Лига Индивидуального Анархизма
Группа Альянса Либертарных Левых | Group of Alliance of the Libertarian Left

Non-libertarians attack non-mosque at non-Ground-Zero.

Here is the WaPo by way of Yglesias, who thinks the most important thing about our latter-day Mexican Repatriation is that people will become “less enthusiastic” about our president:

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration’s 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007. The pace of company audits has roughly quadrupled since President George W. Bush’s final year in office.

Deportation of illegal immigrants increases under Obama administration

You know, Arizona also expects to expel 400,000 “illegal” Mexicans from its state alone.  I suspect the real reason the federal administration is blocking aspects of the Arizona state law, otherwise poised to go into effect tomorrow, is that it fears competition:

[U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix] forbade Arizona from making it a state crime to not carry immigration documents, and struck down two other provisions as an unconstitutional attempt by Arizona to undermine the federal government’s efforts to enforce immigration policy.

In her 36-page decision, Bolton wrote that the provisions would have inevitably “swept up” legal immigrants and were “preempted” by the federal government’s immigration authority.

“The court by no means disregards Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime,” she wrote. But, she added, “it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws.”

Arizona immigration: Immigration law blocked – latimes.com.

In other words, the individual states have no right interfering with the feds’ well-established racket in persecuting the very poor.

Anyway, in case you were lucky enough to forget inane slogans like ¡Obamanos! , here’s an explanation from 2008, with some gratuitous heartbreaking irony thrown in:

“Obamanos” is a strange bit of political Spanglish, often seen in the past few months on bumper stickers in states with large Hispanic populations. The term translates — in essence, not literally — to “let’s go Obama.”

This has been the general spirit in San Miguel de Allende, a colonial town in the mountains of central Mexico. The mood was especially evident tonight after Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of its northern neighbor.

“It’s good because he’s moreno (brown-skinned) and I know morenos have faced a lot of discrimination and resistance,” Martha Aguilar, my children’s 18-year-old babysitter, told me. “I think it will mean that Mexicans in the United States will be treated better. I think they’ll have more opportunity.”

Jeannie Ralston » Mexicans says “Obamanos”

Filed under: Immigration, obama, Political Machinations Tagged: arizona, gratuitousfuckingselfdelusion, immigration, obamanos, thefeds

Saving Our History Books For The Singularity. rechelon, Human Iterations (2010-07-26). Some noble soul has labored to put the two most important history books on Individualist Anarchism’s first wave in America online — and in very accessible c...

This story was interesting. The judge in the Blagojevich corruption trial made a bizarre ruling. During his closing arguments, Blagojevich's defense attorney is barred from referring to witnesses the prosecution refused to call. Blagojevich claims those witnesses would have been favorable for him. That's the reason the prosecution declined to call them. Even more bizarrely, the prosecution already mentioned those witnesses.

Blagojevich was given unfair bail terms. As condition for his bail, he was barred from publicly explaining his side of the story. The mainstream media had already pronounced him guilty. The prosecutor got to publish his evidence, but Blagojevich was censored. That was unfair, even before his trial started. This is standard practice in State criminal trials, but it's still unfair. Of course, it's better to agree to the restrictions than spend 12+ months in jail awaiting trial. That doesn't make it right.

The official reason is "The judge doesn't want Blagojevich tampering with the jury pool." The prosecutor already tampered with the jury pool. The mainstream media already proclaimed Blagojevich guilty. Wouldn't it be fairer to allow both sides the freedom to publicly say whatever they want?

I already mentioned this point in "Censorship of Justice". It is immoral for the judge to bar the defense from making argument X or showing evidence X. If X is obviously frivolous, there's no reason for the judge to block discussion of X.

The judge will only block X when it might induce the jury to vote "not guilty". It is a huge perversion of justice, when the judge bars the defendant from mentioning something that would induce a juror to vote "not guilty".

If the judge is eager to censor something, that's a clear indication that it's important. If X is obviously stupid, then why should the judge care?

This is an important point. "If someone has an emotionally hostile reaction to X, then that is evidence that X is important." The judge seems to be arguing emotionally rather than logically. What harm is there, if the defense attorney mentions X? Is the legal system so fragile, that it falls apart if criminal defendants are allowed to say whatever they want?

This suggests a politically-motivated trial. Otherwise, why would the judge be so eager to censor the defense attorney? In many ways, the judge is the prosecutor.

Many judges are former prosecutors. Most/all judges have worked for the State their entire life. Most/all judges have never done an honest day's work in their entire life. They are sympathetic to the State and the prosecutor. Most judges have *NO* experience defending an individual against State aggression.

The judge works for the State. The prosecutor works for the State. They're on the same team.

This blog had an interesting point.
The government spoke about missing witnesses, yet the defense is precluded? Why would that be, Judge?

...

