health cost her her life on September 20th of last year.<br /><br />This was a devastating blow to my wife who was extremely close to her mother, and has been a difficult time for me as well. It's a harsh revelation to find you loved someone after they've died.<br /><br />As she died intestate and heavily indebted, we have been through financial hell as well. Raising a small child in this chaos has been quite a challenge, even though he's a marvelous young fellow.<br /><br />We are recovering. The process is slow and the grief, both emotional and financial, is far from over.<br /><br />It is my intent to blog more regularly, both because I think the message of liberty is important, and because it's a mental outlet for an incredibly stressed out man. But the demands on my time are such that "more regularly" doesn't mean much. I'm not gonna vanish for seven months again, but don't expect a high output either.<br /><br />Those of you who still look, thank you for hangin' in there. I've missed this place, and the comments from my readers.<br /><br />Kevin Karl BiomechKevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-8351825962112219232008-07-29T07:40:00.001-04:002008-07-29T07:42:05.321-04:00A little something to think aboutLet me put a scenario in front of your eyes. It's one that goes on every day all around the world. For the nonce, I will not allude to the morality of this scenario. Until I've presented it, I will leave all conclusions to you, the reader.<br />On with the story.<br />One evening you decide to go for a walk. The idiot box is boring, you have no real plans for the following day, and just feel like taking the night air.<br />After you've been walking for a few blocks, a man steps in front of you, points a weapon at you and tells you to put your hands where he can see them.<br />As he has the drop on you, and you are not armed, you comply. He then binds your hands and takes you away and locks you in a small room where he states you won't be leaving until someone pays his price. He allows you to make a call for help in meeting his conditions, but only with him listening in and censoring what you might say.<br />You don't know this man. You've never seen him before. You have no reason to believe he has any grievance against you.<br />How would you describe this scenario?<br />I would call it kidnapping. I would further define it as grossly immoral. I would, in fact, say that you would be entirely justified in using any means or force that you could muster to escape this situation up to and including killing your assailant.<br />Would you agree?<br />Think about it for a minute. You've been kidnapped and held for ransom. Isn't it your human duty to escape by whatever means you can? ...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />And now, we'll add one more element to the story. <strong><em>The man in question wears a blue uniform</em></strong>.<br />Do you still think you're correct in trying to escape at any cost?<br />I do.<br />In normal human interactions, murder, kidnapping, theft, and other open aggressions are taken to be criminal acts.<br />The primary difference between a collectivist and an anarchist is that we hold the State to the same standard and therefor find it unfit to exist.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-89861292176565874812008-07-12T09:37:00.000-04:002008-07-12T09:38:40.745-04:00Environmental Protection(rubbing hands together) How deep down the rabbit hole shall I go?<br /><br />Short form. The Government's proper role in protecting the environment is no role at all. In fact, the Government's proper role is a bookshelf, as a part of a really DETAILED encyclopedia of long term folly. It is my firm belief that if humanity survives, it will be with the abolition of central government. It's concept damned for all eternity, and regularly discussed lest people forget.<br /><br />Nobody likes to shit where they eat. NOBODY. Corporate and Government pollution are relics, maintained because they are AFRAID to change, AND get massive kickbacks and opportunities to loot BECAUSE of the enforced and archaic regulations. <br /><br />Regulate in the old sense, in particular to set standards AS A REFERENCE, makes perfect sense. Organizations that did this would have to be sensitive to changes in technology and scales of economy. Yet the trend, even prior to pollution laws, was always to find ways to clean up manufacturing processes. It was not uniform nor regular. It is usually more efficient to produce less waste in ANY process. But humans don't design that way. We figure out the crude way to do something. We establish the possible. THEN we improve it!<br /><br />There is a vast, largely untapped market out there for effective control of pollution. I'm part of it. I love the outdoors. And I'd no sooner regulate industry and pollution by force then I would deliberately shoot off my pecker. <br /><br />Most people I've met feel the way I do. If we thought it would do a damn thing for the problem, we'd go out of our way to buy recycled goods, even though more expensive at present, we'd try to find new ways of production that are less polluting and more efficient, and we would outcompete those who failed to keep up.<br /><br />Yet it's not happening like that. The old ways, especially in the East where I currently live, are kept alive artificially by both regulations that make impossible demands and exemptions for existing facilities. Both hamper the improvement of the environment DIRECTLY. <br /><br />Where these regulations don't exist or are much less, factories and mines tend to VOLUNTARILY be built and improved to exacting standards, often the state of the art in pollution control. Even where it's required by force, new factories in areas that are not traditionally given to heavy industry are built BETTER than the regulation requires. But because of the lobbying going on, along with often stupidly obvious scams disguised loosely as "environmental regulations" that stipulate EQUIPMENT instead of results, a great deal of time, money, and resources are wasted and polluted instead of allowing industry to figure it out on their own. The issue has been raised, the cry has been heard, and if you give an engineer a problem to solve, he will. If you give him a problem to solve with SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT with no or little variation involved, you likely increase the problems.<br /><br />I'll give you a specific example. I can't recall who invented the thing, but in 1974 a law was passed requiring EGR systems on all new vehicles manufactured in the United States and imported from certain countries. (others were exempt do to various treaties and agreements. Even in this, the law utterly failed to be uniform). Problem was, it didn't work very well. It did, as advertised, reduce the specific emissions BY RATIO in the exhaust gasses of the vehicles so equipped. Sounds ok so far, right?