::::: : the wood : davidrobins.com

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.

The two powers

Political, Economics ·Saturday July 31, 2010 @ 16:06 EDT (link)

Does U.S. Need to Split Along Political Lines?

Williams has put together a good sample of constitutional violations (Andrew Napolitano has even more in two books). However, he doesn't say how it should be done geographically. I propose that the Free States of America pick a new capital (Atlanta perhaps) [or nowhere at all...] and then let counties or even individuals "join" it as they wish [really just declaring shared independence from the USA's federal government]. State services remain the same; only federal services, regulations, and taxes would change for the persons or counties opting out.

Of course, as the base of people that wanted to pay for expensive and inefficient federal programs shrunk, a snowball effect would begin and the trickle of first-movers would swell to a roaring waterfall of people leaving the system. Eventually only people getting more out than they were putting in, and perhaps some liberal idealists, would be left; and like Molyneux's story about support for the drug war (if only those that want it pay for it; the more that leave, the more the share of total costs for those remaining increases, and people suddenly get the "live and let live" urges, down to the last person needing to kick in a few hundred billion all by their lonesome).

Agorism: freedom now, freedom in our time

Political, Law, Economics ·Saturday July 31, 2010 @ 16:01 EDT (link)

Perhaps an underground agorist economy would work to get out from under the oppression of the state. While not underground, Craigslist is an example of a massive trading system where—so far—the state does not infringe on individual rights (but give them time).

To escape taxes on the sale of a house, for instance, instead of selling it "normally", transfer the money and everything but let the seller keep the "public" title and sign a private contract that the buyer has full rights to the house and will pay all property taxes etc. Some sort of system of underground courts might be necessary to resolve disputes. There would be parallels to, say, religious courts, except these would be hidden. And of course, barter and forms of private money may increase too.

Each trader have to start small: trust would be hard to come by until a reputation was established (just like on sites like eBay or GunBroker), and the violence of the occupying forces (police, courts, etc.) would be on the side of the seller if a dispute was brought before the state. True, the underground courts would not (may not) have the power of violence, but if someone has an excellent reputation in the community they will not want to lose it and be cut off if they renege. Or people might sign something like Schulman's General Submission to Arbitration. Plus, there will still be a private contract between parties, although US courts may not enforce it. Long-term leases or rentals might be another workable alternative. The free market can come up with infinite solutions. If an underground electronic currency was used, then the underground courts could have some power over it (delegated to them by the participants).

(Eventually the public rolls would be completely out of sync, but nobody would care. I suppose they'd make laws and let police go around and check who lived at each house… door to door Gestapo—a bit like they already do to ensure kids aren't lying about their address to get into a better school district: see John Stossel's documentary Stupid in America for footage.)

Technology would be a great boost to an underground economy. Technology can help the little guy more than the state—like in Iraq.

Books finished: Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.

Goodbye, DVD cases

News, Technical, Media ·Friday July 30, 2010 @ 20:25 EDT (link)

We dumped our DVD cases, keeping only the DVDs in white paper sleeves (minimalize!), and also ripping them to files on our USB hard drives.

Some of the cases were nice, but there was no real justification for the shelf space wasted. We keep some of the nicest (LOTR) and good booklets. We saved a bundle of space, and we're simplifying, without losing anything (except bulk). Wish it was as easy to do with books, but I haven't found a reader device I like yet, and DRM/portability is still a worry.

Private school cost breakdown

Political, School, Economics ·Thursday July 29, 2010 @ 21:15 EDT (link)

Public schools spend around $10k per student (or perhaps up to $25k?); I've also heard floated $15k in DC and $13k in Washington state. Apparently most private schools in DC cost less than $10k per student.

When you think "private school" the image of a school like Eton, or the school in Dead Poets' Society or The Emperor's Club comes to mind: massive and ancient ivy-covered buildings, manicured lawns, vast campus, sports facilities, rich kids in uniforms. Erase that from your mind: we're just talking about schools that are run as privately—like grocery stores or car dealerships or fitness clubs—as corporations, possibly for profit, but not necessarily. Nobody is compelled to give them money as in the state ("public") school system. Their tuition money (and private donations) have to cover all their costs; they don't get any handouts. They don't need to be fancy, or have any more clubs and extra-curriculars than a public school. Nobody needs to wear uniforms (although it's supposed to be conducive to order).

Of course, if all schools are private, people wail, the poor will not get an education! (Please go off and read Stefan Molyneux's book Practical Anarchy if you think that; I'll wait. It'll answer those questions generally. In short, those that are concerned that the poor will not be educated will fund it; and if they will not, then democracy is a sham anyway.)

