::::: : 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.

An eye, quite literally, for an eye

News, Law ·Saturday May 14, 2011 @ 21:09 EDT (link)

Recently the National Review article "Sulphuric Injustice" was brought to my attention. It involves an Iranian man and woman; the man pursued the woman romantically:
She rejected his advances, whereupon he threw a bucket of sulphuric acid over her. In spite of seventeen operations her face is still appallingly disfigured, unrecognizable, and she remains blinded. Under the operative [Islamic] law of retribution, known as qisas, she has the right to blind him, literally to take “an eye for an eye.” The man’s father, and bodies like Amnesty, have tried to pressure her into showing mercy. She would relent, she says, if she received two million euros to take care of her future needs. In the absence of money, she will have retribution. A doctor is due today to pour sulphuric acid into the man’s eyes.
The punishment is just. It is generous of the victim to offer an alternate acceptable compensation, even though it would seem difficult for the man to reach on his own. But let us see how much he manages to raise after all those that think the punishment is wrong donate money to his cause. Perhaps the (neo)conservatives expressing horror at this most direct and equitable form of justice will tell us how much they donated toward his cause?

Some call the punishment torture. That is false. It is not torture. It is equal retribution in return for what was done to her—not the causing of pain for its own sake, or to extract information. Not everything that causes pain is torture (nor is everything that doesn't cause pain excluded, i.e., waterboarding; there are many psychological forms of torture).

Others have called for execution of the man because he "destroyed her life". But that would not fit the crime committed (even the Godfather understood this much, as Dr. Block pointed out at a recent convention), because the man did not kill anyone. When you use figures of speech ("destroying her life") as justification for punishment (execution), you leave the realm of moral retribution and enter into the arbitrary (read: random, political) penalties of the present system (e.g., Oklahoma's recent 10-year prison sentence against a woman for selling $31 of marijuana, a victimless non-crime act that morally allows for no harm in response). The commission of a crime does not imply the giving up of all rights: and only killing allows the infringement of the right to life. A thief, for example, may be restrained with necessary force to ensure the return of what was taken, but not beaten for the sick pleasure of the police. That would not be justice, but assault and battery, and itself requires retribution and reparations.

Where would the justice be in the Western-style idea of locking the man up with three squares a day at taxpayer expense for a number of years? The taxpayers have not wronged the man; why should they suffer? The man has not wronged "society"—that fetid myth used to justify imprisonment—but a specific woman who is owed reparations and retribution. She has seen fit to forgo just retribution in return for a sum of money, as is her right, but not her obligation.

Forcing a doctor to participate, if that is indeed occurring (quite possibly he sees it as a religious duty), is also wrong; let the woman do it herself if she has the stomach for it. The man receives better than he deserves having his wickedness returned to him under the precise care of a doctor, who will also be there to care for him throughout.

Perhaps if we looked at the principles involved rather than leaping to conclusions and answers based on emotional reaction or our own cultural traditions, we would make progress. Note: I do not say not to judge other cultures, because they may frequently be wrong too; but here, they have provided for justice.

But did not the Lord himself tell us to reject the Old Testament's "eye for an eye" and instead "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38-9)? Indeed; unfortunately for this man, the lady is not a Christian, and seems disinclined to show mercy. The principle of justice remains; the New Testament adds mercy, but does not replace the justice of the Old. Does the lex talionis make the world blind, like the adage? Clearly not: the buck stops here; plenty of sighted people will remain afterward; so much for that banal balderdash.

Even if this were not an Islamic country, and others were inclined to get involved, they have no right: just like Adam can't give Bob permission to hit Craig, Daniel can't forgive Ethan for hitting Fred, nor compel Fred to forsake the justice (reparations and retribution) due him. Nor may an agency, such as the state in modern society, morally do this: the thing is between victim and criminal, although agencies working for each may aid and facilitate, or may attempt to persuade and negotiate (as Amnesty is doing here), or third parties may offer money or other considerations to the victim in place of retribution. But the enforcement of arbitrary penalties (most heinously against non-crimes), and the compulsion to forgo justice owed, are utterly immoral and barbaric acts of the state.

Books finished: Asking the Right Questions, Soul of the Fire, The Ethics of Liberty.