<br /><br />WRONG. EGR systems severely reduced the efficiency of the engine. So while the RATIO was smaller, given how much more fuel the car consumed, the actual AMOUNT Of pollution was DIRECTLY increased by this idiotic law. <br /><br />To the credit of the engineers in the automotive industry, they did eventually make EGR systems work. But it required the invention of the engine manangement system, to whit computers, to even START to get the kinks out. The technology to make it work was simply not available at the time the law was passed. They would have been better off funding research on the damn things as ONE possible avenue to emissions reduction. It's hardly the only way. In 1999, a Honda Civic model met the ULEVIII standard in exhaust emissions and fuel efficiency, yet was initially denied entry into the united states. Yet that standard is JUST NOW a legal mandate. It was denied on the basis of not having a standard EGR system. They did it radically different and reduced the horsepower and efficiency losses tremendously, while emitting both less by volume AND ratio of the specific gasses that the EGR system is supposed to contain. <br /><br />But the equipment was not "approved" by our government EVEN THOUGH IT DEMONSTRABLY WORKED. In one of the rare instances of Justice prevailing over Law, Honda et al. won that lawsuit and were able to import the car. Their innovation is now standard on most cars. Think how far we'd get if EVERY engineer with balls, brains, and a budget were set to working on the problem WITHOUT constraint! Why specify EGR, when you can merely specify the desired outcome? Brilliant people have brilliant ideas. It's what they do. Restricting them with stupid regulations makes for stupid outcomes. Even when well intentioned. Most of the political environmental movement doesn't have good intentions. They are in fact traitors to the human race, and openly so. Almost all of the "mainstream" environmental agitators and absolutely all of the fringe ones favor the vast reduction of the human race and curtailment of reproduction. In short, they think we haven't the right to exist. <br /><br />I am deeply concerned about the environment. I don't think we can truly harm the earth, in the long term, but we can harm ourselves a great deal. Using government, the largest enabler of pollution that has ever existed, to combat the problem makes about as much sense as putting your dick in a meat grinder. <br /><br />But Free Men are concerned about the issue. A whole lot of us are. Should we gain the freedom to act, WE WILL SOLVE IT! And we'll create new problems. And we'll solve them, too. It's what we do. <br /><br />The only reason I do not favor a violent, armed revolution is that too many good people would be killed, and another fucking government would probably come out the other end. This is why I'm an agorist. Subversion, competition, and open contempt are better weapons than the arms that we still need for Mr. Justin Case.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-61100579086750908222008-06-29T15:24:00.001-04:002008-06-29T15:26:04.446-04:00Political SystemsThis was posted from a private website of which I am a member. Those who know, know. Otherwise, it's still funy.<br /><br /><blockquote> FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.<br /><br />PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all of the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.<br /><br />BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.<br /><br />FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.<br /><br />PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.<br /><br />RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.<br /><br />CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.<br /><br />DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.<br /><br />PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.<br /><br />REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.<br /><br />BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.<br /><br />PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.<br /><br />LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.<br /><br />SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.<br /><br />American Democracy/Capitalism: You have two cows. You convince the rest of the world that the milk from YOUR cows is much "cooler" than the milk from anyone elses cows and sell it to them for an outrageously marked-up price.<br /><br /></blockquote>Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-44093811887160499252008-06-24T14:53:00.002-04:002008-06-24T14:55:24.826-04:00Free web serversMy current host for the Anarchy Is Not chaos forum and my currently contentless web page is slow and buggy. The price however is exactly what I can afford right now: Free. But the performance isn't worth the price. Any of y'all out there that know of a decent free server, could you point me at 'em? I'm not entirely averse to advertising requirements, so long as they don't clutter up the whole page or use popups.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-9883720492030065902008-06-03T21:56:00.003-04:002008-06-03T22:01:03.589-04:00"Glorious" war. How to get away with murder, American Style.Watch <br /><a href="http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1417423198/bctid1584805268"> this.</a> Now tell me this is a just war... Oh, and isn't it nice how our government "allows" one weapon per household in a country torn by war? What nice, democratic looting sons of bitches! <br /><br />Nuremburg's gonna be a full house, this time, and the defendents goose stepping to "hail to the chief" isn't gonna make a damn bit of difference. Heil Bush.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-72854607398993378092008-05-31T04:02:00.003-04:002008-05-31T05:10:23.246-04:00I'm not Anti American<span style="font-family:arial;">It's actually been some time since I last heard this thrown at me in the electronic world, but I get it a lot in the meat world. To me, it always seemed obvious, but I guess I better illustrate.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">I've been called anti American for some time by many and various people. Even before I styled myself an anarchist. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">It's not true, people. Since I'm putting this on both AINC <em>and </em><a href="http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/">polycentric order</a>, I know an international audience will read this. But I'm aiming it primarily at my fellow Americans, for two reasons. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">One, my observation has been that foreigners understand that when I refer to America's actions and denounce them, I am speaking <em>primarily</em> about The United States of America. That would be the foreign sovereign ruling over what purports to be fifty independent states in cooperation. That all ended a long time ago. 1913, to be precise. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">And Two, Americans need it more. A great many of my countrymen do not understand the difference between America and the United States of America. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">America is a place. It's a label on a map describing, primarily to the english speaking world, the northern hemisphere of what was once called the "new world". Both Canada and the United States. It also describes South and Central America, but not so much culturally.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">It can also refer to the ideals of it's settlers, or at least a significant amount of them. For instance, the idea that the common citizen should have a say in the affairs of state. Democracy wasn't spawned here, contrary to what a LOT of Americans think, but it did spread itself farther than at any other time in history. The twentieth Century was the Century of Democracy. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">Yet Democracy is a failure. It was recognized as such by the founders. Even, reluctantly, by Thomas Jefferson. So they put it as PART of the system. A republic. Representative democracy to elect the rulers. And a means of ousting them. All states were to retain their sovereignty, relinquishing some rights and privileges as a price of membership. But as Sovereign States, they always had the right to seceed. This was never questioned during that period. Later, the Federal Government waged war on thirteen States that exercised that right, thus settling the question. Not by reason, or right, Nor treaty or any consideration for the legitimate (relatively) bounds of the Constitution. By Force of Arms it was established that the Union is not to be broken.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">But it wouldn't be truly established until 1913, with the passage of the seventeenth amendment. The sixteenth was also passed that year (sorta, it wasn't properly ratified until somewhat later). But the seventeenth was the end of the Republican Form of government "guaranteed" by the Federal Constitution. The seventeenth, without ever directly declaring it, announced that the States were no longer sovereign. And removed what was probably the greatest of the original checks and balances. