Glibertarians.com 2019 Archive

Category: Standard Libertarian Disclaimer

  • A Case Against Charity, SLD

    Many libertarians have argued that government welfare stifles charity to the detriment of the community.  Every time food stamps are introduced, a food pantry closes.  When a free clinic opens a religious hospital closes.  I would argue that both government welfare and charity are detrimental to the economy at large and to the individual.  Think of dollars not so much as currency, but as units of work.  A worker spends X number of hours working every week providing a valuable service people willingly exchange their hard earned money to consume.  Labor has been provided by both parties with fiat currency exchanged to the benefit of both sides.  It is a core tenant of free marketeers that all trades are mutually beneficial, otherwise both parties would not agree to the transaction.  When we look at charity, we see that the transaction is inefficient.  What I mean by that is the person providing the charity has provided monies, but has received no labor.  It is the small scale equivalent of paying half the country to dig holes and the other half to fill them to provide 100 percent employment.  A stimulus of one, if you will.

    No one would argue that giving money to the homeless is anything but a consensual transaction.  Although I have had a bum complain about how little of my money I gave him.  However,  I would argue it is harmful to society at large even though it is voluntary.  Every dollar given to a panhandler, is a dollar not purchasing another person’s labor.  The 5 bucks given to the nonproductive is 5 dollars not given to a waiter as a tip for a job well done.  In effect, when you give money away, without insisting on a good or service in exchange, you are subsidizing and encouraging non-production and at the same time discouraging the productive.  You get more of what you reward and less of what you punish.  If the homeless were not supported by either government largess or well-meaning individuals, they would be forced to provide some form of good or service in exchange for currency or starve.  That could be anything as simple as unskilled manual labor or as complex as choosing to improve their skills and earn a higher wage.  Obviously, for this system to work, not only would welfare need to be abolished and private charity banned, but labor and minimum wage laws would need to be repealed.  College and training programs would need to be deregulated and loan guarantees banished.  Once labor becomes available at a lower cost, the price of goods and services would plummet, resulting in a lower income being required for a sustainable lifestyle.  This would reward the savers for once.  At this point you may be thinking “Of course I would like to see those shiftless bums get a job, but what about the disabled?”  If you thought I would go soft here, you’ve badly misjudged me.  

    I firmly believe that unless a person is in a vegetative state, they can still provide valuable services.  A person who is unable to walk but has use of their arms could answer phones, sort files or any number of simple clerical tasks.  Obviously, they could learn to code if they want a higher salary.  Even a quadriplegic could learn to be a translator, singer or voice actor.  The same is true for those that have a mental disability.  Bagging groceries, cleaning or dog walking are all valuable services for which people would willingly pay a reasonable wage.  Not only is employing the differently abled a more efficient use of money than charity, it provides a sense of independence and self-worth to the individual.  If people with disabilities are seen daily contributing to society, people wouldn’t pity them; they would see them as equals working their way through life, the same as them.  You know who isn’t working their way through life?

    The biggest reason to ban charity, is to destroy a vehicle for graft, corruption and nepotism.  Many charities are nothing more than legal scams to collect vast amounts of wealth.  I’m sure we can all think of a charity that claims to fight for a cause, but in reality is nothing more than a slush fund for the people of the board.  I’m looking at you NRA and Wayne French last name.  Other charities are nothing more than a thin veneer of legitimacy for bribing politicians.  I would name a former presidential candidate’s charity, but I don’t fancy committing suicide by shooting myself in the back of the head…twice.  Another function of large charities is to provide make-work jobs for relatives that are too stupid to function in society.  I mean, won’t someone think of the trust fund kid’s phony baloney jobs?  I’m looking at you Jay-Z and Beyonce.  I’m sure many of you can name a charity that actually does some good, but I believe them to be the exception that proves the rule.

    So that is why I don’t give money away anymore*.  My cash is more efficiently spent on the productive members of society, so that they are around to provide services for others that wish to hire them.  Charities that claim to use donations for some nebulous good cause, are more likely spending it on junkets and jet setting. One could make the argument that donating to a politician’s foundation is not really a donation, since one is expecting a return on that particular investment, but let us not get bogged down in semantics.  Lastly, I have no intention of supporting the idle rich, although I do hope to become the idle rich with the money saved by not giving it away to charities.  

    I’ve kept this article short so you can more quickly and efficiently savage me in the comments section.

    *Disclosure:  I did give money to Glibertarians, but I consider that a voluntary service fee akin to a tip and not charity.

  • Here we go again…

    I am not going to talk about shootings, but I am going to talk about guns.  Sort of.  I am going to talk about something going around social media in the last few days being portrayed as some kind of “liberal self-own”.

    This is my review of Barrier Brewing Farmhouse Ale—with Brett (H/T Iobot)

    It is this article from Business Insider making the rounds on the parts of social media conservatives are still aloud to congregate and make fun of their progressive counterparts.  Essentially, a reporter tried to find out how difficult it is to buy a gun at Wal-Mart—turns out she couldn’t just walk in, pay cash to an associate in a quiet corner of the parking lot and leave with a weapon Bill Duke uses to trim the hedges.