Let's consider how much a school in a poor neighborhood, populated with hard-working people that want what's best for their children, would cost. It's reasonable to assume that these people can pay $3k/year/student, or for those that cannot afford it (not "don't want to"), private charities will make up the deficit. (These private charities don't have to be politically correct, so they don't have to give money out to people that can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can't afford it; if they did start handing out money where it wasn't truly needed, first, they'd run out—not enough to go around, and second, they'd run out—people would stop donating if they didn't think their money was going to the needy.)

Then let's consider costs. Suppose class size is 30 students, whose parents are paying a total of $90k. Take $60k to pay the teacher and provide reasonable benefits (probably not current union level—I did say reasonable), leaving $30k for overhead. Suppose this particular school has 20 classrooms, bringing the total to $1.8M; $600k remains after paying the teachers. That can be used for building rent, paying a principal and secretary, janitorial services, and perhaps some profit to the owner. No cafeteria; no fancy sports equipment (bring your own, use donations); no extracurriculars that aren't free or paid for by participants. Remember, this is a poor area (which also keeps costs down). If we pay the principal $100k, secretary $30k, $20k for janitorial services, and assume building and grounds rent at $100k, $50k for utilities, there's still $300k left. Maybe we can buy some sports equipment and chess sets after all.

The point is, even though these are ballpark figures, it's quite reasonable to be able to privatize all schooling, quit mulcting non-participants through property taxes, and provide education that is within reach of anyone and everyone—and more likely than not (given history) at better quality than the state, and definitely more efficiently.

Update: A demonstration that my back of the envelope calculation is pretty good. Teresa Middleton charges $3k per child at her private school in Russellville, SC; the kids are excited about school and they do much better than the nearby public schools (which get $8k per child). Source: Stossel, John. Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel—Why Everything You Know is Wrong. New York: Hyperion, 2006.

Do we like our private offices too much?

Technical, Work ·Thursday July 29, 2010 @ 19:38 EDT (link)

Just a random thought. Although private offices are nice—one of the selling points of working at some places, including Microsoft (and a big disappointment that I had to share with someone my first few months there), and considered almost a requirement by Joel of Joel on Software. Offices allow for deep concentration, getting "into the zone", hacking marathons, etc. They are also of course status symbols: it is indicative of better status to be in your own office with a door than a shared office, or a cubicle, and cubicle sizes and even wall height affect perceived status (I was pretty happy when I had a high-walled fairly large cubicle at Hilton, but not so much with the tiny one).

But do we like them too much? Wouldn't more of a "bazaar" atmosphere be better, an open layout perhaps, even (!) cubicles, for certain stages of a project, especially brainstorming and scenario design? In the article above, apparently this has already been considered and the answer is that private offices are not only nice to have, they increase productivity and prevent disruptive conversations ("there was no such thing as a conversation between two people"). Sometimes it seems like it would be nice to sit in a shared area for a while to bounce ideas of others; but I suppose being able to walk by other people's offices (most keep their doors open) or in common areas (there are chairs and tables by the kitchen) is enough. Certainly I agree that I wouldn't want to permanently exchange my office for a cubicle, especially a short one where others were conversing constantly.

Books finished: Dred Scott'S Revenge.

Giving away the future

Political ·Tuesday July 27, 2010 @ 20:10 EDT (link)

Future promises: how much can legislators give away?

We frequently talk about making our posterity pay (e.g., "We are prostituting future generation’s livelihoods by not paying off these debts."), but even anything beyond the current legislative session needs to be reconsidered.

Legislators should have to pay for anything they promise during their term. I.e., if they promise a government union a pension, they have to put real money away in an escrow account for everyone they promise it to, and the promise can only be "We will use this money for that pension" not "No matter how many people are hired by this union, or how the economy changes, they will all get this fancy pension". One could possibly also allow claiming a known revenue stream, but the benefit paid should depend on that stream and (as when I spend my income) it should only be allowed to be allocated once. They can't bind future congresses. Every act needs to be undoable by the next congress, and they should have to explicitly continue to fund it with a bill or it goes away on its own (i.e., a sunset matching the end of the current house term). Perhaps they can fully fund a few pensions, and promise them to n people, but more likely they can partially fund more, and hope that the funding is renewed. Better still, don't promise anything, and make them invest in 401(k)s like the rest of us; better than that, don't tax anything and nobody'll need 401(k)s.

Thomas Sowell concurs with respect to Social Security, which he calls a pyramid scheme (government term is "unfunded liability") in "Social Security: A Fraudulent Pyramid Club":

When an insurance company writes a policy, it has to have enough assets to pay out what it promises. Otherwise the company can be declared bankrupt and its officials can go to jail. An insurance company that had the same benefits, premiums, and reserves as the Social Security system would be shut down by court order and its managers led away in handcuffs to face charges of fraud. … The larger question is, why do we continue to allow politicians to write laws promising benefits that they have not raised money to pay for?