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">The <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvii.html">seventeenth Amendment</a> eliminated the Senate in all but name. The function of the Senate was to be the representatives of the individual state governments. How they were chosen, prior to the seventeenth, was as the <strong><em>State Government</em></strong> chose. No uniform standard actually existed between states, because that was the <span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong>POINT!!!</strong></em> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">The Senate represented the corporate entity of the state.</span></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">The House of Representatives were the representatives of the People at large, proportionate to population. Elected by direct democracy. Exactly the same function the Senate now serves. Clever, eh? They never SAY the states are no longer relevant and therefore no longer represented, but the States no longer have control of who represents them. Instead, Senators are now elected by direct democracy.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">All of this and much more has been done deliberately, maliciously, and deceitfully by the United States of America. I hate them with every fibre of my being. Those sons of bitches have defiled my country and turned it into a wasteland of stagnation and low expectations. Basically because they got away with it. Even though I know it's not true, I still think of ALL politicians and Federal bureaucrats as deliberately evil. But it's not true. Some of them are accidentally evil. And they're worse!</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">They have polluted indiscriminately. I don't see this as the kind of "life and death right now" issue that the environmentalists do, but I still don't see the point of shitting where you eat once you learn not to. But worse, worst, they have polluted our minds and ideals. The American Dream used to be liberty. Now, it's a house you can't afford in a kingdom you don't want.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">American Culture is partially to blame for this, though we've been led. I've been all over the country, and most Americans seem to be really REALLY naive about the world around them. Much more than people from the UK and Australia, at least. Our Media is pure garbage. Half of what they say is either untrue or misleading, and the other half is useless information about useless people in a couple of cities. Americans think of themselves as moral people, for the most part, and don't want to believe that The United States of America has committed and is committing grossly immoral acts from ANY philosophy except, possibly, some forms of nihilism. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">They are blinkered. Because the government has relentlessly pounded home the idea that WE are the United States of America. This has made people feel personally responsible and simultaneously helpless as they believe that the actions taken by the state are necessary, and that we chose them. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">It's completely false. Even in it's conceptual language, the government makes itself clearly separate from the people. Just like all other governments. It is a ruling institution over a certain geographic area. The American Government was supposed to be ANSWERABLE to the people. Not part of them. They are supposed to be our employees, and they are supposed to follow the book. They are and do neither. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">Unless somebody reading this is a legislator, I think it safe to say you've never passed a law in your life, nor had <strong><em>ANY INPUT AT ALL</em></strong> in the process other than choosing your overlord. Even then, the lesser overlords given the current state of Imperia... I mean, Presidential power. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">And while we're on the subject, if you're fool enough to think you can reform the government via elections, <strong>STOP FUCKING WORRYING ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE!!! </strong>"We the People" do <strong>NOT</strong> elect the President. I don't personally elect anybody, because I'm an anarchist and absolutely <strong><em><span style="color:#ff0000;">HATE</span></em></strong> the government. But if you wanna play, and have any effect, negative or positive, worry about who you can actually elect. They threw you two branches. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">Now, these are the kinds of things I say to you who say I hate America. Horseshit. You're ignoring the argument and committing an ad hominem. Whether I hate America or love it with all my heart has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments I've presented against it's rulers. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">I was born in America, in the Occupied Territory of Washington. I've travelled all of the west, most of the north and a fair bit of the south. Some of it is magnificent. Some is plain. Some, like Pittsburgh, is a blight on the planet. All in all, it's my home. I love America. I hate it's rulers, and I am disgusted with how easily we were led into an Empire. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">Our rulers have been immensely successful in reversing every gain the founders aimed for or were argued into agreeing with. We have become horribly entangled in foreign alliances, grievances, and petty wars. Our rulers tax us outrageously, even if you are fool enough to think that Tax is not an outrage to begin with. They deliberately debase our currency. They divide man against man and nation against nation with malice aforethought. They tell us what we may or may not ingest. What risks we may or may not take. What kinds of property we may own, and under what circumstances. What we may accept in trade, and how we do so. Who we love. Who we associate with. Who we fuck. Everything. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, they have made so many rules with so many variations that you cannot live and not be in violation of the law. This is very deliberate. This allows them to hold you <em>accountable </em><strong>IN YOUR OWN MIND</strong> to them. Because we all concede that Criminal Acts are, well, Criminal. <strong><em>They have fashioned us all criminals</em></strong>. Thus, we are all liable to the "justice system" at a time and place of their choosing. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">But they "forgot" to tell you something. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">We outnumber them. By really a lot. </span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">If you love America as your home, and want to keep it a place worth calling home, then you need rid of the parasite that rules you from the swamp nobody wanted on the east coast. The foreign nation called The United States of America. Then, maybe, we can be great as a people again. </span>Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-61549528807301881972008-05-13T23:00:00.004-04:002008-05-15T01:15:05.496-04:00Anarchy Is Not Chaos ForumWell, the website is up, but blank. However, I've just installed a forum, which is working and sparsely populated. Give it a shot. Bear in mind that it's mostly default, and the software is new to me (MyBB). So far, I like it a lot better than phpBB, which is a pain in the ass.<br /><br />Now, on to Content and Layout and stuff like that for the web page. Wish me luck, I know not what I do!<br /><br />edit. Xomniverse pointed out that I don't have a link in the text. Well, I did put it in the links section to your right, and it's url is <a href="http://www.anarchyisnotchaos.net/forum/index.php">http://www.anarchyisnotchaos.net/forum/index.php</a><br /><br />sorry for any confusion. I'm old and tired.