The yeoman's reaction to a ruling like this is to protest, make a record, and move on. But Sam Adams is no mere yeoman. He knows that there will be no better chance to beat the case than here and now, before the jury. On appeal, everything flips over and all presumptions are against him. On appeal, the sensibilities of judge rule, while the understanding of real people are lost. No, one doesn't give away a critical part of the defense lightly.The "legally correct" thing for the defense attorney to do is note that the judge made a mistake, and then appeal. However, Blagojevich's attorney may have balls. After all, Blagojevich is an ex-insider. He has better legal representation than most slaves. His lawyer may ignore the judge's order.

That would be a great spectacle. The defense attorney is hauled out of court by State thugs during closing arguments, for something seemingly unimportant. That would make the jury think that the judge is biased against Blagojevich. Every criminal defendant should have a lawyer willing to say "**** you! I'm mentioning this anyway! I don't care if you jail me for contempt of court or revoke my law license!" A lawyer who is not willing to do this, is really working for the prosecutor.

For this reason, I advise sui juris representation. Most lawyers wouldn't have the balls to ignore the judge's order. If you do it sui juris, and the judge jails you for "contempt of court", then you were going to jail anyway when the jury gives an unfair verdict. If the judge censors a lawyer, and the lawyer deferentially says "Yes, sir!", then the jury presumes it's OK. If the judge censors a pro se defendant, then that creates a lot of sympathy with the jury.

Blagojevich is a lawyer. Why doesn't he present his own closing arguments? The "official" legal advice is that is a stupid idea. However, in a politically motivated trial, you need sympathy and a direct connection with the jury.

That blogger pointed out "It's pointless to wait for appeal. The trial judge is a pro-State troll. The appeals judge is an even worse pro-State troll. It's better to try and win the trial now via the jury, rather than wait for a biased appeals judge." Besides, the defendant is sitting in jail while the appeal takes years.

I would really respect that lawyer, if he ignored the judge's order and got a "contempt of court" arrest. Given the circumstances, the lawyer probably wouldn't lose his law license, but you never know. The State legal system is unfair and the State lawyer licensing cartel is unfair.

This comment was interesting:
Jdog, I wasn't able to look at your website long enough to figure out whether you're a lawyer, so if you don't know: "harmless error" is the doctrine that says, basically, "even if the judge ruled incorrectly or your rights were violated, you have no remedy if the appeals court thinks you're guilty."If the appeals judge thinks you're guilty, and the judge made an error, that isn't grounds for overturning the verdict. It's irrelevant if the *ACTUAL* jury would have voted "not guilty" (or been hung), if the defendant were allowed to present his evidence or argument. The mere fact that the judge made an error doesn't justify an appeal. It has to be an error *THAT WOULD AFFECT THE OUTCOME*, which is irrelevant if the appeals judge thinks the defendant is guilty.

A trial judge is a pro-State troll. The appeals judge is an even worse pro-State troll. If you're the victim of State aggression, it's silly to hold your hopes out for a win on appeal. The appeals courts are there to provide the illusion of fairness, rather than provide genuine justice.

If a judge gives an illegal order, you aren't required to obey it. If the judge says "You aren't allowed to mention X in your own defense!", then you should ignore him and do it anyway. Why is a judge allowed to kidnap and torture someone, just because they say something the judge doesn't like?

The reality of the legal system is that a judge can jail someone indefinitely for "contempt of court". That doesn't make it right. Someone pointed out that statutory crimes are really enforced via "contempt of court" orders. Suppose I operate a gold/silver barter network. State thugs prosecute me. The judge orders me to stop operating my business, before I'm even convicted. If it's a misdemeanor, I don't even get a jury trial. If I violate his order, now I'm guilty of "contempt of court" and don't even get a trial. That's a clever legal loophole. I'd be jailed for "contempt of court" and not for the original invalid law.

The State legal system is completely corrupt. It is biased against most criminal defendants. Blagojevich is an ex-insider, so he gets a better lawyer than most. At this point, it would be an embarrassment for the State, if Blagojevich is acquitted. It's a politically-motivated prosecution. The mainstream media loudly pronounced Blagojevich's guilt. Blagojevich says (correctly) "Hey! Every politician does this!" He must be convicted to prove that he's the only corrupt politician! All corrupt politicians get convicted. Therefore, everyone else is honest.

The Blagojevich trial is amusing. Like all politicians, Blagojevich is a State parasite who probably never did an honest day's work in his entire life. Blagojevich's defense essentially is "Everyone does it!" He is right, but that's not a valid excuse for corruption. The State legal system is so corrupt, that Blagojevich seems like the hero in this story.FSK's Guide to Reality

Although there might not be any major bombshells in the recently-released Afghanistan war logs, the logs have been getting a fair amount of play in the media. Which, of course, is a good thing. Perhaps—and I’m not holding my breath here—but perhaps all of this will turn at least a few people’s attention away from whatever it is that they’ve been talking about—Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan, I really haven’t been paying much attention—and we’ll start to have a much-needed debate about the war. Well here’s my contribution to the debate, eight reasons why we should bring our troops home.