    Buying guns at Wal-Mart has always been a…shall we say…less than ideal experience.  I would know, while I was in college I worked the sporting goods counter for a short time.  It was only a few months, and resulted in me not hating everything about Wal-Mart because that is where I got my start.

    Its pretty sweet

    For one thing, while a customer can special order nearly anything in the Lipsey’s catalog, what was on hand was limited to standard length shotguns, Ruger 10/22, and composite stock Remington 700 in various calibers with a Chinese sourced optic.  The best rifle I ever sold was a Browning BAR in .30-06, which took a few weeks when the customer bought it via layaway, then I called Lipsey’s, put in the order and awaited shipping.  Those are pretty sweet. Wal-Mart also had certain requirements for state residency, they needed the entire address without abbreviations printed on the ATF form 4473, a “salaried manager” needed to double check the transaction, and most important was the required “all clear” from NICS, rather than after the wait time for a hold.  They also had the counter under constant video surveillance.  Finally, the manager walked the rifle out of the store and handed the customer the rifle in its original packaging outside the store.  This was 2005. Eventually, Wal-Mart began selling AR-15s, specifically the Colt Model 6920, which is absolutely nothing to scoff at even if I assembled a better carbine from vendors located in various corners of the internet.  They since stopped selling it in 2015.

    Nowadays, Wal-Mart has certain “approved” employees that can sell firearms.  The reporter had a lot of difficulty in finding out which Wal-Mart sold rifles.  By policy, they are hesitant to tell a customer where they sell guns, and when she even managed to find one ran into issues with her ID not having a current address.

    I had invested several hours across two days on this. If I were actually in the market for a rifle, I would have gone to a local gun shop instead after about five minutes of trying to figure out which Walmart stores sold guns.

    She found out something many gun owners already know:  buying guns at Wal-Mart sucks, because they go well above and beyond federal requirements to sell firearms—to aggravating levels.  Take that Sheryl Crow.

    So how is this not a self-own?   One of the reasons commonly cited for the “Age of Trump” is one side simply chooses not to not understand why the other lives the way they do.  In this case we see somebody actually tried to find out.  In spite of what we might assume her biases are or what the narrative she might have intended to portray, she found out it is not so easy.  She discovered what most gun owners know:  gun retailers realize the consequence of selling to the wrong person and are going to take steps to avoid that mistake.  Some have a smoother transaction than others perhaps, but should a guy walk into a gun store and ask for the best weapon to kill [minority group of your choice] will actually find he going to be to asked to leave…and probably to go to Hell.  This isn’t a self own, she discovered something about the other side—which even if unwittingly is actually commendable given the insanely low bar set for this sort of thing.

    Something else I discovered was this beer is excellent.  Everyone here is probably aware I am a fan of Belgian-pattern wheat beer.  This one comes loaded with Brett tipped clipazines and enough body to hold that shoulder thingy that goes up.  Must be 21 to purchase…

    Barrier Brewing Farmhouse Ale—with Brett 4.2/5

     

  • SLD: The Libertarian Case for Section 230 Reform

    There’s a piece of legislation that has been invaluable in the rise of social media, the Communications Decency Act. In particular, Section 230 of the Act says “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Without Section 230, it’s hard to fathom that Facebook or Twitter would ever have been able to surmount the potential legal liability they would otherwise face from civil lawsuits over IP infringements, libel claims, or threats that are posted to their websites on a regular basis. They’d be potentially liable for whatever anyone decided to post on their sites.
    Interestingly, though, the provision wasn’t even created with social media in mind. The Act was passed in 1996, before social media was even a glint in Mark Zuckerberg’s eye. The provision was included in the Act ensure that internet service providers or e-mail providers weren’t liable for anything that anyone decided to transmit on their services. And that makes sense. You wouldn’t hold Verizon or AT&T responsible for anything anyone says on the phone. They don’t control what people say on the phone, so they shouldn’t be responsible.

    The internet shouldn’t be any different.

    But, as the internet advanced, the logical extension of this principle went to websites themselves. And that still sort of makes sense, at least conditionally. If the owners of the website don’t control what is posted or not, they shouldn’t be liable for what people do post. The key distinction is whether the owners of the website are providing an internet service or whether they are providing internet content. In Fair Housing vs. Roommates.com, the courts said you couldn’t claim to be a service provider if you weren’t a passive pass-through of information provided by others or simply a facilitator of expression, you had moved on to become a content provider and weren’t immune from lawsuits under Section 230.

    Today, many conservatives, and even libertarians are concerned about the editorial lines that are increasingly taking hold in the social media universe. In their attempts to filter out “fake news” or “Russian bots” or “disruptive voices” or “hate speech”, they are increasingly deplatforming conservatives and libertarians for behaviors that they show no concern with coming from the left. We know that the social media giants are culturally very much aligned with the “woke” left and many claim that they’re rigging the public discourse in favor of the left.