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com112tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-84738372415878500002008-05-11T04:30:00.004-04:002008-05-11T05:01:14.301-04:00Damn, Missed Again!Well, I attempted to register the domain <a href="http://www.anarchyisnotchaos.com/">http://www.anarchyisnotchaos.com/</a> only to find it was already taken, and there is an anarchist's forum there. Site isn't much developed, but the forum appears to be active. Check 'em out. The more of us out there, the better. Even if I did have register as .net :)<br /><br />Edit. Having now registered on their forum, I find nothing but links to porn in all sections. I smell a rat. Definitely NOT recommended.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-85030098662123644232008-05-06T03:35:00.000-04:002008-05-06T03:36:25.238-04:00Neo Feudalism?Neo Fuedalism?<br />My Vision of an Anarchist society.<br /><br />I deliberately did not title this my vision of an anarchocapitalist society for a reason. This construct, which I've been working in my head for well over a decade, is what led me to believe that anarchocapitalism is not only possible without rulers, it's inevitable. I concluded that it is, in fact, the ONLY way that anarchy could be achieved on a sustainable basis.<br />However, the deeper I go down the rabbit hole, I see how many similarities this has to what the anarcho socialists believe. There are, in our ongoing arguments, basically two points in which we seem to each other to be diametrically opposed.<br />1. Property. Both who should own it and if it should even exist as a legitimate concept.<br />2. Money and Capital. what kind of economic system should exist.<br />One actually follows from two, but we seem to see them as separate points. I am going to posit that we are not so far apart after all. Much of what the socialists wish to achieve is ALSO what the capitalists want to achieve. Mainly, we disagree on the mechanics. At least in the case of the Mutualists. The divide to the "left" is wider than the divide to the "right". Agorists call themselves "left" in the sense or revolutionary, but they fall more to the right in just about everything else. The only anti property argument I hear from them is Intellectual property, and I'm inclined to agree. I'm not committed to that position, but I am definitely leaning towards it. From there we go all the way left to anarcho communists and syndacalists. Of the two systems, I think the Syndicalists have a more realistic view of how to organize, but it's still pretty anti individual. But I digress, as I tend to do.<br />Rather than again address these points head on, I'm going to do something else. I'm going to build a mental model for you. This model is how I think that anarchy might be made to progress peaceably, and how it could work as a long term model for society. In all of my thought on this, sustainability has been my prime concern after liberty. Brief liberty isn't really better than no liberty. I am not going to label the activities at any point with the terms "capitalist", "socialist", or "communist". I am just going to describe them.<br />I think I can confidently say that most anarchists over the age of thirty have thought it through enough to have assumed their political position out of conviction, rather than fad. I don't say this to discourage or disparage the youth who ARE thinking it through, but I also know from my own experience and from watching others that being an "anarchist" is considered "cool" by quite a few youth who don't really follow through. I also think the situation is improving. I talk to a lot of kids who consider themselves anarchists who HAVE thought it through, or are well on their way. This was not true ten years ago, and even less so twenty years ago. The State has become far less important as technology advances, and far more intrusive. Kids today are not particularly well educated in the public schools, but they aren't stupid. They see what's going on. Maybe they don't understand it, hell none of us fully do, but they see it. They know it's wrong. If the world is to change, they're gonna do it. My generation probably will not see a lot of the changes we work for. But given the speed of modern communication and it's ready access, the next generation has a large chance of at least partial success. The establishment of ONE working anarchy that lasts ten years would be sufficient for me. Being a Transhumanist, I hope that I live long enough for life extension to be worked out, but the odds are long on that.<br />If you're an observer of history, and being honest with yourself, you know that there is no such thing as a "limited" state. The only real limits on it's power is how well it can shear the sheep and keep them from rebelling en masse. Small rebellions are more easily dealt with as a state grows. But states INEVITABLY grow, and just as inevitably become tyrannical. The only solution to this that has been proposed outside of the State is anarchy. The absence of the state, juridical persons, limited liability corporations, central governance, centralized law enforcement (as opposed to local), in short, all the impedimentia of the State.<br />I am, here, going to posit something that I've never heard an anarchist claim. I am going to claim that the State was necessary. Past Tense. I think, in fact, that given how we came to be civilized and advanced our society just about guaranteed the rising of the State in it's many incarnations. We tend to try things, and hold on too long to the ones that got supplanted. This has always been true of human nature. After a revolution, there is a continuous evolution. And it scares people, and they act out of fear rather than reason. The model that works in a crisis is one in which there is a leader. When the crisis passes, the leader becomes a Leader. Not always, but often. People continue to follow him and give over their power and autonomy under this common banner. After a generation or two of this, the idea that there has "always been" a ruler is well planted in the general populace, and the successive rulers gain ever more power until one or two of them overextend themselves and fall into chaos. Then the whole sequence begins anew with a different model. This is how humanity has always acted. Not just in the political realm, in everything. We try shit. What works we keep. Often along with a lot of stuff that didn't work, or don't work as well.<br />The problem with that is learning to discard what didn't work AND NOT TAKE IT UP AGAIN. In the past, this was probably impossible. The necessary ability to communicate rapidly and accurately did not exist. Things got lost to time and memory. Our knowledge, as a species, increased dramatically with every improvement in communication, starting with the written word and working right up to the moment with all of our modern forms of "instant" communication. We can now preserve for posterity damn near everything. Cheaply. We no longer have the NEED for the state, as a species, but the transition needs to be revolutionary only on a small scale, and evolutionary from there. And that starts with you and me. Our job, as anarchists in the most controlled statist environment that has ever existed, is to educate, agitate, and hopefully start that small seed that spreads like a virus. With any luck, it won't mutate as fast as a virus, and society will change for the better. I doubt that the other systems will ever go completely away, but if anarchy can be made to happen on a small scale, it will spread. Slowly at first, but along with goods and services, an intangible crosses borders. And that intangible has been the seed of societal change as long as there have been human societies. Ideas. Traders talk. It's part of what they do. Each side brings back the knowledge gained from the other. No monetary or capital value is exchanged, but the actual value is incalculable.