1) Many Afghans are getting killed. Although NATO forces make efforts to limit civilian casualties, the fact remains that they’re still killing large numbers of civilians. And this number is rising. During the first quarter of this year, for instance, NATO troops killed more than twice as many civilians as they did during the same period last year.[1]

2) Many Americans are getting killed. This number, too, is rising. According to the Pentagon, 52 US troops were killed in June, the highest monthly total since the war began.[2] Of course, some of you probably think it’s worth it, some of you probably have no problem sending other people’s sons and daughters halfway around the world to get killed for a cause that the president claims “is in our vital national interest.”[3] Keep reading…

3) Al-Qaeda has been all but eliminated from Afghanistan. As Robert Dreyfuss has reported, many former intelligence officials believe that the U.S. military all but obliterated the group shortly after 9/11. According to one former CIA operations officer: “We had a lot of success with airstrikes. We came in with B-52s and F-16s, and at Tora Bora we dropped a 15,000-pound device on them. We blew them to bits. If you wanted to do a body count, you would have needed to pick up the pieces with Q-Tips.”[4] Just a couple weeks ago, CIA Director Leon Panetta claimed that there are no more than 100 al-Qaeda operatives left in the country.[5] Although some al-Qaeda operatives fled to Pakistan, US National Counterterrorism Director Michael Leiter estimates that there are only around 300 such individuals there.[6]

4) Even if the US left now and even if the Taliban regained power, there’s no reason to believe that the Taliban would again allow al-Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a safe haven. As Stephen Walt has argued: “Protecting al Qaeda back in 2001 brought no end of trouble to Mullah Omar and his associates, and if they were lucky enough to regain power, it is hard to believe they would give us a reason to come back in force.” And even if the Taliban allowed al Qaeda to return, Walt notes that “the United States isn’t going to sit around and allow them to go about their business undisturbed. The Clinton administration wasn’t sure it was a good idea to go after al Qaeda’s training camps back in the 1990s (though they eventually did, albeit somewhat half-heartedly), but that was before 9/11. We know more now and the U.S. government is hardly going to be bashful about attacking such camps in the future.”[7]

5) The war is fueling the insurgency. According to Matthew Hoh, the Marine captain turned Foreign Service officer who resigned in protest of the war last October: “the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.” Moreover: “The United States military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency.” The reason for this, Hoh explains, is simple: although most Pashtuns don’t love the Taliban, they can’t help but view the US-NATO occupation “as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies.”[8]

6) The war is fueling terrorism. Although still unpopular to state in many circles, the fact remains that they (that is, terrorists) want to kill us (that is, Americans) because of the violence our government is wreaking throughout the Muslim world. From our support of dictatorships in places like Egypt and Indonesia to our unflagging support of Israel to our occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the vast majority of terrorists want to kill us, not because of who we are, not because of what we believe, but because of what our government does. As Michael Scheuer, who formerly headed the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit, has stated: “It is…the Muslim perception that the things they love are being intentionally destroyed by America that engenders Islamist hatred toward the United States, and that simultaneously motivates a few Muslims to act alone and attack U.S. interests; a great many more to join organizations like al Qaeda and its allies; and massive numbers to support those organizations’ defensive military actions with prayers, donations, blind eyes, or logistical assistance.”[9]

7) The war is bankrupting us. This year alone the war is going to cost us around one hundred billion dollars. You heard me right. One hundred billion dollars. This year alone. [10] In order to pay for this, the government has two options. One, it can drive us deeper into debt, which will have the affect of further devaluing the dollar and making us all poorer. Two, it can cut social programs, which will just heap more suffering on millions of Americans who have already been devastated by the greed and excesses of our politicians and their corporate buddies.

8) The war is unwinnable. Counterinsurgency, let’s remember, is essentially a hearts and minds campaign. The goal is to win over the local population, to turn them against the insurgents and towards the “legitimate” (that is, American-backed) government. But it’s becoming increasingly obvious just how much most Afghans despise Hamid Karzai’s corrupt, warlord-promoting, woman-denigrating, election-stealing regime. According to a recent Pentagon report, while the population supports the Afghan government in none—repeat: none—of the country’s 121 “key districts,” it supports the Taliban in 8 key districts. And while the population “sympathizes with” the Afghan government in 29 key districts (24%), it sympathizes with the Taliban in 40 districts (33%) [11]. None of this should surprise us, of course. Last October, General Stanley McChrystal admitted that, even if received all the troops he wanted, his plan carried “a high risk of failing” (AP’s words).[12] And then last month, during one of his final briefings, McChrystal spoke of a “resilient and growing insurgency” and admitted that he didn’t expect things to get any better within the next six months.[13] Why we should expect things to improve after that isn’t exactly clear.


Notes

[1] Paul Wiseman, “NATO strikes killing more Afghan civilians,” USA Today, 16 April 2010 (h/t Antiwar.com).

[2] “June troop deaths in Afghanistan top 100,” UPI, 1 July 2010.

[3] “FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Obama's Speech on Afghanistan,” ABC News, 1 December 2009.

