Blog 400 | The Libertarian Institute

Blog

The Currency of Life

by Ryan Burgett | Apr 26, 2019 | Blog

At tax time each year, I am always reminded of the value of life. While we pay taxes using money, the reality is that we ultimately only have one real currency to spend, and it is our lives. Our lives are each unique, one of a kind, and they are the most valuable resources on the earth. But, like all valuable resources, our lives are limited. We only have one life to live, and we measure that life in terms of time.

Imagine that your life will last eighty-five years. That means that you have eighty-five years of life to spend or 744,600 hours to spend. Over the course of your life, whether you realize it or not, you are spending that time. Every moment is a value judgment of what you want to spend your time on. If you spend two hours watching an enjoyable movie, you have traded two hours of your seven hundred something thousand hours to gain the pleasure and enjoyment that came from watching it.

When you work at a job, you are literally trading chunks of your life, of your limited time, to gain another kind of currency that is more easily traded for goods and services. If you spend X number of hours of your limited life to gain Y amount of money, that money is actually the physical manifestation of your time investment. It is the physical manifestation of the time that you spent to receive it. If you hold that money in your hand, you are holding the physical manifestation of part of your life.

As an agorist, I realize that I own my life. I know that my time is mine to spend, and the things that I trade parts of my life for are mine to keep. Tax time reminds me of the value of life because taxation is, unfortunately, where a group of people decide that they are allowed to literally steal chunks of your life from you. As they see it, your life is theirs to spend.

Agorism is fundamentally opposed to this way of thinking because agorism understands that our lives are our own and what we do with our lives are up to us. There will only be one me in all of human history. There will only be one you in all of human history. It feels like an understatement to say that life is invaluable. There is no adequate word to describe how valuable each of our lives are. We each exist for a short time, and live a completely unique life with entirely unique experiences. Nobody will ever live your life ever again. This currency of each of our lives can only be spent once.

So, make the most of your life. Do your best to spend it in ways that best benefit you and your family, not megalomaniacs on counterfeit thrones.

Originally posted at: https://technoagorist.com/4

Techno-Agorist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjWlrSuf4b4eApnFX9o82BA

Techno-Agorist on iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/techno-agorist/id1458773157

Techno-Agorist is a production of the MLGA Network. Find more great content at: https://mlganetwork.com

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

In A Rothbardian Society, The Legislators Are: Private Property Owners

by Zack Sorenson | Apr 25, 2019 | Blog

I stupidly left out important verbiage from this article.

I said that consumers are the legislators in a Rothbardian society (rights protection firms the executive, judgement firms the judicial). What I meant is that private property owners are the legislators.

When do the rulings from a decentralized market of judges become law? As private property owners declare public allegiance to precedent. This is the last piece of a complete paradigm of law in a Rothbardian society.

When you enter someone’s property, you would know the law which applies there (probably via a sign very much similar to what we have now: “warning these premises are monitored for public safety”). One function of judicial firms could be to establish a current body of common law. “Equifax Common Code 2019.1 in effect”. These codes could, through precedent, have set times where there are meant to cycle over to a replacement (lacking a replacement, defer to the previous code). There could be standards about making the code that a proprietor applies to their property very clear. Lack of clarity about what law is applied in a place could be a basis for absolution of a crime, and the victim party could sue the private property owner where the crime occurred for negligence in this case.

Still, as precedent emerges, judicial firms could also build them into a legal code which they update for use periodically. These codes would greatly simplify and unify the enforcement of law in a marketplace. “Which codes are the parties invoking, if any, in this ruling?” would be the first question of a judge. Reconciling different codes would be a key function of a libertarian judge.

Regardless, there would and should be clear declarations about which bodies of law apply when and where in Ancapistan. It’s just, the people entitled to do this would be private property owners. Now there’s your market of law!

This little nuance about who legislates is interesting to me because of what it implies about contemporary foreign policy. The United States could pass an amendment which unilaterally subjects all agents of the US government to a body of law which treats all humans as equal under the law (no Gitmo, constitution free zones, carpet bombing because those poor bastards are in the wrong place at the wrong time). This would immediately end all abuses of the US government at home and abroad. However, what happens when the Marines try to knock on some Russian oligarch’s door with a “warrant” – in Moscow?

Firm reliance on an immutable system of law (as opposed to whims or commands of a ruler) is a good start, but such a practice needs a paradigm of reconciling different systems. This could include something as crass as tribute payments or state-to-state bribes. So what? War costs money, anyway. Imagine if China racked up a “favors” trade imbalance with the US (pretty please don’t bootleg DVDs anymore, we’ll trade you copyright laws for our opposition to your oil claims in Philippine waters)! A market for international dispute resolution which prices international grievances against each other in a market where nations can trade on them. I imagine the war profiteers would lose money to the underwriters fast.

Napster, File Sharing, and Private Property

by Ryan Burgett | Apr 25, 2019 | Blog

In 1999, a teenager named Shawn Fanning creating a file sharing application called Napster which took the world by storm. This application revolutionized how MP3 audio files could be shared. Anybody who was into computers at that time can remember how amazing it was to log into there and instantly find nearly any MP3 file that you wanted. One of the things that made Napster so cool was that it did not actually host the files which you downloaded using the application. Instead, Napster was a p2p or “person to person” application. When you wanted an audio file, Napster would connect your computer with another person’s computer who had that file and then your computer would download the file directly from them. Then, once you had downloaded the files, your computer would begin sharing them as well.