<br />Societies, throughout most of history, have evolved with very little in the way of a plan. That has become less true with the passing of time, because of our ability to pass knowledge forward, but it's still the case. Here in the United States, much of what is our Law comes from the English Common Law, and much of it from even older sources than that. The differing influences are immmense. This is overly complex and unneccessary. Yes, the way things are has been built on the way things were. Under the current systems, we can't purge the dross. It currently outweighs every benefit.<br />But this is not purely necessary. We can, in small groups, begin anew with agreed upon standards, and in common courts of many sorts build up a new body of common "law" that addresses specific situations. And this can and should be done within the market rather than in one monolithic juridical monopoly. I was impressed with Robert Heinlein's description of a court that was considered binding by the residents of Luna in his book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". They went to a guy who was trusted as a judge (it was NOT his profession) and gathered up some people to act as a jury. They all got paid, and the amount was agreed upon beforehand. I think this perfectly valid, and I think such would be part of anarchic juridical procedure. I also think that Stephen Molyneaux's DRO theory is a valid model, and that both compliment one another.<br />And that's all for today. I'm going to put up a website with a forum for this model, as the limits of a blog don't really give me the layout I want, but I'll still post each addition to the blog as well.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-9914738402960958952008-05-06T01:56:00.000-04:002008-05-06T01:57:52.177-04:00Intellectual PropertyMy thoughts on Intellectual Property.<br />After long thought and some violent internal conflict, I have come to a conclusion regarding intellectual property. It's bullshit, but it's not unfounded bullshit.<br />When a book was the main, often only, means of dissemenating information, I think that copyright may have been justified to some extent. I can still think of several arguments against it, but I can think of a number FOR it as well, in the sense of securing for LIMITED TIMES an exclusive right to market that which you have created.<br />But even under that rationale, once transmitted by the written word into another man's brain, the ideas are no longer soleley your own, if they ever were. So it's a rough point even under the statist doctrines I once adhered to when I was foolish enough to believe in the concept of limited government.<br />Now? With the internet and other electronic media that can be transmitted worldwide in seconds? I think that if the idea ever had merit, that day is past. Just as the iron plow has no place in the modern world outside of a museum, the idea of intellectual property AS A REAL, TANGIBLE RIGHT is something that belongs in the pages of history. Probably digitally stored and archived, with free access to any interested party.<br />This does NOT mean that I think authors and inventors should not profit by their creative efforts! I firmly believe that every man who creates should benefit by it. But, for the sake of argument, let's say I write a book, and I market it in multiple media. If someone then copies my book and sells it on their own, what have I truly lost?<br />Honesty requires that I answer: Nothing. If they claim the work as their own, they are committing a sort of fraud, but if they merely copy it and charge for the service? Well, you could accuse them of being unoriginal, derivative, perhaps uncreative. But fraudulent, or having committed theft? Not really. I lose nothing. Maybe a potential customer, but even then, there was no guarantee that the persons buying from the other party would have ever even HEARD of me if they had not seen my work via a third party. In the long run, were I cited, it might even benefit me in FUTURE sales of other works. At worst, I have a chance at widening my audience without any personal effort. At best, said audience would seek out the original source after being exposed via third parties.<br />Same case in the instance of inventions. If they take and market my design, I've really lost nothing. I might even be able to get some prestige by telling potential customers that , yes, Joe makes my widget too, but I invented it. Now if Joe were to steal my actual widget, that would be a different story. But the design? I should have been more careful in concealing my art if I didn't want this to happen. Almost every machine in existence is inspired by prior art. That's a real basic truth about technology. We don't reinvent the wheel every time we set out to accomplish something. More often, the inventor sees something and thinks "I can do it better or more efficiently" and runs with it.<br />None of this, however, makes me "rebel" at the idea of an author or inventor making an effor to conceal their process or make it difficult to copy their works. After all, they DID expend the energy, mental and otherwise, to create it. Till such time as the information becomes disseminated, they DO exclusively own, or at least possess it. I have no problem, then, with copy protection schemes from a moral or ethical perspective. I do find them annoying and often intrusive, and so seek out other similar programs if I am in need of such, but I have no ethical problem. No force is being employed, they are merely trying to conceal their art and maintain a partial exclusivity.<br />It's when the Rulers step in and tell me and others that I cannot possess that which is in my head that I start to have a problem. As with all such intrusions, they are making a claim that has no basis in reality and in the long run (often even the short!) harms the market and may even keep important advances at bay for a long time.<br />I have at this point become fully an agorist, as I no longer believe in the validity of Intellectual Property.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-59856726859252814272008-04-03T00:53:00.000-04:002008-04-03T00:56:20.753-04:00Wargaming and AnarchyThere has long been the theory that warring is in our nature. That it’s inevitable that humans will go to war from time to time. I dispute the accuracy of the claim, but see some merit to the argument. We are an aggressive race. If we weren’t, we would be extinct.<br />Does this, however, inevitably mean we will organize to kill one another over resources, religions, resources, philosophies, and resources?<br /><br />I think not. I think it’s one of the things we can and will overcome. But not by denying it’s existence, but rather by constructively embracing it. For instance the qualities that make a great war leader also make a great businessman. Many of the flaws are the same, as well.<br /><br />Even so, that has been the trend, and it’s been a fairly quick one, since Business started being organized and global. As it began, there were some of the most horrible wars in the history of humanity. The 20th century, in particular, stands out as one of the most bloody periods… no strike that. THE most bloody period in verifiable human history. Yet the seeds of peaceable interaction were growing at the same time. They had to. The crux of the decision of war vs. voluntaryism is whether or not we continue as a race. The war side of the equation has the ability to destroy everyone.<br /><br />And we HAVE adapted to our needs as a growing, trading, and technologically adolescent species. Not uniformly or even well, overall, but we are adapting. When I was a kid, the internet was a far off dream. The current generation that’s becoming adult right now never knew a world without it. Most of us, I think, would prefer not to be at war with anybody. But the ‘warriors’, using the term loosely, are still in charge. And there is something in us that’s stirred by martial images.