::::: : 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.

Cases in Constitutional Law #5: The death of federalism

Law ·Saturday September 18, 2010 @ 21:25 EDT (link)

It has been almost nine months since the last part in this series, covering the cases in Chapter 2, The Legislative Branch. My views may have become more voluntaryist since then (if possible), I don't generally disagree with any of my previous conclusions in the series (1 2 3 4). But going forward you will find two types of argument: one in the context of the Constitution as a binding document and state (general sense) power as legitimate, and another following the pure voluntaryist rationality of Spooner's "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority". While the second frame is fact, and moral, the first is the one we are, by main force, required to live in, so some examination of it seemed profitable to me at the time; but see below.

We resume with Chapter 3, The Executive Branch.

[] Ex Parte Milligan (1866): (Ex parte, Latin, from one party.) Milligan, a civilian, was arrested in the "military district" of Indiana by order of district commander General Hovey, and was tried in October 1864 by a military commission, found guilty of initiating insurrection and of various treasonous and disloyal practices, and was sentenced to death on May 19, 1865. On May 10, he sued for a writ of habeas corpus due to the unconstitutional character of the proceedings against him and claiming right of trial by jury. The supreme court (correctly) found that the president and congress did not have power to set up military tribunals except in an actual war zone where civil courts were not functioning; sadly, some of the justices thought that such tribunals could be set up by congress, albeit not by the president alone. From the majority opinion written by Justice Davis:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a theory leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.
This starts well, although of course it and any opinions of the court must argue within the frame of the Constitution as mentioned above, and it makes the common error of assuming the Constitution binds the people, who have made no contract to adhere to it, when it only binds the state, which has made such agreement: politicians and soldiers swear to uphold it. (Thus it can give no power over individuals, even, as the justice claimed, to preserve the existence of the state, but it does restrict the violence of the state, which is an immoral dominion in any case.) Note also the final hat-tip to "might makes right" in the matter of secession, a principle that the supreme court would generally not uphold except in this area where their very existence requires that they operate with blinders on. It is also sad to see the unlimited powers they ascribe to a commander of a military district so long as actual opposition is present—certainly the principles of the Revolution where the rights of free men to choose their own leaders are dashed (again, disregarding the error of majorities imposing their will on the rest for the present frame)—and the only sop thrown our way is that, "Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion" (emphasis mine) and "Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction." In a free society, it can never exist at all; but even its use in the War for Southern Independence was to assault the principle of federalism upon which the myth of the United States was built.

[] In re Neagle (1890): (In re, Latin, in the matter of, i.e., without adverse parties.) Supreme court justice Field, after deciding a matter against a Mrs. Terry, represented by her husband, was threatened with death by Mr. Terry should he return to California. Deputy marshal Neagle was detailed as a bodyguard for the judge. Terry tried to kill the judge in a railroad restaurant, but was shot by Neagle when he pulled out his knife (knife to a gunfight; really?) Local authorities arrested Neagle for murder, but he was released from their custody upon receipt of a writ of habeas corpus from the federal circuit court. The appointment of the Marshall was not through an act of congress but an executive order under authority of the president (i.e., through a federal department). The myth used to allow the release from state custody was that the marshal was acting in pursuance of the "law of the united states". The decision itself admitted that such would be taken into consideration in the murder case. This decision goes to increase the power of a national rather than federal government and gives federal actors unjustified immunity from the states that created them.

[] Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952):

This will be the end of this series. I have tried to re-engage with reading and writing about these cases, but with little success, and in a flash of clarity the reason came to me today (December 23) while I was wrapping some of my wife's Christmas gifts: the cases aren't important to me any more. My priorities, my viewpoints, have changed, and while the Constitution was a good start (as originally conceived, not as presently ignored), as a voluntaryist, examining the historical cases is still of some interest to me, as is the study of any history, but eventually it is just the rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. The Constitution is a document that creates the federal government as an agent of the several states; it is ultimately an apparatus of state, i.e., initiation of force against peaceful people, and as such the study of its failures and the encroachments of the state—or the occasional bone that the ruling apparatus throws in liberty's direction—is unhelpful to one concerned with freedom, although I reserve the right to make some limited and selective future commentary on cases if I feel I can gain from the examination. For further reading I would highly recommend all of Andrew Napolitano's books, which do an excellent job of examining the erosion of American liberties through abuse of the Constitution, as well as Mark Levin's book Men in Black. Some cases went well; some poorly; but in all they were decisions enforced by violence, and deep consideration to write in-depth commentary is unprofitable when compared to advocacy of freedom in pure form.

