Blackmoor Vituperative

Fun fact! The US Post Office is one of the very, very few parts of our federal government that is authorized by our Constitution:

“The Congress shall have Power […] To establish Post Offices and post Roads;”
— US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 7

(That same clause authorizes what we today call the US Interstate Highway System.)

As for the USPS losing money, it does and it doesn’t. It routinely makes more than it spends on actual operating costs. The “losing billions” that people sometimes refer to pertains to payments made into a fund for employees’ future retirement for the next 75 years. These payments are the result of a 2006 law passed by Congress, and it’s a requirement that is imposed on no other public or private institution.

But when you see people talk about the Post Office “losing billions”, that’s what they are talking about: failure to pay into a fund for the future health and retirement benefits for people who are not yet born.

If I were conspiratorially minded, I would think that this unique requirement was imposed on the USPS specifically to drive it out of business, by the same people who today call for its privatization because it “loses billions”. But that’s just crazy, right?

Happy Mother’s Day, Moms of America! Now go back to work.

I agree more with libertarians than I do with any other political cubbyhole that I have been able to find, but I think I might not actually be libertarian. Libertarianism is all about putting theory into practice, without exception (that theory being, in essence, “an it harm none, do what ye will“). There are, as far as I know, few libertarians who consider financial exploitation “harm” (I may, in fact, be the only one). But I think one would have to be deliberately blind to look at the USA around us and fail to see the harm done by financial exploitation.

Being “rich” in the USA in 2015 means you have a house and you can pay your bills.

That’s messed up, and it’s getting worse every year.

The thing is, twenty years ago, I was a hardcore libertarian. I sincerely believed that the world would be better if there were no laws preventing, say, an employer from tracking your every move, 24 hours a day. I sincerely believed that the world would be better if there were no laws requiring cars to be safer, or requiring employers to pay no less than a certain minimum, and so on. I didn’t believe these things because I wanted people to be underpaid and driving death traps — I believed that freedom of choice would result in the greater good. So what has changed in the past twenty years? What changed my mind?

Seeing how the world actually works for twenty years is what changed my mind. Because in theory, if everyone is free to choose, they can all choose not to work for employers who invade the medical privacy of every applicant. In theory, they can choose not to work for $2.13 an hour.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

It has come to my attention that there are people who think what someone says actually matters. Allow me to educate you: what someone says does not matter. What they do matters. What someone says is only important if it has been shown to accurately reflect what they do. For example, PETA says they are advocates for animals’ rights, but what they do is kill every animal they can. For another example, the Republican party says it stands for smaller government, but what it does is expand the power and cost of government at every turn.

You are what you do, not what what you say. Aristotle knew this 2400 years ago: so what’s your problem?

Would a “minimum wage” be necessary in a libertarian society? No, it wouldn’t. But we do not live in a libertarian society. We live in a society where corporate interests are capable of distorting the market at the expense of human beings who wish to support themselves by earning an honest living.

Many, many people have erroneous beliefs concerning a “minimum wage”. It is true that a higher minimum wage would raise the cost of some items — but only those items which are currently manufactured or provided by people who are currently being paid less-than-subsistence wages, and only as much as the cost of that labor contributes to the cost of those items or services.

In reality, raising the minimum wage to a level that would actually permit a human being to survive through honest work would be a very small net loss to people who are currently paid more than the proposed “minimum wage” (whatever wage that may be), and a significant net gain to those those are currently being paid less than that amount. Yes, it is a transfer of wealth, but it is a countermeasure to the existing transfer of wealth that permits large corporations (not people, not small businesses — corporations, large ones) to use their economic power to artificially suppress wages.

No, a “minimum wage” would not be necessary in a libertarian society, but while we work toward that goal, let’s make sure that people suffering under the current far-from-libertarian regime can trade their honest labor to support themselves. When we do have a libertarian society, and a minimum wage is a quaint historical curiosity, then we can (and should) get rid of it. Until then, we have much larger problems.

Personally, I think the minimum wage should be raised to $15/hour.

Most of the time, we know Russell Brand as the goofball douche-monster best known for his (former) drug use, promiscuity, and obnoxiousness (oh, and his brief marriage to Katy Perry). But when the guy gets up on his soap box, he can be lethal, as these MSNBC anchors found at in June when he humiliated them on live television. The guy can display moments of pure brilliance, and when he gets a head of steam behind him on social and political issues, he’s one of the most charming, eloquent, and thoughtful guys in the entertainment industry.