[4] “The Phony War,” Rolling Stone, 21 September 2006.

[5] Anne Flaherty, "CIA's Panetta: Few al-Qaida are in Afghanistan," AP News, 27 June 2010.

[6] David E. Sanger and Mark Mazzetti, “New Estimate of Strength of Al Qaeda Is Offered,” New York Times, 30 June 2010.

[7] “The Safe Haven Myth,” Foreign Policy, 18 August 2010.

[8] Karen DeYoung, “U.S. official resigns over Afghan war,” Washington Post, 27 October 2009.

[9] Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (Potomac Books, Inc., 2004), 9-10.

[10] Brian Faler, “War Bill Approved as Afghan Conflict Tops Iraq in Cost, Troops,” Bloomberg Business Week, 28 May 2010.

[11] Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan, April 2010.

[12] Lara Jakes, “AP Sources: Afghan corruption worries McChrystal,” Associated Press, 14 October 2009.

[13] Jonathan Owen and Brian Brady, “The last post: McChrystal’s bleak outlook,” The Independent, 27 June 2010.

My colleague Kelly Jolley’s anthology Wittgenstein: Key Concepts has just been published. I have a couple of pieces in it. Here’s the table of contents:

Introduction: Kelly Dean Jolley [my AU colleague]
1. Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Remarks: Kelly Dean Jolley
2. Wittgenstein on Meaning and Meaning-Blindness: Craig Fox
3. Language Games and Private Language: Lars Hertzberg
4. Wittgenstein on Family Resemblance: Craig Fox
5. Ordinary/Everyday Language: Rupert Read
6. Wittgenstein on Rule-Following: Roderick T. Long
7. Thinking and Understanding: Phil Hutchinson
8. Psychologism and Philosophical Investigations: Kelly Dean Jolley
9. Moore’s Paradox Revisited: Avrum Stroll
10. Aspect Perception: Avner Baz
11. Knowing That the Standard Meter is One Meter Long: Heather Gert [I went to high school with her (and enslaved her brother, but that’s another story)]
12. Therapy: Rupert Read
13. Criteria: Eric Loomis [an APS colleague]
14. Grammatical Investigations: Roderick T. Long and Kelly Dean Jolley
15. Teaching and Learning: Arata Hamawaki [another AU colleague]
16. Expression and Avowal: David Finkelstein

In related news, AU’s 3rd annual philosophy conference (3-5 March 2010) will also be devoted to Wiggy.

Finally, here’s one of Wiggy’s central insights set to music:

I was offended by pro-State trolling on the 4th of July. They were celebrating "The anniversary of the birth of our country and the Constitution."

The 4th of July has nothing to do with the Constitution. The 4th of July celebrates a group of people deciding "This government isn't working for us. It's time to try something else."

If you carefully read the Declaration of Independence, most of the abuses cited occur in the present. You aren't forced to quarter troops in your home. Via high taxes and high military spending, the effect is almost the same.

The Constitution was a counter-revolutionary document. It created a new strong central government, after the people fought for freedom from another strong government. Many farmers were paying just as much in taxes or more, compared to before the Revolutionary War.

Instead of paying taxes/tribute to the King and Parliament, taxes/tribute were paid to State parasites in the new Federal government. The Federal government was a copy of the British mercantilist system, cloaked under the illusion of legitimacy via a representative democracy/republic.

The US Constitution was written in secret. That's not due to noble goals. People would have revolted if they realized their freedom was being stolen. Some people walked out of the meeting, once they saw what was happening.

Another interesting point is comparing "People who signed the Declaration of Independence" and "People who signed the Constitution". Very few people signed both documents.

The people who wrote the Constitution were a bunch of lawyers. They weren't just any lawyers. They represented insiders for the state governments.

There was no provision for direct popular ratification of the Constitution. It was ratified by state legislatures, which were themselves composed of insiders. In many states, there were many re-votes required to secure ratification. In some states, the Constitution passed by a thin margin.

Some representatives probably were promised favors in exchange for changing their vote. In Rhode Island, the threat of embargo and invasion were required, to secure ratification. Once ratified, there was no provision to un-ratify the Constitution, as the Southern states discovered during the Civil War.

Why should the actions of 39 lawyers 200 years ago enable State parasites to steal from me? The Constitution is not a valid contract.

Suppose the Constitution were put to a direct popular vote today. Suppose that 51% or 75% or 99.99% voted "Yes, I support the Constitution exactly as written." What right to the people who vote "yes" have to steal via taxes from those who vote "no"?

Besides, State parasites would never allow or encourage such a vote. It might break their illusion of legitimacy. People who work for the government, directly or indirectly, would probably vote to preserve the way things are now.

More than 50% of the people work for the government, directly or indirectly. That makes it impossible to achieve real reform by voting.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution needed to be re-ratified every 20 years, or it would lose its legitimacy. This attitude is reflected in some early laws. The first US central bank was given only a 20 year charter.