Many cheerful facts about the classes of SQLAlchemy

Technical ·Sunday September 12, 2010 @ 01:52 EDT (link)

Stashing some SQLAlchemy (Python database toolkit, the only decent one I found that was compatible with Python 3) / Elixir (declarative improvements library) declarative object details I learned from scouring the 'net and perusing the source in this space… may they prove useful for others. Some of this is better documented than others—check the PyDoc: sometimes I'm just pointing out useful things to check among a large set of methods or attributes.

Entity class inherits from Elixir's Entity class; entity object is instance of same. Its database-related attributes contain regular types (e.g., strings); nothing special. .table is a Table object, .mapper is a Mapper object. Table.columns (and .primary_key.columns) are iterable ColumnCollection objects (which inherit from util.OrderedProperties and can be manipulated as collections, cast to list, etc.), and contain Columns.

For introspection, examine the object's .__class__; declared fields and relationships appear as InstrumentedAttribute properties, whose .property (hence .p) attributes can be (at least) sa.orm.properties.ColumnProperty or .RelationshipProperty. Both have .key, matching the attribute name, and CPs have a .columns list (most have one item, a Column object, but composites are possible).

RPs have some more interesting properties: .table, the foreign Table object (or .target, or .argument for the entity class), .local_side and .remote_side, OrderedSets of Column objects (from each side of the relationship); .local_remote_pairs (.l_r_p), a list of tuples, with our Column object first; ..synchronize_pairs (.s_p), like previous as above, but with the "primary" ("one" in "one to many") Column object first and the foreign ("many") second:
Path.files.p.l_r_p == Path.files.p.s_p == File.path.p.s_p, distinct from File.path.p.l_r_p.
This allows some useful entity introspection, like finding linked tables. The debugger trick of import pdb; pdb.set_trace() is useful for examination (view __dict__, etc.).

Later note: to get a useful properties list, unfortunately one has to go to private attributes (their fault): the object has a hidden, private (by convention, because of the initial _) attribute _descriptor which is an (Elixir) EntityDescriptor with some interesting properties, the most useful of which seems to be .builders which is a list of (Elixir) Property objects (Field, Relationship). All have .name which is the attribute name and .entity which is the entity class. Fields have .colname (string) and .column (Column). Relationships (e.g. elixir.relationships.ManyToOne) have .property as the(SQLAlchemy) property object (ColumnProperty, RelationshipProperty, etc.), ._target, the foreign entity class, .colname (a list of strings), and .foreign_key (a list of Column objects in our table). It only includes user-added properties, unlike .mapper.iterate_properties which contains a hodge-podge of properties and columns (i.e., both when columns have been renamed).

Even later note: gave up on Elixir. It may work for very tiny toy projects, especially where nobody understands metaprogramming, but it's not robust or well-documented enough. Pure SQLAlchemy is better documented and better able to provide the required facilities.

First XBMC patches committed

News, Technical, Media ·Saturday September 11, 2010 @ 16:58 EDT (link)

I've had some patches committed to XBMC, although the main change, a refactoring of the scraper architecture with a view to adding the ability to use Python (and other) scrapers, is still being reviewed. Breaking up the initial single patch was my reason for learning git, which makes it easy to break up changes and also allows for local commits without pushing to the remote repository. It also makes it easy to sync remote changes "under" mine. (Curious: there's a routing problem somewhere in the depths of the 'net which makes accessing xbmc.org and subdomains very slow, so I've been accessing the forums and bug database from a remote server.)

The next part of the change is to actually implement a Python scraper interface. The easy way is to declare the media access methods in CScraper virtual and create CXmlScraper and CPythonScraper, and create the objects appropriately when the add-on data is read (it uses C-Pluff), interfacing with the internal Python objects to load and run the code. The better way that I'm considering—in part because I want to use Python 3 and not be restricted in the modules I can use—is to make a more general module interface, or rather, collaborate with jmarsmall on one he's been designing. Difficulty: the internal embedded Python has its hooks very deep. I hope to persist with this, and eventually, through making useful contributions, get commit access and possibly join Team-XBMC.