Some people didn’t like this. One of my favorite bands, Metallica, and their drummer, Lars Ulrich, led the charge to stop Napster. Metallica claimed that people were sharing their music and that they were being more-or-less being cheated out of potential profits.

Now, I can understand why Metallica would want people to purchase their music rather than download it from other people’s computers. I can’t fault them for being reluctant to change their profit model in the midst of changing technology. But, history is full of industries growing and changing as a result of technology. Most people prefer the status quo. It feels safe and predictable. Technology, though, is not safe and predictable. Innovation happens, new technologies appear, and people and industries then need to adjust to the new norm. Wheelwrights and the wooden-wheel-making industry used to be central to everyday life. But, when the technological landscape changed, that industry all but died out. I can understand why the wheelwrights would have preferred to continue doing what they were doing, but they eventually had to change their profit models, they had to find new ways to use their skills to make a living.

Well, the music industry did not want to change, they did not want to update their profit models in the midst of changing technology. So, they decided to use government violence to try and stop the technology. They wanted to prevent people from sharing files between their computers. But, I have to stop here and ask a question. Who owns your computer? Who owns my computer? Who has the right to decided what your hardware can and cannot be used for? Did Lars Ulrich and Metallica buy your computer? Do they own your hard drive? Do outdated record companies have more rights over your own property than you do?

Questions like this always come back to property rights, and the reality is that what you do with your property in your home is your decision and your decision alone. Your property, your choice. Our rights only extend only to our own property, despite the machinations of politicians, regressives, and luddites. Some people will always be around to pretend that they have more rights over your life and your property than you do, but an agorist doesn’t care. We do what is best for ourselves and our families. We embrace technology and don’t use violence to prop up dying profit models.

Even though the entertainment industry still has a long way to go, Napster and the people who shared files person to person ended up changing the face of entertainment. Since that time, we have seen the birth of iTunes and Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, Netflix, and countless other places where you can go to get music, movies, and other forms of entertainment on demand. Those all came about because of changing technology and a population who refused to limit themselves when better means of media consumption came along.

Don’t be like Lars Ulrich and Metallica, trying to control what others do. Instead, be an agorist and make the most of your time, energy, and property. The status quo will eventually catch up.

Originally posted at: https://technoagorist.com/3

Techno-Agorist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjWlrSuf4b4eApnFX9o82BA

Techno-Agorist on iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/techno-agorist/id1458773157

Techno-Agorist is a production of the MLGA Network. Find more great content at: https://mlganetwork.com

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Hahaha. God I Hope Hillary Runs

by Scott Horton | Apr 25, 2019 | Blog

I know she said she wasn’t going to, but she must be looking at this weak field and thinking, “I really am the most electable one around here.”

I do worry that I might die laughing before my real time is due, but it might be worth it.

Wrongful Use or Threat of Capital Prosecutions: Official misconduct by police and/or prosecutors is the leading cause

by Steven Woskow | Apr 25, 2019 | Blog

Official misconduct by police and prosecutors and perjured testimony (not errors) are the number one contributing factor to wrongful homicide convictions according to data from the The Death Penalty Information Center. The report summarizes data from the National Registry of Exonerations annual report on wrongful convictions. In 2018, they recorded a record 151 new exonerations across the United States, including 68 exonerations resulting from wrongful homicide convictions. Two of those exonerations freed death-row prisoners.

A record number of the exonerations in 2018 were the product of wrongful convictions obtained by police and/or prosecutorial misconduct (107) or perjury/false accusation (111), with both often occurring in combination. The two also were the leading factors contributing to wrongful homicide convictions, 79.4% of which involved police and/or prosecutorial misconduct (54 cases) and 76.5% of which involved perjury/false accusation (52 cases). Historically, those two factors are the leading causes of wrongful capital convictions. Both were present in more than two-thirds of the homicide exonerations (47 cases, 69.1%) in 2018, including the wrongful capital convictions of Benavides and Aquirre. DNA evidence helped to exonerate 14 of those wrongfully convicted of homicide in 2018, only 20.1% of homicide exonerations. The prosecution presented perjured testimony or false witness accusations in all of the murder cases involving DNA, and police and/or prosecutorial misconduct was also present in more than 60% of those cases. DNA helped to rebut false or misleading forensic evidence presented by the prosecution in five of the homicide exonerations.

The Death Penalty Information Center has examined our exoneration database and cross-referenced it with the National Registry of Exonerations information on death-row exonerations in the last decade (between 2007 and April 2017) to determine the most common factors that contributed to the wrongful convictions and death sentences for the most recent exonerees. The data for the 34 cases in the NRE database shows that the wrongful capital prosecutions involved more than mere errors. Every one of these cases involved some combination of official misconduct, perjury or false accusation, or false or misleading forensic evidence; and more than three-quarters (26 cases, 76.5%) involved at least two of these factors. Fewer than one-tenth of the cases (3, 8.8%) involved a single wrongful cause. 91.2% (31 cases) had multiple contributing factors and nearly half (16 cases, 47.1%) had three or more contributing causes.