Interventionism, isolationism, and protectionism

Political, Economics ·Tuesday May 10, 2011 @ 00:01 EDT (link)

Interventionism is seeing that the guy next door (with the scary Arab name) bought a gun for protection, and killing him and his entire family and burning down his house before he starts something. The important thing to note here is that US interventionism (1) doesn't target only the guilty (i.e., people that have harmed those that want US protection; set aside for a moment that funding for such protection is coerced from US taxpayers), but is very indiscreet about who is killed, and (2) attacks people for opinions, not actions. That is a problem, and naturally provokes hostile responses.

Isolationism brings to mind the guys living self-sufficiently on a compound, wanting nothing to do with the outside world. They don't want to see visitors; they don't want to trade with them; they may be hostile when they show up at the door; they may defend themselves if the visitors try to force their way in. And that is their choice (unless a state is forcing it on them). Very much Japan or China before Western contact was forced on them. In modern politics, it's mostly used as a straw man argument, since nobody wants it. Trade is beneficial to both parties.

Protectionism is indeed an economic measure, as said above, although it can also involve initiation of force to stop trade entirely, rather than initiation of force to extort tariffs from voluntary traders. It tends to harm the vast mass of consumers in that they get an inferior product at a higher price, but it's very good for some local producers (until they go out of business entirely due to overseas businesses eating their lunch; see also "rust belt") and unions, and they tend to lobby for such violence to protect their overpaid and inefficient jobs at the expense of everyone else in the nation.

Now we can get to non-interventionism: it is the idea that people should only fight in self-defense (imminent threat or actual harm, not mere potential): if the neighbor buys a gun, keep an eye on him all you like, but don't shoot first unless he points it at you. It is the idea that trade (including tourism and immigration) is beneficial (due to the economic concept of comparative advantage) and should not be interfered with (oppose: isolationism, which would oppose trade). Since protectionism is intervention, in general non-interventionists would oppose it, too.

Sunshine makes the state grow

Political, Economics ·Saturday May 7, 2011 @ 17:51 EDT (link)

There is I find a correlation to having great natural resources and high taxation and welfare statism. Areas with such resources - international ports like NYC, or sunny California - can attract more people, ceteris paribus, than other areas. They are in effect high-demand. So they can raise taxes without significantly affecting their population (to a point) whereas some town in Alabama could not because people would just move (not to pick on Alabama, just as an example). Heck, economically it's sound (if we disregard that taxation is coercion rather than a market price) to charge whatever the market will bear until equilibrium price (and population) is reached; look instead at property prices if you will (location, location, location!)

But then the governments of these high tax places have all this money coming in: they're not going to give it back, in fact, they're going to use it to entrench themselves in power forever by buying votes with any and all welfare programs under the sun. And so, almost literally sunshine makes government grow. And the system feeds on itself: people now want to go to these places because of the freebies, so they can keep taxing and buying votes. Except eventually you get somewhat of an Atlas Shrugged strike - except instead of moving to a gulch people move to other states or even countries. And the paying base dries up but the demand for goodies remains, explaining California's inability to pay its bills. Part of that is the stupidity of allowing governments to make promises beyond the ends of their terms, of course - they don't care, they'll be retired by then.

What the nanny-staters like to do then is federalize the problem. Much like it might not have been profitable for individual business owners to be racist and not do business with blacks back in the day - they would have lost a large amount of custom (although blacks may have generally been poor, stack enough of them together and you're talking a lot of money) - they would have lost to those without such policies - but if the town, county, or state forces everyone to segregate, or to not serve blacks, then the cost is socialized and racism becomes reasonably profitable. Similarly, if nanny states can push programs to the federal level, they force everyone to take the penalty of the tax (but also let state legislators and others have the vote-buying power of the welfare, which they like), so that moving to another state is no longer an option to avoid particular taxes and welfare. They are surely working to internationalize these programs so that one can't even escape with overseas operations.

Coffee with Kirby

News, Political, Guns ·Saturday May 7, 2011 @ 16:20 EDT (link)

I attended "Coffee with Kirby" (meetup), a PSCU event with Kirby Wilbur, the new chair of the Washington state Republican party, held at the Bothell library (1400-1530). It was quite well attended—the large ring of chairs had to be expanded several times to fit more people in—although there weren't many younger people present, unfortunately, although Kirby claimed that many of the staff at the state GOP HQ are young people which is positive.