It is silly to believe that a document written more than 200 years ago can protect individual freedom. Politicians openly express contempt, when someone suggests that a proposed law is Unconstitutional. State parasites have a monopoly for interpreting and enforcing the Constitution and laws. That leads to the obvious corruption.

It's offensive to see the Constitution celebrated on the 4th of July. Compared to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution was a counter-revolutionary document. Pro-State trolls don't emphasize "The Constitution was written by 39 politically-connected lawyers."FSK's Guide to Reality

Rush Limbaugh is wrong about a lot of things and has come a long way from the cheeky anti-establishment criticism that won him his first following in the 90s. On a number of things, from 9-11 to the forever war, he is a statist and a war-monger.  And even when Limbaugh’s right, his rhetoric is [...]

The increase hasn't been dramatic, but it's there, reporteth the Washington Post:

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration's 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007. The pace of company audits has roughly quadrupled since President George W. Bush's final year in office.

The Bradley Manning Support Network has issued a press release announcing the establishment of a legal defense fund for alleged WikiLeaks whistleblower Bradley Manning.

Love it? Hate it? Share it!

No tags for this post. Related posts

• No related posts.

Here we go again.  Apparently America’s done this before, with the Mexican Repatriation Act of 1930, which oddly enough doesn’t get a lot of play in California public school history textbooks.  Probably many were embarrassed, not by having made the attempt, but that the experiment in forced depopulation ultimately failed.

I don’t even want to know what Thursday is going to look like:

Nicaraguan mother Lorena Aguilar hawks a television set and a few clothes on the baking sidewalk outside her west Phoenix apartment block.

A few paces up the street, her undocumented Mexican neighbor Wendi Villasenor touts a kitchen table, some chairs and a few dishes as her family scrambles to get out of Arizona ahead of a looming crackdown on illegal immigrants.

“Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving,” said Villasenor, 31, who is headed for Pennsylvania. “We have no alternative. They have us cornered.”

The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.

The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.

Migrants sell up, flee Arizona ahead of crackersdown – Yahoo! News.

God bless America, but in particular Arizona, the only state brave enough to drive out its poor Mexican gardeners and chambermaids.  Let’s hope California follows its example and expels some of its most vulnerable and hardworking citizens as soon as possible.

Filed under: Immigration Tagged: gratuitousfuckingcruelty, immigration, repatriation

Guest post by Marcin Jakubowski.

Things have been spectacular with William so far. We have basically managed to scale our progress twofold. Since he’s been here, we’ve seen full product release of the open source CEB press, The Liberator, and we’ve had significant progress on the open source tractor, LifeTrac Prototype II. We also deployed the first prototype of the heavy duty, open source drill press, which we’re now using as part of our fabrication infrastructure. We just reported on Prototype I of the 150 ton hole puncher . We look forward to using these tools towards optimizing production runs of The Liberator. We also got the first working prototype of Hexahatch, the automated chicken incubator, in operation. Four pips hatched as of now, and we have 70 eggs in there at present. We also deployed Prototype I of a honey extractor. Plus, Sean is on-site for the summer gathering documentary material, and his LifeTrac II update is choice. Also, if you haven’t seen our Economy in a Box presentation, check it out for some of the most recent thoughts. People are beginning to talk about us in mainstream books.

This leaves us in a good position to start construction of Solar Village 2010. Design work is occurring in the background. We need to build another CEB press, since we sold our first one. We have had a number of apparently serious inquiries, but so far, no money has crossed the table. We suspect that people want to see real product come out of the machine – ie, houses. Maureen still has not used her machine, and we’ve been busy in the developments of the above paragraph. Plus, we still need to finish LifeTrac Prototype II, build Power Cube Prototype II, and build the Soil Pulverizer Prototype II – all in preparation for building, which we were hoping would begin on August 15. We just burned $3800 to procure LifeTrac II parts, and we’re out of cash. We’d like to announce here that we are returning to the crowd-based funding baskets – with which we had decent success in our previous session of village-building adventures. Now this is Take Two on CEB construction, where Take One was a great learning experience. Now we’ve got Will with experience in brick laying, we’ve got mature technology on the CEB press, and Prototype II is forthcoming on both the Soil Pulverizer and LifeTrac. The CEB Build is straightforward, now that we have Full Product Release. This means that we can predict how long it will take to fabricate – about 2 weeks. We already have the hydraulic cylinders. The $2500 covers the balance of materials – minus some outsourced labor costs which we can now avoid because we have the hole puncher ready to use. The price structure for materials was around $3600 for The Liberator Beta v2.0 – and now we expect about $500 savings by doing hole punching in house. We do not expect to change anything on The Liberator build, as it’s a stable release. We may omit the soil sensor, since we found out that for practical considerations, activation of the hopper shaker works best when it is pre-set – such that the hopper is shaken after every brick pressing cycle.

Another note on The Liberator build is that if we are building one, it takes about the same amount of time to build two machines at the same time. That’s the nature of flexible fabrication ergonomics. Thus, if you know somebody who wants to buy one, send them our way.