    While some conservatives have suggested addressing this by breaking up the social media giants or subjecting them to regulation, an alternative that many of us have advocated is reform of Section 230 to make it clear that you’re a publisher if you’re pushing an editorial line. You can have rules of the road and can forbid threatening, harassing, or inciteful posts, but your rules have to be objective, viewpoint-neutral, and universally applied for you to retain Section 230 protection. Otherwise, you’re a publisher and should be treated as such.

    This isn’t an idea without some controversy. As believers in the free market, many argue, conservatives and libertarians should let the market sort itself out and take their business elsewhere. As private businesses, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter shouldn’t be under any obligation to provide a voice for those whose views they find abhorrent. And, as Ken White of Popehat argues, it’s a stretch to suggest that the social media providers are the people creating the content. Even many of the advocates of Section 230 reform suggest the move goes against the grain of their libertarianism, arguing that this is a situation just to rife with abuse.

    I think these concerns are misguided. Far from being a violation of libertarian principle, Section 230 reform would be a move to impose free market discipline on the social media giants. The question of whether the social media giants are original content creators is utterly beside the point. Of course they aren’t! But, Section 230 itself doesn’t address whether the service provider is the creator of the original content. It’s about whether they are to be treated as publishers.

    And it’s clear that they are acting as publishers If you’re maintaining an editorial line, you’re not acting simply as a passive pass-through or a facilitator of expression. You’re doing pretty much the opposite. You’re acting to define what is acceptable and what is unacceptable expression on your platform. If you’re demonetizing Stephen Crowder for making a side reference to homosexuality while maintaining a guy like Carlos Maza after he specifically encourages assaulting conservatives, you can’t honestly say you’re just an open platform for people to exchange ideas. If you’re banning Carl Benjamin while giving Antifa a pass, the last thing you’re doing is acting as a neutral pass-through. You’re acting as a publisher deciding what they will and will not publish.

    And that is and should be their right. On that, I completely agree with Section 230 reform sceptics. If you believe in free speech, then you have to believe that people cannot justly be compelled to speech any more than they can be censored. And demanding that social media provide a platform to conservatives is just as much a compulsion of speech as insisting Rush Limbaugh devote a show to singing the praises of Elizabeth Warren or that MSNBC devote a day to critiques of climate change.

    What the social media giants don’t have a right to is special favor from the government. If they’re acting as a publisher, then they should be subject to the same laws and same standards as any other publisher. To treat them more favorably is to grant a subsidy to established and entrenched interests over brick-and-mortar competitors, as well as new entrants in the social media space.

    For just about any other industry the injustice of such a policy would be glaringly obvious. Imagine if the government said the hotel industry or the movie theater industry would be exempt from labor laws or health and safety laws. Or worse still if the government said that certain hotels and certain movie theaters would be exempt from those laws. Libertarians would rightly be up in arms about such a policy. They’d rightly note such behavior as just the sort of crony capitalism that libertarianism rejects. The same applies to the social media giants acting as publishers. You might say that the laws holding publishers responsible for any libel or IP infringement or harassment they publish are bad laws. A libertarian case can be made for or against them. But, holding some publishers liable and exempting others is the least libertarian response. It is, simply put, the government openly picking winners and losers.

    Moreover, the social media giants’ hidden imposition of an editorial line has poisoned so much of social media culture. To understand this, imagine that, rather than the fashionable progressive causes of the day, the social media giants took an editorial line that was “pro-seltzer”. They’d happily let commentary advocating the benefits of drinking seltzer and actively deplatform anyone arguing to the contrary. The public relying on social media for information, believing they were getting truly decentralized discussion about seltzer would only see discussions about how great seltzer is and how terrible those awful people who want to suggest people might want to drink milk are. Without understanding that the social media are only telling you the pro-seltzer position, a good many readers would become convinced, not only of the pro-seltzer position, but also of the social media morality in advocating for seltzer. The non-seltzer people, unsurprisingly, only militate when they realize the public is being lied to about them and their positions. And the less radicalized, lacking a means to evaluate the claims of the genuine anti-seltzer extremists, since the entire anti-seltzer argument has been excised from the public discussion where ideas can be tested, tend to be pushed to the more radical position.

    I respect the social media giants. They took an ambiguity in the law and leveraged it to build a whole new means of communication that offers tremendous opportunity for public discourse. But, with success comes hubris. For the social media giants, that hubris has led them to abandon any claim to that ambiguity. They’re now acting as publishers in the most obvious and clear-cut manner one can find. And, in addition to being an injustice in its own right, that preferential treatment is leading them to behave in a way that is rendering our public discourse increasingly toxic. To set things right, we don’t need to regulate the social media giants and we don’t need to break them up. We simply need to resolve that ambiguity to make clear that they’re either publishers, with all the legal liabilities that any other publisher faces, or they’re public fora where they don’t get to dictate what viewpoints deserve an audience.