<br /><br />Which brings me to what I think could solve both sides of the equation. And I’m only joking a little bit. War Games. Not "real world" with the lives of soldiers, civilians, and pet fish on the line, but things like World of Warcraft, The excellent Warhammer 40,000 from Games workshop, and many others. They allow us to simulate war in all it’s bloody glory without losing anything but time. They are vastly stimulating. I think one of the reasons that war is so popular among the "elite" is exactly that. War planning is among the most difficult things there is, and the plans have to be dynamic enough to contain a developing situation that you DIDN’T expect the other guy to do. It’s exhilarating.<br /><br />Now, think about what we could do if we could persuade our alleged leaders to get together over the internet and blow each other to bits on a LAN instead of in reality? They could divvy up their virtual world amongst themselves, play stupid economic games, and generally do all the fucked up things that rulers do without actually ruling anyone. The hell of it is, it would probably work to sooth their egos. I can’t see it ever happening like that, but it’s amusing to think about.<br />But nevertheless, as we evolve to a voluntary society, I would guess that wargames will GAIN popularity rather than losing it. Much like various other games throughout history have become commonplace and harmless, when they started out as deadly serious religious affairs. We adapt. And if we adapt well enough that our needs for conquest can be played out on a tabletop or a LAN? What’s wrong with that? I suspect that the people who flip their wig over kids playing war games are the same people who have "support the troops" magnets on their cars. Sheep who do not think things through. They ought to play more wargames and learn how to think strategically.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-35672330932138491472008-03-23T03:46:00.000-04:002008-03-23T03:48:49.660-04:00Your Comments, Please!Some bloggers get annoyed with comments, some don't. I only get annoyed with trolls, but overall I really like people to comment on my blitherings, as it gives me the feedback I need to write, and also often challenges my assumptions. So if you got an opinion on what I write, or just a question, I'd like to see it.<br /><br />And of course, if you like this blog, please send your friends here!Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-35332873586311363332008-03-16T04:20:00.000-04:002008-03-16T04:24:17.848-04:00A Moral ConundrumThe Moral Conundrum<br />By Kevin Karl Biomech<br />Recently, I received two responses to a video I put up on youtube asking the question which is an unanswerable moral conundrum if you believe that the State should exist. That question, which above all others led me to anarchy, is simply this: At what point does that which is immoral or impermissable to the individual become moral or permissable to the group.<br />I actually didn't expect anyone to try and answer that question directly. It's a question who's main purpose is to make the recipient THINK DEEPLY about their convictions of morality.<br />Proceeding from the concept of Universality, the answer is simply that there can be no such exception. Even situationally, the exceptions are so rare as to not be codifiable. There are the so-called "good samaritan" acts, in which you act to save the life or safety of a stranger, but even here, that's not a real exception. It is not immoral or impermissable for an individual to act in the defense of another, especially one who's incapacitated or in imminent danger.<br />Yet that's the trap I got drawn into. I was once captain of my school's debate team, and I blew it.<br />One gentleman had replied that the line is drawn to protect the weak from the strong. This statement, while not in itself wrong, is unrelated to the question. It is both a non sequitur and a strawman. Subtle, though. Here's why it fails.<br />One, it's a non sequitur in relation to the question asked. Why? Because the question is when does it become permissable or moral for the group to do that which is impermissable or immoral for the individual to do. In no culture that I've ever read of or experienced is it impermissable for the individual to defend the weak against a strong aggressor. Not one.<br />It is a strawman because it argues a different question. I did not ask if the group could do something that was ALREADY morally permissable to the individual. That is pretty much given in the question itself, as well as general experience of the human race.<br />It is further a sweeping generalization, because it implicitly states that being strong is Malum in Se, which it is not. Had he said a strong aggressor, or the Evil Strong, then the statement would have been correct within the strawman, but still unrelated in any real sense to the question asked as the topic of debate.<br />To my knowledge, it has at all times in the history of humanity been considered both a moral and courageous act to defend someone against aggression that they were unable to contain on their own. A rather common example right here in the United States would be the "schoolyard bully" getting his ass kicked by another youngster with a conscience whilst perpetrating his bullying upon someone unable to adequately defend themselves. (The inevitable target of such bullies).<br />Whether this defense was carried out by one man or a group isn't even part of the equation. It's a just response to an injustice, and therfore morally permissable to both the individual and the group. It does not provide an exception to the immorality of an act at the individual level vs. it's morality at a group level. If anything, it reinforces the basic assumption of the question: Morality is universal or useless.<br /> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ayG2htuz6s">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ayG2htuz6s</a><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtc7_SBtaYY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtc7_SBtaYY</a><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ayG2htuz6s"></a>Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-82418098374609203722008-03-09T00:09:00.000-05:002008-03-09T00:10:48.199-05:00A Call to Revolution.Good evening y'all.<br />I have and will continue to argue with statists as to why they are choosing the wrong path. It's part of who I am. But today, I'm not speaking to the people who believe in the State. I don't much care about them. They've chosen to be a slave, and that is their shame, not mine.<br />Instead, I'm speaking to those who live under the state, but either reject it or question it. You are my brothers and sisters, not those who labor under the yoke because they think they owe it to themselves. You, like me, do not have such a base opinion of yourself. You don't need to subsume yourself in a "Greater" Whole in order to feel complete. You do not bend the knee just because you're told to. You have discovered the seeds of liberty and discontent.<br />You know that humans are not perfect, nor always moral, yet you still wish to be human. You know that no society ever conceived will avoid every pitfall nor fulfill every wish. Yet you still wish to improve society. You either know or at least suspect that if the old attitude that humans are irredeemably evil, then we would never have come this far.<br />Those of you my age and older remember a different world where the rules were not so imposing, and it was actually possible to be free in most things. Those of you around or under twenty years of age have already seen it change for the worse, and it's obvious even having never tasted the freedom that men twice your age once took for granted. We remember when it was good to be alive, and people who left this country wanted to come back.<br />You see that all this is lost, and some of you want it back. Or at least some return to "normalcy" rather than the current nightmare pace on a treadmill at high speed. All of us, young and old, basically wonder What Went Wrong and How Do We Fix It.