Take, for example, this interview with Russell Brand with Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman on the BBC yesterday. Paxman basically tries to shame Brand for broadcasting his political opinions despite the fact that Brand doesn’t vote, and Brand does a brilliant job of upending his argument, demonstrating why voting in this system doesn’t amount of a hill of goddamn beans given all the injustice of the economic disparities we are facing.

(from Underestimate the Intelligence of Russell Brand at Your Own Peril, Pajiba)

I have been voting since I was old enough to do so, but I confess that I, too, have suffered from “weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations.” I think he’s entirely too optimistic about the possibility of change, though. Power exists to perpetuate itself, and I am not aware of any effort to restructure society in a more egalitarian fashion that has been successful.

To me, voting is like trying to affect the trajectory of a bowling ball by leaning to one side while it rolls down the lane. It accomplishes nothing, but it makes me feel better.

P.S. Here’s a follow-up video shared with me by Roger Carden.

New Zealand has finally passed a new Patents Bill that will effectively outlaw software patents after five years of debate, delay, and intense lobbying from multinational software vendors.
What’s hot on ZDNet

Aptly named Commerce Minister Craig Foss welcomed the modernisation of the patents law, saying it marked a “significant step towards driving innovation in New Zealand”.

“By clarifying the definition of what can be patented, we are giving New Zealand businesses more flexibility to adapt and improve existing inventions, while continuing to protect genuine innovations,” Foss said.

The nearly unanimous passage of the Bill was also greeted by Institute of IT Professionals (IITP) chief executive Paul Matthews, who congratulated Foss for listening to the IT industry and ensuring that software patents were excluded.

Matthews said it was a breakthrough day “where old law met modern technology and came out on the side of New Zealand’s software innovators”.

(from New Zealand bans software patents, ZDNet)

One small step on the long road to sanity. A few more steps I would like seen taken:

• Eliminate patents on life forms or portions of life forms
• Eliminate trademarks on fictional characters (copyright covers those)
• Eliminate “works for hire” (the abuse of which has been rampant for decades)
• Shorten copyright protection to a reasonable period (20 to 30 years is more than generous)

Of course, if these steps are ever taken, the USA will be the last to take them. When it comes to sanity with respect to patent, trademark, and copyright, I look toward New Zealand and the European Union to lead the way to a more reasonable future.

I had an idea for a political cartoon. There would be three people at a table, and in each panel they would each say something, expressing their opinion about a topic. The first person believes in creationism, that there’s no evidence for evolution, that evolution is a plot by satanists and atheists, etc. The other two people would follow a similar pattern, but with homophobia and “gun control”, respectively (e.g., there’s no evidence that homosexuality is natural or that guns save lives, it’s all a plot by the gay Jews in Hollywood or the gun lobby and the NRA, etc.). In the final panel, they would each say that “90% of Americans support…” their own particular brand of ignorance, hatred, and irrational fear.

It’s too wordy for a cartoon, though. Also, it strikes me as a bit unkind. Just because someone has a different opinion, even an opinion I consider hateful and ignorant, that alone doesn’t make them a bad person. It’s not that simple: even genuinely good and kind people can have genuinely horrific opinions. Human beings are complicated.

“Human kindness can be found in all groups, even those which as a whole it would be easy to condemn.”
— Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

First, let me be clear: there are no secret (or not so secret) FEMA prison camps, and if there were secret prison camps, they would be operated by the military, not by FEMA. So let’s just move that conspiracy theory off to the side, because the whole “FEMA prison camp” thing is at least two different flavors of nonsense.

However, the suggestion that such a thing could never happen here ignores a very important fact: it has already happened here.

There are people alive today who remember when FDR issued an executive order to arrest and imprison tens of thousands of US citizens (and nearly as many legal immigrants) without trial or due process of any kind — and in 1944 the US Supreme Court declared this a valid exercise of Executive power under the authority granted him by the US Constitution. That didn’t happen in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany — that happened here (the USA).

So while stories about FEMA internment camps is a bunch of crackpot nonsense, I think it takes a special sort of hubris to think something like that could never happen here again.

Ten years ago, the idea of the US government spying on its citizens, intercepting their emails or killing them with drones was unthinkable. But now it’s business as usual, says John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent and torture whistleblower.

Kiriakou is now awaiting a summons to start a prison sentence. One of the first to confirm the existence of Washington’s waterboarding program, he was sentenced last week to two-and-a-half years in jail for revealing the name of an undercover agent. But even if he had another chance, he would have done the same thing again…

(from ‘US a police state, Obama consciously allows torture’ – CIA veteran John Kiriakou, RT.com)

Susan said this earlier and it struck me really funny, so I made a meme for it.