PS: I checked back on an old fix I'd made to rtorrent (a great console BitTorrent client, flexible and easy to automate), and found it had (finally!) been committed. (Five months ago… fix was 11 months ago… I hadn't checked for a while, since I have a local patch for my Gentoo ebuild, so it wasn't bothering me any more, but I'd hoped the contributed fix would help others.) That was just a fix for a crash; nothing so complicated as I'm trying to do with XBMC. Being able to fix bugs and contribute back is a great win.

Rebasing a branch (remote sync)

Technical ·Friday September 10, 2010 @ 23:00 EDT (link)

While there may be better ways to do this, the way I have found to do a remote sync and ensure that the unpushed changes in my local branch of my git repository are kept around is:
git co master (switch to main branch)
git pull --rebase (apply remote changes)
git co scraper-abstraction (back to my branch)
git rebase master (apply pulled changes to my branch)
Some of these may be unnecessary or extra steps, e.g. because some of the commands take a branch, so co (which I have aliased to checkout) may be unnecessary. I may be able to just do a pull into my branch, something like (on scraper-abstraction):
git pull --rebase <remote repository URL?>
and now that I think of it it probably makes no sense to rebase master; since master is "remote-tracking" (which is the reason I don't need to tell it the remote URL?), a plain git pull (merge) should suffice, followed by, as before, a switch back to my branch and a rebase from master.

After the git rebase, my (local) commits that had been committed to the remote repository disappeared, which was as expected (of course, they exist at the point they were committed to master).

Still trying to figure all this out, so help from experts is welcome.

FireWire and a union file system (aufs)

News, Technical ·Friday September 10, 2010 @ 19:01 EDT (link)

My first ever exposure to IEEE1394b (what Apple calls FireWire 800), which I opted for rather than (continuing with) USB due to the ability to chain devices rather than needing more and more sockets. My Syba PCIe card and Lacie d2 Quadra 2Tb external HD arrived Tuesday, and I finally got around to setting it up—fairly simple really, put in the card, connect the drive and format it ext3 (which holds its own quite well speed-wise against JFS, XFS, and Reiser, is better supported and more actively developed, and I know it well enough to fix a botched disk with a hex editor).

I also took the opportunity to upgrade the kernel (2.6.35) on the server and media machines, and did a little research and installed aufs (another union file system) (as it happened, the original unionfs failed to install). A union file system allows two physical drives to overlap in one directory—so movies stored on the new drive can appear in the same path as the old—without all the irreversible inconvenience of something like LVM. I did manage to get aufs to refuse to unmount once, though, with no files apparently in use, and forcing the module to remove lead to an understandable kernel BUG and instability until I restarted. But it's been well-behaved since, even shared over NFS.

Useful tools I learned about this weekend

News, Technical ·Monday September 6, 2010 @ 01:50 EDT (link)

A few useful programs I learned about or first started using this weekend: There's a lot of great open source code out there—and some reasonably decent closed source stuff too—seek and ye shall find.

Books finished: Lies the Government Told You.

The god of statists

Political, Theology ·Wednesday August 25, 2010 @ 22:26 EDT (link)

Statists and voluntaryists

First, "What's a statist?" Well, it's not a term I invented; see statism: "the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty." Effectively, anyone who places anything above individual rights to life, liberty, and property would generally fit, although there might be some gaps (e.g., a serial killer does not respect life, but wouldn't necessarily want centralized control either), although we are not concerned with those gaps here. The term also does not only include the obviously violent states of the past (Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and so on), but anyone that endorses the power (never the right) of a state to infringe on those rights. If you're for involuntary taxation (is there any other kind?) you're a statist, for example, because taxation is theft, either direct or through extortion ("Give us your money or we will kidnap you and lock you up").