<br />Many of you, even though realizing the State is deeply flawed in an of itself still seek your solution there. To you, my words are fairly simple. Your courage is appreciated and valuable to the cause of liberty, but you are using the wrong engines. Working within the system strengthens it. By no means am I saying you should not work the system against itself, but I am saying that attempts at reform WITHIN the Federal System as it stands will only strengthen them. You may win some temporary concessions, but you will ultimately have become suborned, even if not in your person, in the public mind to the system. You would be better off to vote for the greater evil, the greater incompetent, the most tax and spend buffoon on the planet, then to try and fix the system. By doing this, you are helping to destroy it far faster than any revolution of arms in the street could. By trying to reform it, you send the message that it is worth preserving an instrumentality that has completely failed in every aim it's founders put forth.<br />It is not worth saving.It is time for a change.<br />Liberty is worth dying for. Our forefathers believed that, and many thousands of them DID die in the only Civil War this nation has actually ever seen. It ended in 1781. By 1789 the seeds of tyranny were already sewn anew in the newly adopted Constitution of the United States of America. Not that the document itself is inherently evil. It was a well intentioned attempt to bring a new sort of order to a society that had always before labored under a King. Given that background, it was a noble attempt. It was doomed to failure from the beginning. It has major flaws IN IT'S CONCEPTION, regardless of the words of the document. No contract should be valid upon people merely because they were born in a certain place. No Government should be perpetual. At BEST, a semi coherent State might be useful in Time of War. A temporary alliance to repel an invader, agreed upon beforehand BY THE PARTICIPANTS, and for a limited sPECIFIED Time could be useful. After that people should be able to freely return to their own property and pursue their own lives. From this basic error, that any group of men has the RIGHT to bind Posterity forever, flowed all the other errors of this admittedly well intentioned document. That a Perpetual Organization that could only operate via theft on a grand scale should ever be allowed to exist is it's other major error.<br />These errors, and upon reading the histories of the Men who created the document, they were probably honest errors, must be corrected. In so doing we will commit other errors. It is our nature. We improve, we fail. Both are true, and this dichotomy, in my arrogant opinion, needs to be embraced rather than fought. Constant flux in the way society operates is INEVITABLE, and usually for the better. So long as every man and woman has the ability to CHOOSE whether or not they shall change is paramount. This goal, and the United States of America, are incompatible. But the Dream that created the United States is FULLY compatible with this goal!<br />It is far past time. Yet for the most part even the dedicated Anarchist quails at Revolution. It is fraught with danger, and the ends often uncertain. We know in our hearts, even if we haven't fully admitted it, that the old means of revolution are closed to us. We cannot take up arms and drive off the invader, for He is too deeply entrenched. We cannot replace our Overlords at the ballot with a new set of Overlords and hope to accomplish anything. So we need to Revolt in another way, or multiple other ways.<br />We need a Revolution of the American Mind. We need people to lose their apathy and LIVE! Yet the forces arrayed against us, particularly that apathy, seem often insurmountable. They are not. There are ways. There is always a way.<br />If you wish to use Political means, by all means do so. The Ballot isn't the answer. Instead, use your talents. If you are an able speaker, SPEAK! If you have a handy turn with the written word, WRITE! Above all else, if we are to ever become free, we must educate as many people as possible that it's POSSIBLE!<br />Remember that a handfull of men turned thirteen Crown Colonies to revolution to FORM this experiment in the first place! And remember how they did it. Neither the Cannon nor the Bayonet won the War for Independence. Words won the war. Written and Spoken WORDS! If the words had not been there, and had not been shamelessly and tirelessly promoted by men who had a vision of a society where they could be free, then the revolution would never have occured. Most of the people, then as now, were complacent even when angered. "This is the way it has always been" came to mean "This is the Way it will Always Be" in their minds. Just like now. Yet it's never been true! It hasn't always been like this, and that's been true in every generation. The older men can always tell you of a time when things were different. Not always better, but ALWAYS different! This is the essence of what it means to be alive, and being alive is a wonderful thing!<br />Sit down with your friends and stand up in front of your fellows and preach the word of Liberty. Ask them to join you, and when your numbers be such that it's possible, call them forth to repudiate their overlords and dismantle their house of lies and deceit! If one town withdraws, then another follows, then another two or three, That is how it will be won! Against a frontal assault, our Overlords are nearly impervious. But they cannot survive the death of a thousand cuts. And the simple refusal to obey them is a more powerful weapon even than the Mighty Nuclear Bomb.<br />Soldiers of the State will have no qualms returning fire on the field of battle, but all but the very worst of them will quail before firing on a crowd of civlians who simply will not obey them. And when the Worst Sort does so anyway, that too is to our advantage. In the Modern world it don't take weeks to spread the news of an atrocity. It takes minutes.<br />Yes, if we are to succeed, there will be people who die in the cause. This is tragic, in the actual meaning of the term, but it is inevitable. Some things are worth dying for. But in the longer term, and this is far more important, Liberty is worth LIVING for!<br />Those unwilling? Leave them to be. By your very act of leaving them to their own devices, you strengthen our cause. Because they see that the way they subscribe to requires the initiation of force, but ours does not. They will see that we can be quite fierce in our defence, but that our attacks are all in the realm of ideas. As our ideas take root, many of the complacent will join us.<br />Some will hold out to the bitter end to remain under Rulership. Oh well. So long as they see the futility of ever stopping us from living as we will, and so long as they allow us our space, they are of no consequence. They will always be able to find someone to rule them, and I say that in that event, we'll be well rid of them both, rulers and peasants alike. Then Free Men can build a society by voluntary association and trade, free from the "need" for Overlords.<br />And to those who fervently desire to live under a State? My parting words to you are from a True American Patriot.<br />"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."<br />-Samuel AdamsKevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-50326448500814991892008-02-17T03:27:00.000-05:002008-02-17T03:38:49.990-05:00A few random thoughtsLately I and my family have run a hard course between illness and economic hardship, and things have been getting to me in a lot of different areas, so I've not been nearly as active on the 'net as is my wont. That being said, I figured I'd write about a few of the things I'm working on, both here and for Youtube.<br /><br />Several people have stated that the United States has one of the freest markets in the world. This is not strictly untrue, but it's still a far cry from the anarchocapitalist's vision of Laissez Faire markets. I'm writing an article and making a video exploring this theme, with a specific emphasis on the corporation itself, and health care as relates to HMO's and socialized and "privatized" schemes vs. a true free market approach. Yes, HMO's are a good idea in theory, but the government regulated corporate versions thereof have been dismal failures. I'll try to illustrate why, and offer a free market alternative.