The soil pulverizer Prototype II budget covers primarily the structural steel for the rotor and bucket, plus a larger PTO motor. The improvements in Prototype II include: (1), improved motor coupling to attain quicker slip-on attachment of interchangeable motors without using coupler pins; (2), 60% increase in torque on the motor over the former 6.15 cubic inch motor; (3), smaller bucket and reduced pulverizer width to improve weight balance and structural robustness, and (4), height control stops to maintain the pulverizer at the correct soil depth. Points (2), (3), and (4) are intended to address stalling of the motor – a problem which we had frequently when the pulverizer was moving forward too fast or going in too deep. Overall, these improvements are intended to combine for a more robust device that requires less skill to operate – such that it is more user-friendly and such that it can attain widespread use. It is worth mentioning that nobody else that we know of is utilizing the same soil pulverizer strategy – relegating this function to dedicated, stationary soil pulverizers. Our experience with Prototype I of the Soil Pulverizer has demonstrated that the design like ours – with integrated digging, pulverizer, and dumping functionality – is indeed sound. We believe that it can lead to a simplified CEB infrastructure – both in the equipment requirements and ergonomics of brick pressing. See further discussion on this point in our Soil Pulverizer blog post. Because we have demonstrated the feasibility and attractiveness of our approach, we don’t really understand why nobody else is using the same. We suspect that the flexibility of our modular design of LifeTrac make our approach feasible.

The Power Cube II budget covers the structural steel, hydraulic filters and bypass, hoses, quick couplers, and battery. We already have a 17.5 hp gas engine. Any engine size can be used, but we’re choosing a small one for reasons of cost and easy sourcing. Indeed, if you have a large lawnmower, we suggest ripping out the engine and upgrading to a more flexible LifeTrac Power Cube. Improvements over Power Cube I include: (1), a frame-integrated hydraulic reservoir and gas tank; (2), addition of a pressure bypass in case of accidental hose disconnection; (3), 2 sets of quick-attach fingers for moving or attaching to the quick connect plate of a tractor, so that the Power Cube can be moved or attached to one tractor with another tractor – instead of using hoists and human muscles; and (4), quick-attach hydraulic pump, so that larger or smaller pumps can provide either more fluid or more pressure, as needed. Point (1) eliminates the bulky hydraulic reservoir and gas tank of Prototype I, allowing for looser packing of the remaining components into the cube lattice. The overall improvements, in addition to the safety feature, focus around a much more transparent-looking design with easier interchangeability of the Power Cube between different devices. Power Cube II should also be easier to fabricate because of the additional space. Note also that we intend to replace the gasoline engine with a modern steam engine after we deploy the latter. We believe that the steam engine has not only caused the industrial revolution, but also that it carries tremendous significance for decentralizing power and producing decent(ralized) electricity. The steam engine may be powered by local biomass pellets, or solar concentrators – both of which are non-strategic resources. If you do not believe that deployment of a modern steam engine is an extremely worthwhile endeavor, then you are probably under the influence of centralization propaganda. The decentralization aspect of steam engines comes more from access to fuel, not from ease of fabrication – because a good steam engine is only slightly easier to fabricate than an internal combustion engine.

Finally, the LifeTrac II budget involves completion of quick-attach plates, fabrication of steel wheel tracks for added traction, and outsourcing wheel coupler lathing, since our open source lathe has not reached practical functionality. Improvements on LifeTrac II include: (1), monolithic design, as opposed to articulated design, for ease of fabrication; (2), dual loaders, for doubling implement-handling capacity; (3) quick-connect wheel motors, such that these can be used on other devices as needed; (4), quick-connect hydraulic control valves – such that these can also be used in other applications; (5) quick-attach Power Cubes as the engine units – feasibility of which we have already demonstrated; (6) stackability of Power Cubes, where 1-3 Power Cubes (18-54 hp) are a good match for the tractor, and up to 6 can be attached to the tractor for up to 250 horsepower (not practical, but possible, with larger Power Cubes); (7), wheel tracks for extra traction, which was not possible in the articulating LifeTrac I, (8), improved quick-attach plate coupling mechanism for automatic locking of implements in place with a lever, and (9), cross-ties on wheel-mounting plates for added strength, which may be required for forceful skid-steering. The above improvements for flexibility make LifeTrac II a true life-size lego set – for real equipment. Complete with the dual-loader, is this a flexible dream machine – possibly to rise as the Peoples’ Tractor?

In summary, the Tractor-CEB-Soil Pulverizer – and the infrastructure for their fabrication – is an important product package that should be taken to Full Product Release as soon as possible. Only the CEB has reached Release status, so there’s much work ahead. If we get more people like William to join us, we can really put the operations into high gear.