Kirby had some good ideas to help turn former close races into Republican wins, and talked about a few candidates that last time around received little or no help from the party but still did very well; he reckoned with perhaps $5 or $10,000 from the state party those close races could have become victories. There was a bit of a discussion about the state and marriage and he seemed open to the idea that it's not the state's business. He wants to ensure that each county has a website and is involved with negotiations to set that up at a reasonable price through the national organization. He seems focused and to have some good ideas so we'll see where that goes in upcoming elections and events.

I didn't like his ranking of Reagan and Lincoln as the top two American presidents, but I accept that the brainwashing is deep and wide and won't hold it against him. I prefer this C4L list (which provides sound justification for their rankings), which has Lincoln as the worst (primarily because of the number of people killed in the war he started, the draft, destruction of the South, the income tax, …) and Reagan as 13th worst (due to Iran Contra, armed intervention everywhere, escalation of the Drug War, but points out that he did cut some taxes and regulation). Truly the president that governed best, interfered least, to borrow from Jefferson.

A woman there (I didn't get her name—Ann?) presented her idea of a Conservatives Serving America union as an idea to generate awareness by charitable giving with a conservative label on it. It was pointed out that the acronym was a bit unfortunate (CSA—Confederate States of America).

I saw Lori (from CLAMS) there but didn't get a chance to meet Ellin (if she was there). I brought my laptop; Bothell library has a decent wireless connection which was convenient.

I was approached by a nice couple afterward who thanked me for open carrying; I expect they too will be carrying at the next event, so I was happy to have been able to spread awareness of and encourage exercise of these rights. I told them about some good local ranges (WCA and SVRC) and such (and reassured them that neither was the one around here that is anti-camo and requires loading only one round at a time). We talked a little about Rothbard, since I mentioned I was finishing one of his books—turns out the guy had met him at a Mises course a while back—and about The Patriot's Guide to American History which I'm making my way through now and Zinn's The People's Guide to American History which we had both read and thought it well done.

I went over to WCA afterward to shoot my Springfield Armory XDM-9 and 1911 EMP… it was a good day.

Second amendment rally in Olympia

News, Political, Guns ·Saturday April 30, 2011 @ 17:03 EDT (link)

Previous imageEnlargeCloseNext image
Image of
We drove down to the Second Amendment Rally in Olympia (the state capital) today; the crowd wasn't that big but we did see some friends and there were a couple good speakers. I didn't bring out the flag—not enough wind, not enough of a crowd; too distracting with so few people.

I'm not sure what effect the rally had, to be honest; the legislators (except for the state senator that spoke) were surely all taking an (undeserved) weekend break. But it was good to be together with like-minded people; perhaps a venue with more passing traffic would have been better for awareness, however.

(Went to West Coast Armory range to shoot Friday evening—just pistols, all of them but the Buck Mark and Honey's XDM 3.8. We also stopped at McDonald's on the way home—open carrying, with no comments.)

Agorism in today's TV dramas

News, Political, Media ·Friday April 29, 2011 @ 00:11 EDT (link)

This seems new. It may just be that I've become more sensitive to it. But so many drama shows today seem to involve elements of agorism—society without the state, either circumventing, ignoring, evading, or providing superior alternatives to it, and not only doing so—after all, the plethora of pro-thuggery cop shows present that angle occasionally—but promoting such acts as right, superior to the state, and defending harmless acts of capitalism between consenting adults.

People are reacting negatively to excesses of law and order (and to the show franchises of the same name… and the attitudes demonstrated on them that the state can do no wrong, although some of that is gradually improving): bad laws and their enforcement, or bad cops, are news at Internet speed.

Here are a few of the shows and the voluntaryist or agorist practices they demonstrate: Are there any I missed? Am I stretching things, or seeing a trend that isn't there?

Where stops the buck?

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

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

Or is it the major that ordered him?

Or the colonel that made the strategic plan?

Or the general that gave him his objectives?

Or the politicians that started the war?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural political progression

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anarcho-capitalist flag stand

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

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

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

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

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

Atlas Shrugged part I movie

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

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

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

<Previous 10 entries>