Madoff was a piker compared to the state. See also: Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority"—in a similar vein, we can't make contracts that bind our descendants. Of course, for voluntaryists, "representatives" cannot make promises binding on anyone either, unless they agreed to that specifically. But requiring spending bills—and maybe every law on the books—to be explicitly, and individually (no omnibus bills!) renewed (rewritten, as fresh bills) at the start of each legislative session would be a positive step forward, and get rid of so many of the present problems of having bribed (in the present particular cases) the venal thugs of various government unions in good times with perpetual payouts, and being on the hook for them in lean times too. It would also lessen the incentive, or increase the cost, to buy off members of congress, since their awards (of stolen goods) would only last for a maximum of two years.

While the best answer to the question we began with is "Nothing at all", forced renewals and true "pay as you go" would definitely be an improvement.

Books finished: Under Heaven.

Murray's 60th: BC edition

News ·Monday July 19, 2010 @ 20:24 EDT (link)

(Excuse the lack of details; I just never got around to fleshing this out.)

Left around noon, got there around 1500.

Left the Martins' at 2045, got home around 2300.

Can the unseen be contracted away?

Political, Work, Law ·Monday July 19, 2010 @ 01:17 EDT (link)

(This entry inspired by some thoughts I had while writing the entry on property and liberty.)

How much freedom of self (or your car, or other mobile entities) do you have on someone else's property? Do you have a (natural) right to carry concealed weapons, even if the owner is hostile? Can you ever sign away these natural rights to property (contract to not carry weapons) or are such contracts not binding? How about if the property owner has means of detection (metal detectors, guards)? If you believed that contracts can't infringe natural rights, you'd necessarily be similarly opposed to metal detectors infringing privacy, and not think that even if they found something that it could be taken. But on the other hand, right to enter property could be denied for any reason, even assertion of your own natural rights (or because you were wearing a yellow shirt). This puts the rights of the real property owner against the rights of mobile property owners (cars) or individuals (self ownership). This article also examines the rights of (real) property owners.

In a similar vein, the question may be asked, Can you contract away the unseen?

That is, can you sign a contract with, say, an employer, about something he cannot see (or, to be more general, detect). Can you sign away, for example, your freedom to go skiing on the weekends, or to drink apple juice, if it doesn't substantially affect your job? (Going skiing Saturday might make you a little more tired Monday, but it wouldn't affect your work to the detriment of your employer, or at least not more than many other activities.)

For example, you could sign a contract saying you will not do illegal "recreational" drugs, because it could affect your work (more on that in a bit). You could possibly agree to random urine testing to verify this. I would argue that if there were not some indicator (smell, behavior, poor work) indicating a behavior that one had agreed to forgo, then the employer has no business testing for it. And there could be a gray area here. Perhaps you can't easily observe drug use without taking a lot of time to observe a person, but it could still lead to grievous errors (say, on an industrial shop floor); then it might be reasonable to contract to allow random testing, but even then, a zero tolerance policy is not compatible with the "detectable" policy; there must be a level of intoxication that would compromise safety (not 100% chance, just reasonably, and I'll bet that level is above zero).

The policy would even allow for people to bring in those drugs in, say, pants pockets, as long as they would not otherwise influence contracted work (dealing them, for example, is an abuse of company time and property, engenders profit from use of said property, could be breaking the law—depending if we're in Voluntarytopia or not, takes others' time, might result in customer complaints, etc.). It's not merely whether they can be seen, either; even if an X-ray machine could pick them up, until regular people start wearing X-ray glasses, having something in your pocket doesn't interfere with how you do your job.

An alternative but similar view (that would allow for concealed carry) would be to recognize the supremacy of the right to life, liberty, and property, and allow companies only to require people to contract away the ability to protect those rights (e.g., in the case of protecting life, the right to carry weapons for self-defense) if the company can protect those rights equally well. This might involve hiring personal security guards, or controlling physical plant access with metal detectors and armed guards. For most jobs, actually protecting individual rights in this manner would be prohibitively expensive, and so people would be able to protect themselves, but for occupations where employers really (for business reasons, possibly secret labs or weapons development, or even extreme prejudice) want to disarm people, they can accomplish it by providing equivalent protection (who decides what is "equivalent" is an implementation detail).

I’m certainly a huge fan of property rights, and private contracts, but I could accept that it is not reasonable for employers to be able to restrict things that do not affect the job they are hiring someone to do.

You could have a contract that says, for example, that an employee will do whatever job they're hired for and buy all their groceries from company-affiliated store X (or go to a specific church on Sunday, or only drink water), in return for being paid (and implicitly, being allowed in the employer’s building to work). But I don’t think an employee should be held to the groceries-buying part of such a contract because it's absolutely not relevant to job performance. Sure, if you believe in unlimited contracts you can say the employee shouldn't take the job if they don't like it, but I'm having some second thoughts about unlimited contracts. Or, to state alternately, maybe an employee is held to it, but since the employer suffers no harm they have no recourse: no damages will be awarded.