Our prospects are looking good. We have already had initial discussion with one of our partners on setting up an open source flexible fabrication facility for producing tractors, CEB presses, and soil pulverizers. Fabrication of these constitutes a small but robust economic development package relevant to addressing the agriculture, housing, power, and fabrication issues of resilient community development. We are in discussion on this package with high level officials of a particular South American country, which is apparently interested in genuine progress – free of IMF-type swindles. We are leaving the details of this out deliberately, as there are no promises here and the discussions are young. We know from experience that open source economic development is a high-risk endeavor, and there are many dead ends on the path to glory. However, it is quite encouraging that there exists at least one political leadership on this planet that is willing to even consider the type of economic transformation that is the substance of OSE. If we don’t score at this time, then it’s only a matter of time – as our work is based on creating the substance of prosperity, free of compromise.

The stakes are high. We are positioning the tractor-CEB-soil pulverizer package with the above in mind. The recent additions of the open source drill press and hole puncher to the open source Fab Lab, RepLab, are substantial progress towards closing the industrial divide between and within nations. Our initial negotiations as above may lead to a first, economically-significant instance of open business model replication. Careful documentation would be built into such a package, as such documentation is somewhat lacking at present for lack of resources.

People – the above is worth supporting. Contribute to these projects, and you can certainly feel good about contributing to the generation of significant results. Thanks for your support in advance, and we look forward to an exciting Take Two on CEB construction.

Guitar improvisation credits: Up the Dark Mountain We Go, by Lucas Gonzalez

Born in Flames Meets Gandhi Jesse Walker, Jesse Walker: Reason Magazine articles and blog posts. (2010-07-23). My kinda feminism: In March, the Indian upper parliament passed a historic affirmative-action bill. If approved by the lower house, the ...

This story is interesting. Shirley Sherrod was employed as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture. She gave a speech at a recent NAACP meeting.

Many people are angry that the NAACP accused the Tea Party movement as being "racist". Andrew Breitbart posted an edited version of Shirley Sherrod's speech at the NAACP meeting. That made her seem very racist. Andrew Breitbart said it did it to highlight racism in the NAACP.

Having seen this clip, some White House executives pressured Shirley Sherrod to resign. They were really eager to get her resignation. She was in her car, and they asked her to stop driving and send a formal resignation letter on her BlackBerry. Like a good slave, Shirley Sherrod complied with her masters' demand.

The forced resignation seems silly. Why didn't Shirley Sherrod say "Go ahead and fire me!"? Why is it important for her to resign, rather than being fired? Disgraced State insiders usually resign, rather than getting fired. The ex-insider resigns to emphasize the legitimacy of the State and her bosses.

Then, the whole clip of her NAACP speech was viewed. The entire speech seemed less racist. She seemed to be saying "This was a racist thing I did a long time ago. I'm not that bad now." (However, I didn't watch either the edited version or the whole thing.)

Even if Shirley Sherrod said something inappropriate at the NAACP meeting, that isn't a valid reason to fire her. This is an important State principle. "If you say something wrong, then you're disgraced and your career is over." State insiders must be continually on guard, lest they say something wrong and their career is over. Most State parasites have no useful skills. After getting fired from their cushy State job, they will have a hard time earning a comparable living. This enables State insiders to keep the lower-ranking parasites in line.

I liked this quote:
the murder of black people occurred periodically and in every case, the white men who murdered them were never punishedYou can make a current version of this quote:
the murder of non-policemen occurred periodically and in every case, the policemen who murdered them were never punished
Some State insiders are angry at Fox News. Allegedly, they hyped the edited video and caused the resignation demand. Fox News claims they only heavily promoted the interview after her forced resignation.

Some State insiders are angry at Andrew Breitbart, for posting that video clip on his blog. The real problem is that State insiders overreacted and fired her.

Some State insiders are demanding that Fox lose its broadcast permit. Some State insiders are demanding that Fox News lose its press credentials. State insiders are taking a "State vs. Fox News" attitude. In turn, this leads to Fox News expressing more anti-State sentiment! Ironically, Fox News is now the most freedom-oriented mainstream news channel.

This is somewhat hypocritical. "The White House will fire someone, based on what a blogger writes or based on what Fox News says." That makes no sense at all.

Shirley Sherrod may file a libel lawsuit against Fox News or Andrew Breitbart. That would another example of State legal extortion. "Libel laws" are usually interpreted as "censorship laws".

Obama tries to look like the hero. He meets with Shirley Sherrod and apologizes. He has plausible deniability, because one of his subordinated demanded her resignation.

The entire "Shirley Sherrod incident" is an example of insane State bureaucrats. It is wrong to fire someone, just because they said something stupid. State insiders overreacted and demanded she resign, and then retracted the demand. Overall, this incident is an embarrassment for State insiders. I already know that the State is one big scam, but incidents like this help explain things to other people.FSK's Guide to Reality

I’m back from Bryn Mawr. It was a great conference; but no rest for me: Mises U. begins tonight!

The shuttle from Atlanta was fuller than usual last night; and given that the passengers were all talking about praxeology, nullification, and central banking, I suspect I know what they’re in town for.

I'm offended by the pro-State "anarchists" who riot at the G-20 meeting. This occurs at every WTO, IMF, G-20 meeting. That feeds State propaganda "Anarchists like to senselessly destroy property. Hooray for the State!"