<br /><br />I've also been asked by a number of people, most recently Alex Strekal (Brainpolice2 on Youtube, and his website is <a href="http://www.liberty-space.com/">www.liberty-space.com</a>) what originally motivated me to style myself an anarchist. That's a simple question with a number of complex and convulted thought proceses behind it, and I'm not certain I can cover it in a ten minute video, so I'll also post a more expanded version here, as I get time.<br /><br />My primary goal as an anarchocapitalist is to establish independent Seasteads both as a means of personal liberty and to demonstrate two principles: That free markets work and can work very well in the absence of governmental meddling, and the beauty of dynamic geography. For more preliminary information, see <a href="http://www.seastead.org/">www.seastead.org</a>, particularly the section on dynamic geography <a href="http://patrifriedman.com/projects/socs/commented/drawer/dynamic_geography.html">http://patrifriedman.com/projects/socs/commented/drawer/dynamic_geography.html</a><br /><br />I've been trying to write three books over the course of the last four years, and I'm picking that back up as well. One of them, The Minimum Wage Survival Guide, is almost in it's final form and should be available as an e-book within six months. The other two? Well, one of them I'm not certain I'm ever going to publish, but it explores the idea of a new religion based on rationality and a love of life. The other is titled the same as this website. Anarchy is not Chaos. I've rewritten the bastard about a hundred times now, and I have to concede that it will never be perfect. But I should have it done by the end of the year if things go reasonably well.<br /><br />Unfortunately, all of these endeavors take a lot of time, and given my current dire financial situation and the age of my son (he's a bit over a year old), I may not have time for all of this and the timelines above are strictly fungible. Rest assured, short of death, I'm not going to stop spouting on about the virtues of liberty.<br /><br />Kevin Karl BiomechKevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777035948274444424.post-57955094114775681932008-01-23T02:54:00.000-05:002008-01-23T03:14:03.954-05:00I can't be bought. But I can be rented!I was thinking about one of the major differences in my philosophical outlook as an anarchocapitalist/severe individualist and the thoughts I've heard expressed by both Statists and other types of collectivists. Namely the idea of 'wage slavery'.<br /><br />I must state that in truth I find the whole argument to be incomprehensible. To Whit: You voluntarily seek to work for some company or individual in exchange for agreed upon wages. This is seen by many as slavery. I don't see it that way. They aren't buying me, just some of my time. If my time is worth more to me than what they are offering, I'm under no obligation to accept the job. I can, if I feel the urge, make a counteroffer. In some cases they'll take it, in others they won't.<br /><br />If I do choose to take the job, then I feel that it's pay is justified. That is a variable thing, because some areas I'm far better at than others, and some jobs require, therefore, higher compensation. But another factor is whether or not I ENJOY the job I'm applying for. I will accept lower wages for something I truly want to do. Despite the slings and arrows of well meaning friends and demeaning enemies, this has been food service for most of my adult life. I like restaraunts. I enjoy what I do. Or I did. Now, it's time for a change because I'm frankly burned out on the whole industry. That will probably change, as I've drifted before. I still harbor dreams of one day operating my own pizzaria, and given my experience at all levels of that subset of my profession, I'm certain that I can succeed, if I can raise sufficient capital. But again, I digress.<br /><br />In NO WAY was I enslaved by food service. There were times when it went better for me than others, but it's a rare day when I dread going to work. Everyone MUST do something to earn their way through life. If not, they have two choices. One moral, but fatal, and one immoral, and just as fatal to their individuality.<br /><br />The first way is to die. If you will not support yourself and have nobody to leech from, that's an inevitable outcome.<br /><br />The second way, the way that a great many people seem to think moral, is in fact completely devoid of morality: Public Welfare programs. They have many names and many purported purposes, but when it comes down to it, welfare bum is not a pejorative but a blunt truth. A person who WILL NOT work for a living, because it "demeans" him in some way, but then relies on welfare is stealing from everyone who works.<br /><br />I will grant that there are certain persons who CANNOT work, and that choice two is often, under the current State of affairs, the only option open to them. These people have, in my observation, a far more difficult time OBTAINING that assistance than those who have learned to "work the system" in order to avoid being productive humans.<br /><br />Yet the people who are not defective and who do not work tend to look down on me. They call me a "wage slave" because I go out and make my own way in the world, with a paying job as a vehicle for my life. Here's to you idiots. I'm not a slave to my wages, I'm a slave to you, via the government. I have no wish at all to support your lazy ass, and given the choice, would not do so. I might, had I the resources, give generously to the unfortunates who cannot work due to some disability beyond their control or ability to repair, but to someone who's "picky" about their work to the exclusion of earning a living? Bite me.<br /><br />Any man or woman with a modicum of ability can get and hold a minimum wage job. Some are more difficult than others, and if you don't view an SUV and the latest fashions as neccesities, you can live quite efficiently and with a minimum of drama on minimum wage. It's when you start trying to live beyond your means that you become enslaved. And even then, it's not your employer doing the dirty deed: It's YOU.<br /><br />That being said, if you remain forever at minimum wage, you'll likely have a rather difficult and boring life. Not necessarily, but often. So the goal, as in all things, is to improve your wage earning ability or to become self employed and take direct control of your financial fortunes. The second option being the better, the first is still valid even if that is your eventual goal. You should always be on the lookout for new opportunities to earn more capital, or to better educate yourself so that you can later earn more capital. Specialization is for ants.<br /><br />This means that when things get tight, you should indeed hold on to your job, but not because you are compelled to by some "master", rather because it might not be easily replaced. But even then, always be on the lookout for something better, more interesting, or higher paying.<br /><br />This is what I try to do. Sometimes, given the responsibilities of family life, I do have to pass up an opportunity because it's too speculative when there are other mouths to feed. But it's not the behest of my employer that makes me stay with them, it's weighing the risks and benefits of jumping ship vs. what I must accomplish at a minimum. These things are self determined. No one else has either the right OR the ability to determine these things for me, nor do they have any need to explain my actions to me. Maybe to themselves, as if I'm an important actor in the grand scheme of things.<br /><br />I can be rented. Fairly easily. There is no circumstance under which I can be bought. Those on welfare and other sycophants of the State have already sold their soul, and I think they sold it cheap.Kevin K. Biomechhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05489537057051672719noreply@blogger.com1