The relevance to the original discussion is that carrying a firearm in your vehicle (or, even, arguably, concealed on your person) doesn’t affect your job, so, under a "limited scope contract" theory it's off the table for employment contracts (or entirely unenforceable by contract law). Of course, a company could still fire you for any reason, so if they could detect a breach of even an unenforceable provision they could fire you. Does this mean they can install metal detectors? Sure. What if they do, with guards at the doors? It’d be a huge expense for companies that decided to go that route, but (depending on the training of those at the doors) might make people feel comfortable being unarmed if they had the choice. (All hypothetical, of course. Usual disclaimers.)

I would also use a broad definition of "affects your job" to the point that if someone else sees that you have a firearm and is alarmed, you may have violated a legitimate contract provision (keeping it undetectable is your problem), and companies can ask employees not to do things that might annoy others, such as wearing excessive perfume, since it does affect the work environment.

(Another argument that was made by others in the thread where I posted some of the above was that if self-defense is a right—via the second amendment, say—standing at the same level as the right to control one's property, then there's a bit of an impasse if both rights must be preserved. I'm not arguing constitutional rights, though, but rather natural rights, and both over one's own property.)

I would thus support a "personal castle doctrine" as it were (extending to more than just defense), where one's own body or vehicle or other property is inviolate if it doesn't interfere with whatever one is contracted to do. (This is all, of course, theoretical.)

Books finished: A Song For Arbonne.

Blackhawk Serpa holster for Glock 34

News, Guns ·Saturday July 17, 2010 @ 16:34 EDT (link)

Picked up a Blackhawk Serpa holster for my Glock 34 today at West Coast Armory ($46.99, which is comparable to online prices). I really do like the retention—a very solid lock. Very slick holster altogether. Comes with a paddle as well as having belt loops. The motivation to get it was to compete in Action Pistol events at SVRC; apparently my Galco CSL (Cop Slide) leather holster cants too sharply; they claim the impact point is more than 3' behind me. But I like the Serpa enough to consider making it my daily carry holster.

We also shot there today—between us, about 100 rounds each of .22 (through the Ruger 10/22), .223 (AR-15), and 9mm (Glock 34). Good times.

The relationship between property and liberty

Political ·Friday July 16, 2010 @ 21:01 EDT (link)

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." — Frederic Bastiat

In effect, there are layers of ownership: the real owner of the land pays no taxes (rent), can sell it at will, and can build anything he wants on it; no restrictions (except the usual non-infringement on others' rights to life, liberty, and property). In a free society that's the individual; in a feudal society, that's the lord. The next layer is a lessee (in current society, a so-called home or business owner). They have some property rights, but the lord's always trump theirs. The lord might even enforce those rights (or instead decide to take the property and give it to someone else). They can do a lot, but they are regulated by the real owner (the amount of regulation is your degree of private property rights, less absolute right, of course). The next layer would be either a renter or a plantation with (Southern-style chattel) slaves; the plantation "owner" may allow the slaves some claim to shacks, or sleeping areas, or found or made or given goods, but they can be taken at any time and he does not need to provide any real justice. At the bottom of the pyramid, this slave can be abused by the serf and the lord; not a good place to be in at all.

Allodial title is a name for the true ownership mentioned above. It might be one thing that would turn a nation into a stateless society as people obtained and capitalized on full dominion over their property (no taxes, eminent domain, or police access). Private property must exclude any other jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is law through violence. It means somebody else has control over your property, so you do not actually own it. You effectively lease it at the pleasure of the state, and they can take it away, charge rent, etc.

If one supports the violence of the state (taxation, regulation, by force), then either (a) one believes "the state" owns everything or (b) one supports violence as a legitimate means to accomplish one's goals. The first is illegitimate; that was never intended in any country except communist ones, and land was always taken by force, and the founders believed in private property to a greater extent than now even though they erred and allowed for some infringements; there can be no such thing as collective ownership (who can sell it, etc.; see The Objectivist Ethics etc. on private property and collective ownership). So once the veil is taken away, then what? We claim that our local legislatures own all property in their zone of control? Not them personally; the current officeholder? But if the property is to be transferred by a vote, then they don't own it either. So it's either unowned (and claimable) or owned by whoever's name is on the title deed (since the voluntary trading that brought it into possession could and likely would have happened the same way in a free society) and they are being illegitimately charged rent.

In a similar vein, the video The Story of Your Enslavement (text) contains some explanatory elements relating liberty and truly private property, free from the coercive interference of the state. Also related: Can the unseen be contracted away? where I consider the rights of property within other property (e.g., a car in an employer-owned parking lot, or even an individual).

<Previous 10 entries>