The correct attitude towards the G-20 meeting is "Why should I care what those statists do? Their authority is not legitimate." Going to the G-20 meeting to riot implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of the meeting.

Most of those "anarchists" are misguided protesters. Some of them may be undercover cops, looking to incite violence to discredit "anarchists". Some of them are criminals who like smashing windows.

I noticed the video of anarchists smashing store windows. My reaction was "Why aren't the State police doing their job? They should be protecting that property!" The store owner should have been in front of the store with a shotgun, protecting his property.

If your goal is to raise awareness of State evil, going to the G-20 meeting is a waste of time. You can hand out pamphlets on any street corner. Or, you could take the less-confrontational approach of blogging. (I plan to expand to other things eventually.)

A famous statist said "Let them riot and protest all they want, as long as they pay their taxes." The only action that hurts the bad guys is ignoring their stupid laws and taxes. A riot is pointless. Why would you intentionally seek a direct violent confrontation with armed professional soldiers?

The pro-State "anarchists" who riot at the G-20 meeting are actually serving the agenda of State parasites. The riots are covered as "news", to create the illusion that rioting is the only option for a disgruntled person. The "anarchists" at the G-20 meeting tend to be the "Property is theft!" fake anarchists.FSK's Guide to Reality

This is a good piece.  There’s an important trend here.  The question often comes up, why does nitpicking over the definition of the word “capitalism” matter?  And why is it that many people are disassociating themselves with it?  Is it just because they want to “kiss up to the ‘left’”?  (If you were going to do that, you would probably be better off with buzzwords like “green capitalism”.  *Vomit!*)

“But state capitalism isn’t real capitalism!” is the most common “libertarian” response.  Then what?  Is there a way out of this sterile “debate”?  Yes, and I am seeing glimpses of it here, with a possible springboard for further exploration of the topic.  In fact this seems to be the motivation for why many people are abandoning the word “capitalism”, as follows: the way out is to emphasize why Actually Existing Capitalism (AEC, which is simply Capitalism from an anarchist perspective but I will use for the remainder of this piece to avoid confusion) is a bad thing.  Is the problem that AEC is connected to the state?  It’s always good to research the various ways in which it is, but no, this isn’t really the problem in itself.  The most tangible evil of AEC from an anti-authoritarian/anarchist perspective is that it is, essentially, human livestock farming.  There are of course other, related problems that everyone who lives in AEC society should be at least vaguely aware of.  Would this be the social arrangement typical of “real capitalism”?  The description that self-proclaimed capitalist theorists have given would appear to me to indicate “yes” (or to be less judgmental, this aspect of AEC does not appear to be one that bothers capitalist theorists), and therefore the argument that we (anti-capitalists who are probably so for this reason mainly) shouldn’t smear “real capitalism” by associating it with AEC — doesn’t hold much water.   However it is also possible that one might insist in transferring the word “capitalism” to a radically liberated, non-hierarchical society, just because there is no state ownership of resources (and therefore they are “privately” owned).  If this is the case, then the “argument” is basically dead, for then we can just part ways on what to call this new order we are pushing for.  Although it definitely seems bizarre to me to refer to a society in which the workers have seized the means of production, public spaces and resources have been socialized, and tenants have done away with rent (as is the only viable path to anarchism in today’s society, as far as I’m concerned — and who is going to forbid this if/when it breaks out?) as capitalism…but whatever floats your boat.  Or maybe you really do think that should be suppressed.  Then…

I hope this trend continues.  The anarchist’s beef with AEC is not that it is connected to the state; it’s what it is and how it functions.  Those who are against AEC, but pro-market, should feel less inhibited to go ahead and say what it is they don’t like about it.  Among those who say “that’s not real capitalism!”, there are those with whom it is worthwhile to search for serious common ground, and those for whom it would be better to get the substantial disagreements out in the open right from the start so that no time is wasted on semantics.  This is the only way to find out.

update: I hadn’t even seen the trolls on the original piece yet.  As always, it is impossible to exaggerate the lengths to which the defenders of clowntatorship will go.  Oh well…

In "Rewriting History", some commenters said they also had problems with lying parasitic coworkers/bosses. The USA has a non-free market, which is a type of welfare for parasites.

Here's an amusing add-on to the story. I made a bug report complaining "The test data is dirty. Therefore, the output is wrong." The developer was eager to close the bug, rather than make sure there is good test data.

There's some bureaucratic requirement. The developers are evaluated based on open bugs and time to fix. Therefore, they're eager to close the bug rather than fix my concern. This parasitic behavior is a symptom of a broken bureaucratic process.

This problem is also visible when you call tech support. The call center is usually evaluated on "time per call" rather than "Did you actually solve the caller's problem?" This practice encourages lousy tech support. The corporation has a monopoly/oligopoly, so it doesn't matter.

That was amusing. They developer was more eager to close the bug report, than actually fix the dirty test data. That's a symptom of a broken bureaucracy.FSK's Guide to Reality