The opposite of statist is voluntaryist. Voluntaryists believe in natural (or, God-given, or, objective) rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights are not handed out by anyone and cannot be taken by anyone, although they can be infringed by individuals and states. Taxation infringes on the right to property; regulating victimless acts (use of illegal or unapproved drugs) and the arrests that result when violations of these regulations are found, violate your right to liberty; and when the state murders people, either through "collateral damage" (various wars) or sheer bloodymindedness (Waco, Ruby Ridge), it violates the right to life. All people still deserve liberty—have the abstract right—but it can be infringed by the state confining someone into a locked cell. Since individuals have the right to liberty, though, there is nothing immoral about attempting escape (or, if you have the necessary force, stopping the agents of the state that attempt to kidnap you). (Now, it is a bad idea to use many drugs, and the consequences, largely of dependence and crimes done to obtain funds, can be deleterious to families, but that's a problem of particular use, not in the drugs themselves, just as killing someone with a car isn't the car's fault.)

You always have rights. Slaves had natural rights to life, liberty and property; but they could not exercise those rights as they were infringed and denied by evil individuals and governments. I'm not trying to claim that they really were free (they were clearly not) or that freedom is in the mind (that may be true in part; but it's hard to mentally overcome an iron collar around the neck and forced hard labor); just that their right to liberty is innate, not owned by others. As such, they would be morally right to escape—to claim their rightful freedom—by almost any means necessary (I say 'almost' because, for example, it wouldn't be right to kill other slaves not hindering your escape, even if somehow their deaths would promote said escape).

So, what was that about a god of statists?

I'm still hoping that someday statists will find some justification for the theft called "taxes" that doesn't involve mysticism (or at least one that survives universal application). Many of them claim to be atheists, but you're not much of an atheist if you can't justify your actions without a god. But their theft and coercion always ends up involving arbitrary imposition of random involuntary obligations. (One of those being the hand-waving unsigned mystical social contract, for example. There are other myths too, such as the US constitution.) I understand that it's not going to happen, because it cannot. I can't impose involuntary obligations on you, nor you on me; and there is no rational method that lets any other entity do so morally. You can't get there from here without a theological jump. The only difference is that my god doesn't (modulo the Old Testament, perhaps) impose himself on those that don't want him (although I'll concede his followers can sometimes be a little pushy… the Crusades, not a fun time for a lot of middle easterners).

This "god"—mystical entity that must be used to explain why what is immoral for everyone else is moral for the state's agents—is also called a "null zone" by Molyneux, concealed by "middle truths" such as the various statist myths enumerated earlier. The priests of this god are those such as Krugman and Keynes, providing Machiavellian justification for anything the state does, and it offers worshipers salvation in exchange for blind devotion and ignore the man behind the curtain saying theft is not justified either by the divine "right" of kings or will of a majority.

So what does God think about all this?

Absent an actual theocracy (with God in charge personally, not people claiming to speak for him), God would seem to prefer anarcho-capitalism. The Bible allows for property (or equivalently, individual stewardship), and condemns theft and initiations of force. That doesn't really leave much wiggle room. It does not condone taxation. I can understand how one might confuse oneself into thinking that, since, e.g. Jesus paid a tax, but giving in to threat of violence doesn't mean one condones it. Jesus wasn't, as some hoped at the time, planning on driving out the Romans. Giving in to their extortion helped illustrate that. "Render unto Caesar", as a general principle (vs. applying strictly to Caesar), is then "Give to those you owe, what you owe them" (or "what is theirs"; same idea). One could substitute, for example, the Washington state governor: "Render unto Christine Gregoire, what is Christine Gregoire's" (or to the President). But that includes absolutely nothing that I own, none of my income or my labor.

Collectivism

A major part of these myths involve collectivism or collectivist behavior: attribution of volition to a group, where no such volition can ever exist. Evil acts are "for the good of the state"; they are by "us"; the rights of the group trump those of the individual; and so on; Rothbard does it excellent justice in The Anatomy of the State. Statists will call for "balance" of the group will against the individual, but see past it to the call for violence to benefit the "chosen oligarchs of god"—the state-worshipers and those that can help the state gain power and influence. There is no such thing as a group will, any more than a flock of birds does anything outside the acts of individual birds.

Theft is immoral; initiating force is immoral. Raping someone isn't merely a disagreement of values, a quirk or pecadillo, it's objectively and universally an immoral act. There are universally preferable behaviors, and wrongs. (By "immoral", I mean a violation of the principle of non-aggression, rather than something more subjectively defined, such as using presently-illegal drugs which does not involve initiating force.)

If I washed someone's car and held a gun to their head and told them to pay me a vastly inflated price or I'd imprison them, they would consider that wrong. If the state did it for one of their services, a statist considers it a divine pronouncement that must be obeyed; the statist is inconsistent at best. Using violence on people to steal from them is immoral. It's not "contribution" to "society", it's theft for the doomed projects of the chosen oligarchs of god. Sometimes the claim is that people that don't want to be extorted are "freeloading"; but examine the definition and one sees there's nothing morally wrong with "freeloading" since it involves others voluntarily giving without obliging the recipient to any sort of return. Taking samples at the grocery store doesn't oblige repayment. Similarly, if one generation is robbed to build a bridge, future generations are in no wise obligated to repay them or anyone else for that bridge. (The only obligation incurred by robbery is to return the stolen property. The state did the stealing, not the future generations, who had no choice in the matter.) Furthermore nobody is even claiming that taxes go to "pay back" past generations. Voluntaryists would love to pay for services they wanted and used in a free market, rather than one in which violence is used to suppress competition.

Voluntaryists, then, ask statists: Put down the gun, and then we'll talk. But once a statist stops relying on violence as a means, it is over, for they are statist no longer.

Books finished: Crossroads of Twilight.

Symlink trees

Technical, Media ·Friday August 13, 2010 @ 00:36 EDT (link)

BitTorrent downloads: I want to keep the original in case there's a problem and I lose a file (disk corruption, accidental deletion) and want to download it—much faster if the rest of the set is there—but I like to rename everything my own way. Solution: symlink trees (pointing to a non-browesable location).

Books finished: Ysabel, Constitutional Chaos.

The morally dubious power of identity

Political ·Tuesday August 10, 2010 @ 22:11 EDT (link)

Some speakers and writers I've been reading or listening to lately include: These are good spokespeople against or advisers of others that are of the same particular class or group as them; yet they should not be necessary. Or, rather, it should not be necessary that a person be part of the same class as a person or legislation being criticized to attain immunity or be taken seriously. (This is also entirely distinct from their experience which can be invaluable.) Some see it as more powerful to hear from a black person that Obama is a bad president—because it takes away the fallacious claim of racism, for one thing, or from a disabled person that the ADA is generally detrimental waste—but it should not be so. Facts and arguments should stand alone despite the source. And I would recommend reading or hearing any of the people listed entirely on their own merits.

Hiking at Olallie State Park

News ·Sunday August 8, 2010 @ 19:04 EDT (link)

Nice little hike at Olallie State Park; about 45 minutes to get there from Redmond (it's right at I-90 exit 38). I stopped at the picnic area/ranger residence first, didn't see anything interesting, so went on to the next stop and walked the short trail near the falls lookout (I didn't notice the scale, and thought it would be much longer). Nice view of the falls and some nice access points to the river. I then drove back to the Homestead Valley Road trailhead and figured I'd head down the trail to Iron Horse and Twin Falls parks and see how far I could get (started 1600, planned on heading back after an hour if I hadn't gotten there yet). The first part was a bike trail—it overlapped the John Wayne pioneer trail—and had a number of raspberry bushes alongside, with some ripe berries.

I ended up hiking all the way to the twin falls, but wasn't really in shape for such a hike and had trouble coming back (fortunately I had brought plenty of water and some food). Every hill I crested would bring another, which I was sure I couldn't climb, but then I did. The car was a site for sore eyes indeed. It was a little over five miles round trip and took about two hours, with some beautiful forest scenery even on a somewhat overcast day (which also kept the people down). I ran into a wedding party taking pictures when I came out of one trail, near the ranger residence. I didn't take my camera, though, so no pictures—just wanted to hike.

I'd like to get back to hiking consistently so a short hike like this isn't so tough. Maybe next time the Seattle Anarcho-Capitalists hike I'll go along.

Books finished: A Nation of Sheep, The Color of Magic.

<Previous 10 entries>